HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

By: David Phillips

December 3, 2007

According to the US Treasury dept. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) were created by the Medicare bill signed by President Bush on December 8, 2003 and are designed to help individuals save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

Some pros and cons for HSAs:

Opponents argue that HSAs have the potential to undermine the healthcare system, will do little more than add another tax shelter for the wealthy, and will increase the number of uninsured Americans if they encourage some employers to drop healthcare coverage for workers (J.B. Finkelstein, “New Health Savings Account Perk Pushed,” American Medical News, June 2004). In addition, critics say they will not help the uninsured working poor, who do not have discretionary cash to contribute to HSAs.

Another problem with HSA health plans is that insurance doesn't cover anything until the consumer pays a large deductible. Some HSAs pay for basic preventive care, such as annual physicals and mammograms, but others do not. For example, a patient with a suspicious mammogram may have to pay $1,000 out of pocket for a biopsy to find out whether the cause is cancer. Because there is no mandatory funding minimum, there may be a temptation by some users to underfund the account and later be caught short of funds. Expenses may also be incurred before planned funding has taken place though scheduled payroll deductions. (Source Wikipedia)

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health in 2006, Commonwealth Fund Assistant Vice President Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., said that all evidence to date shows that health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems

Proponents of HSAs counter that, in the long run, the plans will reduce an employer’s health costs and are “consumer-directed,” designed to let a participant select the timing and level of health expenditures (R.B. Barker and K.P. O’Brien, “Health Savings Accounts: Many Issues, Fewer Solutions,” Benefits Law Journal, Summer 2004). The growing popularity of HSAs is evidenced by the increased number of employers who are adding this option to their employee benefit plans. A survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that two-fifths of the 1,000 employers surveyed were likely to offer an HSA in 2005, and almost three-quarters indicated that they were likely to do so in 2006 (Finkelstein, 2004). The number of HSAs reached 391,000 in 2005, and some experts expect the number to reach 6.3 million by 2008 (Lee Conrad, “For the Enterprising, Health Savings Funds Are Anything But Bitter Medicine,” US Banker, June 2005).

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), there are currently 47 million Americans with no healthcare at all. The CBO report also said that in 2006 87 million Americans went without healthcare during parts of 2006.

One more note from the CBO report that should open up the minds of Republicans, the report said that due to the escalating costs of healthcare, by 2012 150 million Americans will no longer be able to afford any healthcare.

In 2001 a family of four was paying $5035 for health care, and in 2006 the average family of four was paying $11,500 with the employer paying much of the costs. Instead of Bush trying to move the costs to the individual, he might try and consider to stream line the actual costs of healthcare and give a bigger tax break to the employer for his part of the costs of healthcare.

HAS’s will give less healthcare to those that need it and result in more people with no coverage at all.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

By: David Phillips

November 12, 2007

Are you currently satisfied with the way campaigns are financed? Are you OK with the fact that those who raise the most money usually win? Are you happy with the job our elected officials are doing in Washington D.C.?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, then read no further, because the rest of this story may not be for you.

More than $4 Billion was spent on the 2004 Presidential and Congressional races across the country based on a study of campaign finance figures by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

After the 2000 election, congress tried to limit soft money (Corporations) to Presidential and Congressional races and crafted a piece of legislation designed to reform campaign financing.

It’s called, “Campaign Reform Act of 2002”, aka, McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.

Well, as I just mentioned, $4 Billion was spent in 2004, it seems that there are a few holes in the legislation. Supporters for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 election used a section of the McCain-Feingold Act to form groups called 527’s, named for a section of the tax code. You’ve probably heard of some of these groups: America Coming Together, Media Fund, MoveOn.org, Progress for America and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

McCain-Feingold has also limited the amount that any individual can donate to $2500.00. But individuals can donate twice, once for the primary and again for the general election. Individuals can also donate to as many candidates as they wish.

There are other ways that candidates raise money, such as a PAC (Political Action Committee), where the money is indirectly given to you. There are the lobbyists who give billions, they bundle the money from several companies usually from a specific industry, then give it to a politician in return for future favors.

For the majority of races, those that have the most money in their campaign war chest usually wins. Candidates pretty much buy their positions, yes we do vote, but our choices are limited to those who make it into the general election, and the guy you were hoping for, lost in the primary because he had less money.

What would happen if everyone, I mean everyone who was to run for Congress or the President were each given the same amount of money to campaign on? Let’s just say twenty million for each Presidential candidate, four million for a Senate seat, and two million for a Representatives seat. Then you say to all of them, that’s it, how you spend it is your decision, but once it’s gone that’s it, you get no more.

Now, where will this money come from? The money will come from Americans, from money received by the IRS from taxes. Campaigns would receive their Campaign money from this pool, and from no other pools.

If we truly want to have honest politicians elected to represent us in Washington, maybe a good place to start is with the money that has been used to buy their seats. For the most part, public funding of elections would eliminate the money race for candidates and costly paybacks to industry contributors.

Maybe someday, instead of a bunch of politicians who are Washington’s voice to the people, we will have politicians who are the people’s voice to Washington…

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

ARE YOU BLUE, OR ARE YOU SEEING RED?

By: David Phillips

November, 5 2007

Question: Is the United States more Conservative, or more Liberal?

Let’s first give a quick definition of a Liberal and a Conservative:

"Liberal" someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."JFK Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination September 14, 1960

This is John F. Kennedy’s definition of a Liberal from his speech September 1960, his words seem just as fitting today as they did forty seven years ago.

I figure if I am going to use a quote from JFK, it’s only fitting that I use a quote from Ronald Reagan.

“Conservative” I proposed a new spirit of partnership between this Congress and this administration and between Washington and our State and local governments. In forging this new partnership for America, we could achieve the oldest hopes of our Republic--prosperity for our nation, peace for the world, and the blessings of individual liberty for our children and, someday, for all of humanity.--Ronald Reagan State of the Union Address January 26, 1982

OK, on to the question at hand, is the United States more Conservative, or more 

Liberal.

If we use the last few elections as a gage there seems to be a great divide.  In 2000 Gore won the popular vote and Bush, ultimately the Electoral College votes. Gore received approx. half a million more votes, and in a country this big, that my friends is a close vote.

Then in 2004 Bush won both the popular vote with more than Three and a half million and enough Electoral College votes.

Bush widened the vote margin but does that mean the country is more Conservative because of the vote count? Maybe for those days leading to the election and some days past, but in the 2006 election the Democrats took back the House and Senate, so are we now more liberal?

