Friday, October 7, 2011

We stand with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, & Pakistan

Target:                          U.S. Congress
Region:                          United States of America

Web site:             


For ten years, the United States has flexed its military muscle in Persia. These armed conflicts started with the best of intentions and the blessing of most of the civilized world. The “War on Terror’ was not meant to be an exercise in nation building. It had definite targets in mind, and those targets have, by in large, been achieved. It certainly appears that the “War on Terror” has met most, if not all of its, goals. At this point in time, it is public knowledge that they do not want us there and we do not want to be there. In this time of extraordinary financial stress on our economy, it is logical that we make every effort to strengthen our own economy. Spending hundreds of billions of our tax dollars in a quasi-colonial endeavor simply does not make sense. To that end, we offer the following petition from we the People of the United States of America.


We stand with the people of the sovereign nations of Iraq, Afghanistan, & Pakistan.

We stand against interference in other sovereign nations affairs.

We stand against “Nation Building” in our image.

We reject the premise that these nations will collapse in turmoil and regain their stature as a major threat to the United States of America,

We implore the congress of the United States of America to end this armed conflict, and cease our military presence in Persia, as soon as possible.

We demand a full review of the War Powers Act to restrict its use and enforce its limits, as it was first intended.

We demand that Congress, by simple majority, vote to establish resolution for any future armed conflict.

We demand that Congress cease and desist funding future Executive requests for funding armed conflicts without a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Goto this link to sign Petition:

Thursday, October 6, 2011

A Palestinian Nation?

Yes! Why? Because you are not the boss of me, that’s why.

Okay, here’s the deal. I’m looking at this age old question from an American point of view and in layman’s terms. We went to bat for Israel back in the late 1940’s, and, ever since, we have publically been advocates for a Palestinian State. Granted our true support has seen its highs and lows, but we‘ve spent an incredible amount  of diplomatic time and capital on the subject.
It would certainly be a shame if all our support amounted to lip service, especially being the Nation that we claim to be. It makes me wonder if we’re just giving our own philosophy lip service. If this Country is truly serious about the right of Palestine to exist as a Nation, We should not be constantly throwing wrenches in the gears of progress. If, in fact, we can’t support the rights of the Palestinian people, then we need to shut up and sit down.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The Protest of Wall St.

Questions:   What is the purpose of the “Wall St.” protests?
                   What is the message of the “Wall St.” protestors?

                   What do the “Wall St.” protests stand for?

                   Does the “Wall St.” protest have a leader?

                   Is the “Wall St.” protest a new left-wing Tea Party?

                   What did the “Wall St.” protest know and when did it know it?

                   Is this movement a destination, or a journey?

How about we start at the beginning, and have a serious discussion about just what is possible?

Assume, for the sake of this argument, that the “99%” are experiencing an economic depression. Something like this was foreseeable, predictable, and inevitable. The major dynamic here is class warfare. The owners of the Nation’s wealth have made it known that they no longer want to entertain a middle class. The owners of this wealth want to have and control everything they can get their hands on, and a middle class that has some education and means simply stands in their way. Let us call this “Neo-Feudalism”.

What is happening now is the middle class’ last-ditch effort to stem the tide. The “99%” are not going down without a fight. The message is not very clear, yet, but I think it will go something like this: We want our government back. We want our Country back. We want our lives back. Stop stealing our money. Stop stealing our jobs. Stop stealing our Liberty.

How do the “99%” do this? First comes the relatively peaceful protesting in the streets of our cities. Then there will be isolated incidents of active civil disobedience. This will be followed by outright rioting in the streets; massive general strikes; and violent occupation of financial institutions. At any time time during this process, the Federal Government can choose to wake up and fix that which is currently broken (a pretty tall order, at this point).

There will soon be leaders who emerge. The Independence Party, led by Bernie Sanders, will get a third party involved as a political driving force. He seems to be an obvious choice right now. The Party platform must be crafted to reflect our need for the return of the “citizen” politician. Being a politician is not meant to be a career. The “99%” must demand that their choices of representatives deny corporations, big business interests, special interest groups, and the like. They must demand that their representatives actually represent their constituency; otherwise, no votes come their way.