I remember seeing maps of the United States after each of the above elections broken down by county and with each county colored red for Republican and Blue for Democrat, and I got to tell you, there was a heck of lot more red then there was blue.

But a closer look at those maps and you could see that the major cities and urban areas on both coasts and several in between were mostly blue. So does that mean that urban areas are more Liberal and the suburbs, farms, and agriculture centers are more Conservative?

That is exactly what it means. Most major cities are predominantly liberal, and the opposite is true for the suburbs and agriculture centers.

I ‘m about out of space and I still have not completely answered the question at hand, is the United States more Conservative, or more Liberal.

The United States seems to be closely split as to who is Blue and who is Red, with the rest being Independents or some other party. I don’t think that we are more Conservative, or more Liberal, I think that we are a true Nation Divided…

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Madam President

By: David Phillips

October 29, 2007

The first caucus’s and primary’s are just around the corner, and soon people will be stepping up to pick the candidate that they feel best exudes the quality, fortitude and ideals that they want in their President.

Currently the top three Democratic candidates are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, there are a few others who are running, but they have not garnered enough support or money to make them strong contenders.

So, for the purpose of this story I am going to tell you who I think will be the nominee for the Democratic Party, and if you have not figured out already from the title of this article, I believe Hillary will be the nominee.

Senator Clinton will make a great President, she represents main stream America, she knows that the majority of Americans want an end to the Iraq War, while each of the GOP candidates want it to continue. She knows that the majority of Americans want Universal HealthCare which each of the GOP candidates are against. She knows that the majority of Americans have a strong concern for Global Climate Change, which each of the GOP candidates are not even willing to admit exists.

Senator Clinton recognizes that under President Bush’s leadership, he has created the largest debt in the history of our country because of his tax cuts for the rich and his Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that will ultimately cost American tax payers trillions.

Senator Clinton has come to learn that her husband former President Bill Clinton and his NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) policy have hurt America with the loss of millions of jobs, and she has said that she would change NAFTA and other so called free trade agreements. Maybe she should look into Equal Trade Agreements.

Hillary Clinton wants to bring back what America once stood for:

·         America once respected the Geneva Convention

·         America was once the champion for human rights

·         America was once opposed to Torture

·         America was once the model for Justice in the world

·         America never started Wars

·         America never spied on its own citizens illegally

·         America never trampled on its own Constitution

Senator Clinton stands for strong moral values; she understands that science can be good for mankind. She sees the potential from Stem Cell research and she would authorize more federal funding. She knows that embryo’s that fertility clinic’s destroy every year would be an excellent source to further such research. Whereas the GOP, the so called party of Family Values, would rather see the approx. 400,000 embryo’s that are currently destroyed each year flushed down the toilet.

Clinton understands a women’s right to make decisions regarding their own body, unlike the party of so called family values who think they know better.

The party of so called family values are also anti Gay and Lesbian rights, and do not believe that they deserve the same considerations as heterosexuals.  Senator Clinton while not supporting Gay and Lesbian marriages, does support Civil Unions that would afford all the responsibilities and benefits as any other marriage.

Senator Clinton has the intelligence, the experience, the backbone and the understanding that America has gotten away from the Moral Values that once made our country the greatest country on Earth.

America is in need of a change and Hillary Clinton is right for the Job…

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

AL GORE: NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNER

By: David Phillips

October 22, 2007

Former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize along with the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) a United Nations sponsored group.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".

From the Whitehouse: "The president learned about it this morning," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, who is traveling with Bush in Florida. "Of course he's happy for Vice President Gore and happy for the international panel on climate change scientists who also shared the peace prize."

"Obviously, it's an important recognition and we're sure the vice president is thrilled," added Fratto, who said he did not know of plans for Bush to make a congratulatory call to Gore.

Bush can take time out of his busy schedule to congratulate the women’s NCAA basketball champions, but he is too busy to congratulate a fellow American for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why Former Vice President Al Gore is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Gore has made the people of the world and more importantly the people of the United States much more aware of the dangers that face our planet than anyone else. Forget about whether you believe in Global Climate Change which is another topic... Gore has made the subject of Global Climate Change a topic that is talked about in every home in the United States.

Polls in the United States show that the top three concerns for Americans:

·         The Bush follies in Iraq and Afghanistan

·         The Economy

·         Global Climate Change

Al Gore’s greatest accomplishment is not that he has slowed Global Climate Changes, but that it is now talked about in households around the world.

Currently more than one third of the United States is experiencing a drought and in some places, an extreme drought. The Southeast and the southwest are the two areas in the United States that are the worst.

To view a map of the United States and the areas that are experiencing the worst droughts go to:

http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/2007/drmon0925.gif

In the Atlanta metropolitan area, which has more than four million people, worst-case analyses show that the city’s main source of water, Lake Lanier, could be drained dry in 90 to 121 days (As of Sept. 25, 2007).

Officials in the central North Carolina town of Siler City estimate that without rain, they are 80 days from draining the Lower Rocky River Reservoir, which supplies water for the town’s 8,200 people.

For the better part of 18 months, cloudless blue skies and high temperatures have shriveled crops and bronzed lawns from North Carolina to Alabama. "People pay attention to hurricanes," David E. Stooksbury, the state climatologist of Georgia said."They pay attention to tornadoes and earthquakes. But a drought will sneak up on you."

In the Southwest the Colorado River receives its water from the snow melts from the Rocky Mountains. The snow melts for the last several years have been smaller and smaller creating less run off into the Colorado River.

The Colorado River; rises in the Rocky Mountains of northern Colorado and flows southwest through Utah into Arizona (where it flows through the Grand Canyon) and then southward through the southern tip of Nevada, then forming the border between California and Arizona and finally into Mexico where it empties into the Gulf of California; the main source of water in the southwestern United States

The two manmade lakes, Lake Powell and Lake Mead are drying up and in a few years will be bone dry if the weather patterns remain the same.

You may be wondering how global climate change figures into Nobel’s standards for the Peace Prize, it’s pretty simple. As droughts take hold in various parts of the world, food supplies, and water become scarce.

Global Climate Change creates Wars

Right now in the nation of Sudan on the African continent, hundreds of thousands have been killed and millions more have been displaces in a region called Darfur. This area has been plagued by a drought that has left the land barren and soil red with the blood spilled from a savage war.

But it is not just the United States and the African continent that are in danger.

South Asia: India, China and Pakistan might well go to war over the shrinking snow melt from the Tibetan Plateau.

China and Russia: the loss of agricultural lands could force more of the Chinese population north of the Amur River that runs between China and Russia; which flows into the Sea of Okhotsk.

Euphrates River in southwestern Asia; flows into the Persian Gulf;  with water becoming more scarce the area may very well be contested by Syria, Iraq and Turkey  sometime in the near future. 

The Aral Sea: a lake to the east of the Caspian Sea lying between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is slowing drying up that at some point will become a source for countries to fight over.

Why do right wing conservatives have such hate for Gore?

Could it be because he has been right about almost everything the Republicans have been wrong on?

·         1992 George H.W. Bush (Papa Bush) ridiculed Gore by calling him the “Ozone Man”. Three years later the scientists who discovered the threat to the ozone layer won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry

·         Gore said that if we invade Iraq “the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.”

·         In the 2000 election Vice President Al Gore won the popular vote receiving more than a half a million more votes than Gov. George W, Bush. The Supreme Court later voided everyone’s vote and anointed George W. Bush President.

There are many democrats who are currently hoping that former Vice President Al Gore changes his mind and runs for President in the upcoming elections. This too is a source of concern for republicans who would much rather face Clinton or Obama than they would Gore.

Anyhow, you now know why Al Gore is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. And one thing is certain and that is, as long as things remain the same, you can count on more death and destruction throughout the world.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com  

State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)

By: David Phillips

October 15, 2007

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP was vetoed by President Bush October 3^rd. The SCHIP program which has been in place since 1997, currently funds insurance for approximately 4 million children, and allows states to cover low-income children with no health insurance in families with income that is above Medicaid eligibility levels.

The Bill that Bush vetoed, would provide $60 billion over the next five years, $35 billion more than current spending and $30 billion more than the President Bush was willing to spend for health care for children.

The Democratic proposed bill to expand SCHIP would add an additional 5.8 million children to the program according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The Bill received bipartisan support from both the Senate and the House. But when the Bill hit President Bush’s desk, he got out his seldom used veto stamp and vetoed the bill that was going to expand the SCHIP program to cover more Children from low income families.

It cleared the Senate by enough votes to over-ride a veto 67 to 29, but the vote in the House was 265 to 159, a couple dozen short of the two-thirds needed to override President Bush’s veto.

“Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it,” Mr. Bush said in his veto statement, adding that he hoped to work with the lawmakers “to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first.”

There are currently an estimated 49 million people in the United States without health care and 9 million of those are children.

President Bush said it "would result" in covering children in families with incomes up to $83,000 per year, which is a LIE. The Urban Institute estimated that 70 percent of children who would gain coverage are in families earning half that amount, and the bill contains no requirement for setting income eligibility caps any higher than what is in the current law.

Bush also misstated the intent of the SCHIP program by claiming it "was meant to help poor children." That's also not true. Poor children, defined as those in families below the official federal poverty level, were already covered by Medicaid. The stated intent of Congress when it established the program in 1997 was to expand coverage beyond those who were poor to "uninsured low-income" children. And in Washington-speak, there's a significant difference between "poor" and "low-income."

The president also says Congress' expansion is a step toward government-run health care for all. President Bush said, "Government-run health care would deprive Americans of the choice and competition that comes from the private market," he said. "It would cause huge increases in government spending."

When President Bush says it would deprive Americans of a choice, how is that possible if they have no health coverage to begin with?  Bush makes no sense, but most things that Bush says, seldom make any sense.   

Bush also said, “The legislation would raise taxes on working people.” Actually, what SCHIP would do is increase the federal tobacco excise tax on all tobacco products. The federal government puts a tax of 39 cents on a pack cigarettes, with all revenue going into the general treasury fund. The House bill would increase that tax by 45 cents, while the Senate would tack on 61 cents, with the revenue

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said while the government does heavily subsidize the health coverage offered through the program, most SCHIP beneficiaries get coverage through private insurers who contract with states.

"The truth is, America's largest private insurance lobbying group supports this bill — as do America's doctors, nurses, children's advocates and, most importantly, 72 percent of Americans," Mr. Hoyer said.

A few stats from a Rasmussen poll taken October 3-4, 2007

Sixty-five percent (65%) of American voters know that President Bush vetoed a bill expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 8% mistakenly thought the President signed the bill while the rest were not sure.

Of those who knew of the veto, 57% disapproved and 31% supported the President’s action. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Republicans approve of the President’s decision while 88% of Democrats disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 33% agree with the President and 50% do not.

Among all voters, 70% say it is Very Important to insure that all children under 18 have health insurance. This figure includes 83% of Democrats, 71% of unaffiliateds, and 54% of Republicans. Another 18% of all voters say it Somewhat Important to provide health insurance for all children.

By a 54% to 35% margin, voters believe it is fair to raise cigarette taxes to cover the cost of expanding the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats believe this approach is fair along with 51% of unaffiliated voters and 49% of Republicans.

Health care is emerging as a key issue for the 2008 Election and one on which voters trust Democrats far more than Republicans.

President Bush has spent 600 billion on his two Wars, and is currently asking congress to approve another 190 billion, but asking for an additional 35 billion to help insure children is too much to ask for.

The Democrats are trying to round up enough votes to overturn Bush’s veto; the Democrats say they are not sure they will get enough support from Republicans to do this. But in my opinion, any Republican that votes against the veto over-ride will find that their vote will be used against them in the 2008 elections.

Bush has pulled out his veto stamp four times now, twice to veto federal funding for Stem cell research to find cures for diseases, once to veto a military spending bill for his Wars because they called for a timeline for bringing our troops home, and now to keep children from receiving healthcare.

All four of Bush’s vetos have been anti-life, in one way or another, as I said earlier, Bush seldom makes any sense.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com 

DISSENT: DOES IT MAKE THE UNITED STATES WEAKER?

By: David Phillips

October 8, 2007

If you ask most right wing Republicans if dissent makes the United States weaker, they will assuredly say yes, and they will continue to say that speaking out against the President and his policies on War embolden our enemies.

These Republicans will say it is OK to be against the War, just don’t tell anyone.

The latest polls show that 69 percent of the nation is now against the War, and 30 percent are still gung ho.

I have found that the majority of those who still support the War have never served in the military and most come from the fringes of the right wing. These ChickenHawks have no problem sending their neighbors off to war.