Our current economic situation makes this all a possibility. A simple look back at History will lead you to that conclusion. That same “look” back also indicates the the normal way out of a depression is war. We are already doing that, and it does not seem to be working too well. Perhaps the direction I am going in seems left wing and radical. Perhaps it is simply a knee-jerk reaction to being driven down into the ground for the last twenty-five years. I look at it as a desire to regain a certain sense of dignity, individualism, and purpose. One picture from the protest on Wall St. has etched itself in my mind. The placard of what appears to be a “Viet Nam Era” protestor reading;  “I have fought for my Country twice. This time I know my enemy.”

‘Nough said?

Monday, October 3, 2011

Bambam goes to Congress

I picked these three, out of ten, because I felt they were the most representative of what’s going on today in similarity to what went on in our past. If we don’t remember the past, we’re doomed to repeat it. Lately, it seems we all have a touch of Alzheimer’s. #1 & #3 are fairly straight forward. #2 is an attempt to explain the “electoral college”; something nobody these days seem to have clue about, but they keep trying to explain it and tell us we don’t need it anymore. The latter I fully agree with. 


Top 10 Government Showdowns

As President Obama and the Democrats square off against the Republicans, led by Speaker of the House, John Boehner, TIME takes a look at historic federal standoffs
#1- Truman vs. Steel Industry, 1952
By Erin Skarda Wednesday, July 27, 2011    GEORGE SKADDING / Time Life Pictures

Harry S. Truman made his fair share of missteps throughout his presidency, but his decision to seize control of the steel industry during the Korean War forever marred his presidential legacy. Concerned over wartime inflation, the Truman Administration imposed wage-price controls for industries that were considered necessary for national defense. These controls led to an ongoing contract dispute between the Wage Stabilization Board and the United Steel Workers Union, which wanted to raise both wages and the price of steel to keep up with increased demand. Truman personally requested an end to the impasse, but terms could not be met by the deadline so the steel companies moved to strike. To prevent a delay in the production of weapons that were needed overseas, Truman ordered his Secretary of Commerce to seize the mills. The seizure angered the steel companies, which claimed that the move was illegal. The Supreme Court agreed. In the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer — known as The Steel Seizure Case — the court made a landmark decision to limit the president's power to seize private property. As for the steelworkers, they went on strike anyway, and after 53 days, agreed to similar terms that the union had proposed almost four months earlier.
Read more:,28804,2085383_2085381_2085430,00.html #ixzz1Zg5Wx0B8
#2 - Big States vs. Small States, 1787
By Frances Romero Wednesday, July 27, 2011     Universal History Archive / Getty Images

Thanks to — or sometimes no thanks to — the Connecticut Compromise, reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the U.S. government has both a House of Representatives and a Senate. But it was a bit of a slog to reach the agreement. Under the proposed Virginia Plan, members of the House were to be nominated and elected by the people of the state. Members of the Senate, however, were to be nominated by state legislatures and elected by the lower house. That didn't sit well with less populous states like Delaware, which were afraid that they would be overshadowed by states with larger populations. Another plan, this time from New Jersey, proposed a legislature with a single house. That was also a no go. Finally, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of the Connecticut delegation came up with a plan that melded the two earlier ideas. Members of the House would be allocated according to state population and elected by the people. Membership to the Senate would be limited to two per state, regardless of population, and state legislatures would choose Senators. After 11 days of voting, the compromise passed. But in 1913 the Seventeenth Amendmen made it so that Senators would also be elected by the people.
Read more:,28804,2085383_2085381_2085398,00.html #ixzz1Zg6UbXsr
#3 - Andrew Johnson vs. Congress, 1868
By Everett Rosenfeld Wednesday, July 27,2011Library of Congress / Getty