The definition of a ChickenHawk:  Is someone who refuse’s or refused to fight in any War they have started or support.

Both President Bush and Vice President Cheney fit this description. Neither has served in a War, and Bush who did join the Texas Air National Guard never went to Vietnam, in fact the Jets that he trained in were obsolete and would never see action again. Dick Cheney received five deferments to keep from serving his country in the military.

Dissent, Republicans have been using the first amendment against our country and have accused those who would dare to speak an opinion that is contrary to government policy, treasonous.

Over the two hundred plus years that our young nation has existed, millions have fought and died to protect our constitutional rights. But in today’s caustic political atmosphere protesting and speaking out is frowned upon, and considered anti-American and Un-Patriotic, more so than ever before.

Fred Thompson one of the ten GOP elephants running for President, said in his first interview after he declared his candidacy, "If we look weak and divided in this country, we're going to pay a heavy price for it in the future," he went on. "We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb. And they're not going to go away. They're here now, they're armed and dangerous, and they're trying to get weapons of mass destruction."

Rudi Giuliani a couple of months back said “if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.”

Republicans have been playing the fear factor for the last three elections, and they have been doing a very good job of instilling fear across our nation. But in the 2006 election, Americans started to wise up to their fear tactics.

But old tricks die hard, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and the other elephants are sticking with the fear factor. Each one supports Bush’s war in Iraq.

And each at one time or another has said that dissent makes the United States weaker, and emboldens the enemy.

Dissent Emboldens our Enemies. What a bunch of BS.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX), one of the ten GOP elephants, is the only GOP candidate that wants us to withdraw from Iraq, in fact he wants us to withdraw from every corner of the world, but that is another story.

Since 911, showing even the slightest difference for Bush and his policies has had many chilling effects. People have been removed from planes for wearing T-Shirts that have Bush’s picture and the word Liar attached.  At political rallies people have been forcibly removed for speaking out. Protest rallies with permits are now caged and out of sight. People are arrested at rallies for no reason only to be released twenty four hours later with no charges and no apologies.

Dissent has been turned into an ugly word.

Bush, Cheney and Rove fanned the flames of patriotism to garner support for Bush’s folly in Iraq.

The Nazi Herman Goering once said, “Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

If you take a good look at the quote, you will see that is exactly what Bush did to bring about his war in Iraq.

Because of Bush’s abuse of the Executive Office he has brought about several illegal policies that he has used to help squash dissent all in the name of fighting Terror and the Evil Doers.

Massive data bases are being collected on every single American in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security has a data-mining program that attempts to spot terrorists by combing vast amounts of information about average Americans, such as flight and hotel reservations. Similar to a Pentagon program killed by Congress in 2003 called Total Information Awareness (TIA), over concerns about civil liberties, the new program could take effect as soon as next year.

But researchers testing the system are likely to already have violated privacy laws by reviewing real information, instead of fake data, according to a source familiar with a congressional investigation into the $42.5 million program.

Bearing the unwieldy name Analysis, Dissemination, Visualization, Insight and Semantic Enhancement (ADVISE), the program is on the cutting edge of analytical technology that applies mathematical algorithms to uncover hidden relationships in data.

The idea is to troll a vast sea of information, including audio and visual, and extract suspicious people, places and other elements based on their links and behavioral patterns.

The privacy violation, described in a Government Accountability Office report that is due out soon, was one of three by separate government data mining programs, according to the GAO. "Undoubtedly there are likely to be more," GAO Comptroller David M. Walker said in a recent congressional hearing.

The chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the Justice Department said the database was "ripe for abuse." The American Civil Liberties Union immediately derided the quality of the information that could be used to score someone as a terror threat.

Computers that fill the space equal to three football fields.

The National Security Agency (NSA) is home to some of the largest banks of computers in the world, they also have one of the largest fields of satellite antenna (Dishes). The NSA data mines as well as pays for information from companies that collect data. One company, named ChoicePoint sold the NSA 20 billion statistical points on 300 million Americans.

Dissention is one of the corner stone’s of our constitution, freedom of speech is America.

Bush spies on Americans, is the country Bush fears most America?

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

Iran: The War Drums are Beating Louder

By: David Phillips

October 1, 2007

This past week the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in New York to address the General assembly at the UN on Tuesday. The day before, on Monday, he was invited to speak at Columbia University. The Iranian President was greeted by throngs of protesters.          

Columbia President Lee Bollinger had pledged to quiz Ahmadinejad on subjects such as human rights, the Holocaust and Iran's nuclear program. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth, and has denied that the Holocaust never happened. In fact, earlier this year he hosted a Holocaust deniers forum, that included amongst it visitors, David Duke, the former Grand Wizard for the Ku Klux Klan. It was a who’s who of racists and bigots.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger said it was a question of free speech and academic freedom.

"It's extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries. To watch them, to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they're fanatical, or to see whether they are sly," Bollinger told ABC's "Good Morning America."

I guess Bollinger doesn’t follow the news much, because if he did, he would know how Ahmadinejad thinks, he would know how he reasons and more importantly he would know how he does not use reasoning.

The visit to the college in my opinion was nothing more than a chance to give one of our enemies a tool to use as propaganda back in Iran and in the Middle East.

Also this past Tuesday President Bush addressed the United Nations general assembly, but he barely mentioned Iran, probably as a snub to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was present.

Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism (followed by Saudi Arabia, but that’s another story). He supplies the Palestinian terror organization Hamas with weapons and money; he also supplies weapons and money to the terror organization Hezbollah in Lebanon.

He supplies weapons such as IED’s (Improvised Explosive Device) to the Shiite’s in Iraq who use then to kill Americans. He supplies IED’s to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan who use them to kill Americans.

He my opinion, Ahmadinejad should have been thrown in jail the moment he set foot on American soil.

One of the main contentions between Iran and the United States is Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb. Iran says their program is strictly for electricity and they are not trying to build a bomb.

But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have said that Iran has built facilities that are meant to enrich Uranium and produce plutonium which is used for nuclear bombs. Europe last year offered to supply the nuclear material needed for producing electricity, which could not be weaponized, but Iran turned them down.

By Iran turning down Europe’s offer to produce electricity with nuclear material provided by Germany and monitoring the facilities, is a pretty good indicator that Iran has other plans. 

Because of Iran’s refusal to stop their pursuit to enrich Uranium, earlier this year the United Nations imposed further sanctions against Iran. But Russia and China have watered down the sanctions and nothing has really changed with Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon.    

This past year there has been a lot of saber rattling from both Bush and Ahmadinejad. If you recall earlier this year the Iranians seized fifteen British sailors and marines in the Persian Gulf.

Back in January of this year, President Bush gave a speech to the Nation to announce his surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq, in that same speech Bush also said that he is sending in some Patriot Missile Systems and another Aircraft Carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf.

The mention of the Patriot Missile Systems was missed, over looked, or simply ignored by the main stream media. Think about it, the Patriot Missile System is designed to shoot down incoming missiles. But the Sunni’s, the Shiite’s and al-Qaeda don’t have any missiles, but Iran does.

In that same speech, Bush said he was sending in a second Air Craft Carrier battle group. These two battle groups are joined by British Navy Battle groups.

Plan B

Alexis Debat, Director of Terrorism and National Security at the Nixon Center said earlier this month that the Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days.

The US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” Debat added.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organized by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down.

Vice President Dick Cheney has been pushing for a US attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities and by all reports Bush has not been willing to purse this course. But as Bush gets closer to the end of his reign it would seem that he is reconsidering because of Iran’s continued advance to acquire a nuclear weapon, and Bush has said that he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb.

So Bush has painted himself into a corner, first he has made his pledge against Iran making a bomb and second, he feels that his replacement in the Whitehouse may not have the guts to stop them.

The clock is ticking on Bush’s presidency, our Air Force and Navy are positioned, the Pentagon is ready to go with in twenty four hours of Bush giving the green light, and it would seem that all systems are a go.

 The War Drums are Beating Louder.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

SUPPORTING THE TROOPS

By: David Phillips

September 24, 2007

Supporting the troops, three words that show patriotism and caring for our soldiers in harm’s way, and at times three words that are divisive.

President Bush says these three words all the time, Republicans and Democratic politicians also use these three words while trying to show that they care about the troops and their families.

But was does it mean to “Support the Troops?”

If you are a citizen does it mean hanging a yellow magnet on the rear of your car? Why do Republicans say they support the War, but when democrats say it, the republicans snicker?

Is patriotism partisan or bipartisan? Or is patriotism inherently American?

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was once asked by a soldier during one of his speeches why soldiers are being sent to Iraq without any body armor, and Rumsfeld replied: “As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

Is that supporting the troops, sending them into battle without body armor?

Republicans, who controlled both the House and the Senate for the first six years of Bush’s Presidency didn’t seem to mind. Even while extra money was allocated for more body armor, to this day, troops are still being sent to Iraq without body armor. In fact many parents have been buying the armor themselves on web sites such as eBay and sending the armor to their children in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Back in March of this year President Bush had requested another $100 Billion for his Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the democratically controlled House tacked on a few billion for the VA because in Bush’s budget request earlier in the year, Bush had spending cuts scheduled for the VA’s budget for the years 2008 and 2009. The Whitehouse told Congress that if money was diverted to the VA, Bush would veto the bill, and he did.    

Also earlier this year if you all recall, the Army Hospital, Walter Reed was in the news because of the living conditions recovering wounded soldiers were forced to live in. The building and rooms were infested with rats, leaky pipes and the conditions were unfit for humans. That certainly was no way to show our Support for the Troops.

But how did that come about, Walter Reed Hospital is famous as a well run medical facility.

Privatization, President Bush outsourced the support staff to a company called IAP Worldwide Services; IAP cut the support staff from 300 to 50. The U.S. Army awarded a five-year, $120 million contract in January 2006 to IAP Worldwide Services, and for every support staff cut, more money went to their bottom line.

President Bush likes to privatize services that were once done by government employees to private companies who care more about their bottom lines then the service they are being paid to provide.

Oh, and the CEO of IAP Worldwide Services Al Neffgen, is a former senior Halliburton official. And one other thing about IAP Worldwide Services before I move on, IAP was also one of the companies that were given a contract by FEMA to deliver Ice to Katrina victims, and you know how well that went.

Back in April of this year, new Secretary of Defense Bill Gates, extended the tours of duty for the military from 12 months to 15 months for those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Is that supporting the Troops?

In exchange for the extension, Gates said the service will be able to give all units a year at home between deployments. But soldiers are not getting the year at home as promised most are getting 10 months at the most.

Our troops are spread very thin, and many have said that we have reached the breaking point, is that supporting the troops?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said "The Bush administration has failed to create a plan to fully equip and train our troops, bring them home safely and soon, and provide our veterans with the quality care they deserve," Pelosi went on to say, “Extending the tours of all active-duty Army personnel is an unacceptable price for our troops and their families to pay."

Some of the Support our troops have come to rely on by President Bush and the Republican Party include but are not limited to:

• Outsourced medical support.
• Slashed Funding for the VA
• Extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan form 12 to 15 months
• Outsourced logistical support.
• Armed forces Stretched to the Breaking Point
• Troops sent to War with no Body Armor.
• Troops sent to War with no Armor for Trucks or Humvees.
• Politicizing the troops at every opportunity.

Because of the Walter Reed Scandal, Democrats created the “The Wounded Warriors Assistance Act” a piece of legislation that establishes a hot line for medical patients to report problems with any treatments, and to cut through the red tape for when the wounded move from the Pentagons care to the Veterans Administrations care. At least that is what it was designed to do.

There are currently 400,000 wounded personnel waiting for their cases to be heard that will determine the extent of permanent disability and monetary compensation the soldiers will receive. The Wounded Warriors Assistance Act is supposed to assist in ridding the Military’s long waiting list. But President Bush has voiced concern over one of the provisions that require imposing a one-year moratorium, on a program that lets private companies compete with public agencies for military and hospital work contracts, private companies, such as IAP Worldwide Services.

When Bush says that he supports the troops, and gives speech after speech with soldiers standing behind him as if they are his personal back drop, and while he is slashing the budget for the V.A., or sending troops into battle without body armor, or awarding contracts to firms who only care about their bottom lines, maybe, just maybe you will think twice, when he says, that he supports the troops.

Supporting the Troops, three words that have been so politicized, that the true meaning of the words are lost in the rhetoric of politics.

David is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s weekly column in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or you can go to their web site: www.Syvjournal.com

<b>Y</b>oung and <b>O</b>ld <b>D</b>emocrats of <b>A</b>merica

<a href=http://yodasworld.org>Yoda’s World</a>

YodasWorld.org

<a href=http://www.syvjournal.com/>Santa Ynez Valley Journal</a>

GUN CONTROL

By: David Phillips

August 27, 2007

Second Amendment of our Constitution

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the part of our Constitution that says a citizen of the United States can own a gun, or at least that is what the National Rifle Association (NRA) has always said.