Andrew Johnson took the reigns of a nation still wounded and divided from the Civil War, following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He had big shoes to fill, but in the eyes of Congress seemed to make all the wrong moves. Though he was on the side of the Union during the war, the former Tennessee governor's Reconstruction policies were seen as conciliatory to the South and in his hurry to reincorporate the former Confederate states into the union he found himself in a bitter battle with the Radical Republicans. Those same Radicals took Johnson to court, making him the first president in the history of the U.S. to be impeached. Charged with eleven high crimes and misdemeanors by the Republican congressmen, after nearly three months of tense proceedings, Johnson narrowly escaped conviction by one vote.
Read more:,28804,2085383_2085381_2085353,00.html #ixzz1Zg7bLC80
source credit:,28804,2085383_2085381_2085430,00.html

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Fixing Government – Where Do You Start?

Most reasonable, intelligent people I know, or run into, are of the belief that our government needs a bit of an overhaul. The question of the day is; Where do you start?” Do you start with the Executive Branch? All things considered, that is where you would expect leadership on this issue to come from. How about starting with the Congress? That has its own set of complications, such as sheer numbers and stubborn partisanship. Some one in one of these two Branches of government simply has to get things going in the right direction in order that this Nation will survive. If, by forgetting the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over, and over, again, we are certainly in one of those cycles currently. With few exceptions, the general, systemic forces that lead to the Great Depression are upon us now. I have been reading on the circumstances that were in play back in the 1920’s, and they are eerily similar to those we face today. The one situation that jumps off the page at you is the total disregard the banking system has of any- thing close to social ethics. We have enjoyed our way to prosperity because we also had a sense of what was fair and reasonable in determining the workings of our economy. Of course, the military/industrial complex hasn’t hurt in this respect.
This Country took on a daunting task when the founding daddies thought it would be a great idea to co-join a free market economy with social responsibility. Profitability and Socialism go together like oil and water (as we saw in the Gulf of Mexico, literally and figuratively). Our practice of finding a middle ground by debate And compromise has worked well over a couple of centuries. So well, in fact, that people from around the globe have flocked here to enjoy the mix of structure and individualism with which the United States has flourished. There have been some speed bumps along the way, but currently I get a bad feeling that we’re at the edge of a very deep, dark abyss. We may, indeed, be over the edge and clinging on with one hand.

Our incumbent President and those who are vying to unseat him, are not, in my opinion, of the ability and demeanor to get the job done. We have a Congress that considers their job representing us a career. No longer do we have the “citizen politician” that our fore-daddies envisioned. We have two political parties when we should have four, or five, viable alternatives to choose from. The aforementioned “politicians” are bought, and paid for, by our financial institutions and our mega-corporations. What could possibly go wrong in such a structured environment, you ask?

Most people I know, or run into, cannot answer that question. In fact, a lot of them don’t have a clue what it is I’m talking about. I can only ask them to wake up and smell what they’re stepping in.

Our situation begs for a national leader who can, from day one, lay down a concrete path for us to follow so our course can be corrected in the right direction.

This course can no longer reflect the old saying;”shoot ’em all, let God sort  ‘em out later.” I do not like to ponder the possibility of marshal law, but the severity of our malaise may require that a President declare we are under attack from within, and declare the Country under marshal law until such time as we are back on track.

As I see it, this may be the only way that one person, the President, can grab the reigns of State and set the agenda and priorities needed to achieve the goal. After all, a long line of recent Presidents have used “executive privilege” and the “war powers act” to do likewise outside our borders.

There is a group quietly building toward such an end. The trouble is that many of won’t like where they want to take us as a Nation. Anointing a “king”, or “dictator”, even for a brief period, is also a place we don’t envision going, but it may be our only salvation. If we do nothing about this predicament, we are automatically doomed to fall into the abyss. Life as you and I know it will cease to exist, and our children will be left to pick up the pieces. To make something, anthing, work, all of us need to get involved in our political process.
This means VOTING: your vote really does count, now more than ever.