The NRA and its powerful lobby organization in Washington have made sure that every Republican politician also believes that every citizen can own a gun.

But the NRA and right wing gun nuts, also feel that ANY type of gun should be available to every citizen.

A few months back, there was a terrible shooting at Virginia Tech College, were thirty three people were killed. The shooter we are told had some mental disorders, and never should have had access to any guns.

Background checks vary from State to State, and in Virginia names of mental patients were never checked. Congress quickly passed Legislation that is supposed to make it easier to check into the mental status of a gun buyer.

The NRA recently argued that suspected terrorists should be allowed to buy guns because they have not been proven to be terrorists. They used this same logic for mental patients, saying that until someone is proven to have some mental disorder, he or she has the right to buy and own guns.

 So according to the NRA, everyone can own guns, Yee Haw.

And the NRA says all guns are fair game. Everything from hand guns, machine hand guns, to military M-16’s, AK-47’s, UZI’s and even long range sniper rifles, can be owned. The only thing that is illegal are automatic weapons, meaning the gun keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down. Semi-automatic is legal, meaning the trigger must be pulled each time a bullet is fired.

Moral arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

First, it important to note that no right is absolute, even those supposedly granted by God and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. For example, even though the 1st Amendment guarantees me the right to free speech, the right is limited. I cannot publish a newspaper in which I claim that a certain public figure, for example the president of a major company, is a cocaine user, if that fact is known to me to be completely untrue. It would be called libel, and it is a valid abridgment of my rights. The classic example of an abridgment of freedom of speech is the imminent danger rule: I cannot stand up in a crowded theatre and scream that there is a fire (if there is not), because the ensuing panic may cause injury.

The reason abridgment of rights is sometimes valid is that rights can very easily clash. In the example above, my right to free speech clashes with the people in theatre's rights to not be trampled. The same analysis can be applied to the 2nd Amendment. If the right to own a gun interferes with public safety, that right can morally be abridged, in order to protect public safety. And the courts have agreed with this position, as follows.

Legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

As you can see there is a strong case proving that the 2^nd Amendment does NOT guarantee every citizen the right to own guns. I personally believe that limited gun ownership should be legal, but I think that there must be limits on the types of guns that citizens can own.

FIREARM FACTS-Guns in the United States - Easy Access to Deadly Weapons

• There are approximately 192 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. - 65 million of which are handguns.

• Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.

• In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns. Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change. hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated.

Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence

• In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624 (39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents; and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown.  In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.

• For every firearm fatality in the United States in 2005, there were estimated to be more than two non-fatal firearm injuries.

• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.

• In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 people in the United States.

Source: US Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Source: Centers for Disease Control

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Source: Center for Electronic Records. National Archives

Common sense arguments

When our Constitution was written people used guns for hunting food, as well as protection. Today people buy their food and no longer hunt for food (at least most do not). Unfortunately there is still a need for protection, but machine guns are offensive weapons, meant for just one thing, and that is to kill.

The bottom line is not everyone should be allowed to buy a gun just because they live here and not every gun should be for sale.

I wonder if I can own a Tank…

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s Political Opinions in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or their web site:

www.syvjournal.com

SHOULD BUSH AND CHENEY BE IMPEACHED?

By: David Phillips

Should President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney be impeached?  The short answer is yes. The long answer is also yes, but needs further explaining, which I will provide.

But first a little background on the Impeachment process

Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested party—if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!

High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group (Halliburton). In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections.

OK, so now you know what it takes to Impeach Bush and Cheney, but there is one Key element missing from the above description and that element is a Spine, or a Back-Bone from the Democratic Party in Congress.

Bush’s Folly into Iraq

We know that Cheney was cherry picking Intel, then twisting it to fit the Whitehouse claims of a nuclear program in Iraq. We know that Bush Lied in his 2003 State of the Union speech by saying that Saddam Hussein bought Yellow Cake (Uranium) from Niger, and he knew that the Intel for his Niger claim was false.

Lies:  Bush insisted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction but his "evidence" consisted mostly of forged documents, plagiarized student papers, and vague satellite photos. The United Nations was on the ground in Iraq and could find nothing. After extensive searches Bush was finally forced to admit that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Lies: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to purchase were for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches

Lies: Bush led people to believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 by repeatedly linking them in his speeches. This was so effective that at one point 70% of Americans actually believed Saddam was behind 9/11. Bush has since admitted that this was not true.

Lies: Bush has stated that Congress had access to all the same information that the White House had. Thus he should not be blamed for making the mistake of going to war. But Bush was briefed many times about the falsehood of various stories and this information never reached Congress.

Before the start of the War, the Whitehouse said the War in Iraq would only cost the American Tax payer 1.5 Billion dollars, and that the Iraqi Oil would pay for the Reconstruction in Iraq.

Dick Cheney, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Richard Armitage and Karl Rove all conspired to leak the name of a Covert CIA agent. All four of these men should be tried for Treason.

Bush’s Support for the Troops:

1. He sent the troops to War, with no Body Armor.
2. He sent the troops to War with no Armor for Trucks or Humvees.
3. He has outsourced logistical support.
4. He has outsourced medical support.
5. He has slashed Funding for the VA while giving speeches with our troops as back-drops.
6. He has proposed VA cuts for 2009 and 2010 in his latest budget proposal.
7. He has extended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan form 12 to 18 months.
8. He has stretched the Armed forces to the Breaking Point.
9. He has politicized the troops at every opportunity.

 The Katrina Fiasco

Here is another example of the ineffectual leadership from Bush and Cheney, and because of their direction, thousands suffered needlessly. And thousands are still displaced because Insurance companies were allowed to only pay 10 cents on the dollar if they paid at all.

Here’s a little trivia for you, a company called IAP Worldwide Services was contracted to supply water and Ice to Katrina victims. IAP Worldwide Service is also the company that Bush contracted to privatize the support staff at Walter Reed Hospital. IAP slashed the support staff from its original 300 employees down to 50.

American Civil Liberties

·         Telephone Wiretaps: Bush and Cheney have been wiretapping American citizens without Warrants.

·         E-Mail: The NSA has been data mining E-Mails from millions of Americans, without a Warrant.

·         Mail: President Bush has said that he has the right to read the mail of American citizens, without Warrants.

·         Financial Records: Bush and Cheney have data mined the financial records of millions of Americans without Warrants.

·         Medical Records: The NSA has built a data base using the medical records of millions of American citizens, without a Warrant.

·         Data Mining: The NSA and the Pentagon have been building a database on every American, all without Warrants.

Under the cover of a Bill called “The Military Commissions Act”, Bush has authorized Kidnappings by the CIA, called “Extraordinary Rendition.” Bush has suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus; and Bush has authorized “Secret Prisons”, as well as “Torture”.

Under the incompetent leadership of Bush and Cheney we now have the Largest Deficit in the History of our country. These two have also given us the Largest Trade Deficit in the History of our Country.

Bush has been in office about six and a half years, and he has been very ineffective in almost all of his decisions, I only wish I had more space to list them. But I have given you several examples where Bush and Cheney have misused their power, or just flat out lied.

Should they both be impeached?  Hell yes…

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s Political Opinions in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or their web site:

www.syvjournal.com

English Only

By: David Phillips

Should English be the Official Language of the United States?

A few years ago the European Union (EU) which consists of several countries who for the most part have their own languages, decided that all business that is conducted to benefit the EU as a whole, will do so in English. 

The EU has made English the Official language for business. Imagine a group of countries where each has their own language, have banded together to make English the Official language for Business.

In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

So why is there so much resistance to make English the Official language here in the United States?

I know that in my many years in business, as long as the money was green it didn’t matter to me what language someone spoke, all though at times it was difficult to communicate.

I also know from my many years that those that wanted to do business with me, would find it easier on themselves  if they understood me, and if they did not, it was usually they who lost out on my business, because I would simply seek out someone who did understand me.

So who is the one losing out, the person who speaks English, or the person who does not?

It is obvious that those that wish to live here in the United States hurt themselves and their families if they do not speak English. Immigrants that speak English will succeed a lot easier than those that don’t.

But there is a push here in the United States to make English the Official language.

Recently the Immigration Bill died on the Senate floor, a section of that Bill would have required those that were given Amnesty, to eventually learn to speak English. This was a pie in the sky attempt to placate those that have been pushing for English only here in the United States. 

Currently English is our National language, but not our Official language.

So what are some of the consequences if English were made our Official language?

If English becomes the Official language here in the United States all official forms and documents would only be printed in English.

Forms like DMV manuals and tests, voting ballots, hospital forms, court documents, or any other document that’s printed by the Federal Government, or State agencies.

The English only rule would also remove all government interpreters in hospitals or in our courts, and any other public service that may require an interpreter.

A Republican Presidential candidate for 2008, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) recently said in a debate that English should and must be made the Official language, and he went on to say that when people are no longer told on the phone to Press 1 for English, then  he has done his job.

I personally don’t have a problem pressing 1 for English, it’s all the other numbers I am told to press to get to this or that department or person that pisses me off, and then after doing all that I may either be told to press a number to get back to the main menu, or I am told to wait for the next available operator.  

I also want those that are driving on our roads to understand our rules and to be able to understand our road signs. And if it takes printing a drivers manual in another language or 100 languages, I’m all for it.

If someone has received their citizenship and wish’s to take part in our democratic elections, I would hope that they have learned enough English to understand the voting ballots, but if it is easier for them to read in their native language so what. If I were a politician, I would want my constituents to vote for me in whatever language is easiest for them.

As for hospitals, if a foreign language form or an interpreter will move things along smoother and more efficiently, it would seem to make more sense. More sense for the patient that is about to be seen and for the patients that will follow.

So if we make English the Official language will everyone who does not speak English take English lessons?  When I call a business will they no longer say Press 1 for English?  I know that if I am a business owner I will still do business in any language; and my phone would still say Press 1 for English.

Many U.S. towns and cities along our southern border with Mexico, are now accepting Mexican currency for their services or products. This is also true along our northern border with Canada and Canadian currency.

It seems that these businesses have evolved to the point where they say that it doesn’t matter what language or what color you or your money is, we will gladly accept you’re trade.

Rep Tancredo says that his job will be done once English has been made the Official Language. It seems to me, that those who are pushing for English to become the Official language would only be hurting themselves and everyone else if this happens.

Young children pick up foreign languages much easier than adults.  Men and women in their 30’s, 40’s and on up, will certainly find learning English, or any other language that is not native to them difficult, not impossible, but certainly not as easy as their children.

We are becoming a true global world with business and trade and the needs for people to speak more than one language have never been greater. When Roosevelt made his quote in 1906 his words had a spoke to a different era.

Mexico is currently building a seaport in order to off load ships that normally are off loaded here in the United States. A Super Highway (using current U.S. and Canadian Highways) is being built that will move these containers throughout the United States and into parts of Canada from the seaport. This is part of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

I guess the point I am trying to make here, is that in this Globalization, we will continue see men and women from other countries wanting to come here to make a better life for themselves and their families.

Those that speak English will have an advantage over those that do not. But they will continue to come and to prevent them from learning about our laws and customs because we have English as our Official language, is narrow minded, and puts everyone in danger.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s Political Opinions in the Santa Ynez Valley Journal or their web site:

www.syvjournal.com

PRESIDENTIAL PARDONS

By: David Phillips

What is a pardon?

A pardon is legal forgiveness for a crime, removing guilt and punishment. The president's right to issue pardons in federal cases is spelled out in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which describes the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment." A president has wide discretion to use the pardon, and it is not subject to congressional approval. The one exception: Pardons may not be used to halt impeachment proceedings. The framers of the Constitution intended the pardon power to be used to preserve "the tranquility of the commonwealth."

Unlike commutation, a pardon may be granted at any time before or after trial and conviction. A person who is granted a pardon returns to the legal status he held prior to the crime, may vote, and may hold a passport. Some states, however, prohibit pardoned people from some activities, such as holding local office.

Here is an account of pardons and commutations using figures from the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) going back to the year 1945, and starting with Harry S. Truman. The USDOJ also has the figures for how many were denied pardons and commutations and everything is broken down by year. Their web site is http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm if you would like to see a more detailed breakdown.  

·         Harry S. Truman (93 mos.)  Pardons 1913 Commutations 118

·         Dwight D. Eisenhower (96 mos.) Pardons 1110 Commutations 47

·         John F. Kennedy (34 mos.) Pardons 472 Commutations 100

·         Lyndon B. Johnson (62 mos.) Pardons 960 Commutations 226

·         Richard M. Nixon (67 mos.) Pardons 863 Commutations 60

·         Gerald E. Ford (29 mos.) Pardons 382 Commutations 22

·         Jimmy Carter (48 mos.) Pardons 534 Commutations 29

·         Ronald Reagan (96 mos.) Pardons 393 Commutations 13

·         George H.W. Bush (48 mos.) Pardons 74 Commutations 3

·         William J. Clinton (96 mos.) Pardons 396 Commutation 61

·         George W. Bush ( as of today) Pardons 113  Commutations 4

A couple of weeks ago President Bush commuted I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence. Bush said he agreed with the jury and their verdict, but Bush said he felt that the thirty month prison term was too much, so he removed the prison time, but left in place the four guilty verdicts and a $250,000 fine.

The thirty month prison term is the going sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice. Bush said, "I made a judgment, a considered judgment, that I believe was the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it."

You would think that since Bush said the verdict was right, that some prison time was appropriate, but not even ONE day was warranted in President Bush’s mind.

There are currently 3000 people in prison for the same crimes; will President Bush commute all their sentences? After all Bush said that the sentence does not fit the crime.

The other day President Bush when asked by a reporter if he may pardon Libby in the future, Bush said, "As to the future, I rule nothing in and nothing out."

Scooter Libby’s verdict culminated a nearly four-year investigation into how CIA official Valerie Plame's name was leaked to reporters in 2003. The trial revealed that top members of the administration were eager to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the administration of doctoring prewar intelligence on Iraq.

In President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech, Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Director of the CIA George Tenet said that they could not confirm the report, but the Whitehouse inserted these words in the 2003 State of the Union speech anyway against the wishes of Tenet.

Ambassador Wilson found no evidence to support the Whitehouse claim and later wrote a story for the NY Times about his findings, after which the Whitehouse leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the newspapers.

Eight days after Wilson's account appeared in The New York Times, syndicated columnist and CNN contributor Robert Novak identified Plame as a CIA operative in a column, citing two senior administration officials.

The article suggested Plame was responsible for sending her husband to Niger.

Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame’s identity and whom he told. Prosecutors said he learned about Plame from Vice President Dick Cheney.

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzpatrick discovered that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the media inadvertently at first to Robert Novak a reporter.  But it was Karl Rove, VP Dick Cheney and I. Lewis Scooter Libby who used her name in order to discredit her husband’s finding about the yellow cake, and it was these three who called seven different reporters including Novak.

Bush said in 2004 that anyone working at the Whitehouse who is found to be involved in the leaking the name of a CIA agent would immediately be fired.

The investigation discovered that along with Libby, Karl Rove and VP Dick Cheney were directly involved with leaking Valerie Plame’s name to reporters, yet neither was fired.

There have been rumblings that if Libby was sent to prison, he was going to name names. Names the Whitehouse did not want to be known, which is why Bush commuted his prison time. And Bush will most likely give Libby a full pardon before he leaves office.

As you see Pardons and Commutations are very common, they have been given by both Democrats and Republicans alike. So what is all the fuss about this particular commutation?

Well, there appears to be a strong indication that if Libby went to jail he would further implicate senior Whitehouse officials, such as Cheney and Rove.

And if you look at the pardons of previous Presidents you will find the names of many unscrupulous people, but you won’t find the names of anyone who could implicate high ranking Whitehouse officials.

If this had been any other Pardon or Commutation nothing would have been said by anyone, and it most likely would never have been noticed by the media, but this was a Senior Whitehouse official who in my opinion should have been tried for Treason along with Armitage, Rove and Cheney for leaking the name of a Covert CIA agent.

So when Republicans  say look at all the pardons by Clinton, what they don’t say is, none of his pardons were to people who leaked the name or names of Covert CIA agents, or who could implicate Senior Whitehouse officials, and that is why this case is different from any other Presidential pardon or commutation.

David Phillips is a Vietnam Era Veteran, a Democratic Party Activist, and David is also the Publisher and Editor of the online political magazine YodasWorld.org

 E-Mail Questions or Comments: oneyoda@aol.com

You can also read David’s Political Opinions at The Santa Ynez Valley Journal

RANTS AND RAVES

By: David Phillips

July 16, 2007

It seems that over the last couple of weeks we have seen Republican Hypocrisy and trash, raise its head in many parts of the GOP…

A quick recap:

From Rudy’s camp; they have one guy busted for selling cocaine and another guy, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who in the past has campaigned on Family Values, paying for prostitutes while also campaigning for Rudy in Louisiana…

Rudy Giuliani issued a statement regarding the federal indictment of its South Carolina chairman, Thomas Ravenel. “Our campaign has no information about the accusations pending against Mr. Ravenel. Mr. Ravenel has stepped down from his volunteer responsibilities with the campaign.”

From McCain’s camp; his campaign Manager quit last week, and McCain’s Florida Campaign Chairman was busted for buying sex in a men’s bathroom…

McCain’s Florida Campaign Co-Chairman has been busted for trying to pick up an undercover male police officer…

State Rep. Bob Allen (R), a foe of LGBT rights in Florida, is charged with offering the cop $20 for oral sex in a washroom at Veteran’s Memorial Park in Titusville…

Police said that Allen, 48, was seen coming in and out of a restroom three times before approaching the officer…

It seems like only yesterday we were talking about a Republican Congressmen and his pedophile ways with Congressional Page’s…

And the Not so Honorable Rev. Ted Haggard who while talking to President Bush every week about God, was smoking Crack and sleeping with male prostitutes on his off day…

I am to the point that whenever I hear a Republican talking about Family Values and Morals, I automatically think he is a Pedophile Crack Head who buys sex in Men’s bathrooms…It’s really not that farfetched, now is it…

Fred Thompson has not been caught with any prostitutes or seen smoking Crack, but we did learn that when he was a lobbyist in the early nineties, one of his clients that he was an advocate for was Plan Parenthood, you may have heard that they support  the “A” word…ABORTION…

Fred Thompson, who calls himself a Washington Outsider, is very much the Washington Insider.

His first and big lobbying client was a division of Westinghouse, which hired him to seek federal money for an experimental nuclear reactor on the Clinch River in Tennessee. Other clients included Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the leftist Haitian leader; a Tennessee savings-and-loan group advocating some of the looser regulations that contributed to the savings and loan crisis.

Fred Thompson who has not announced his candidacy for President yet, has been coming up a strong second in most polls…I think that he may be testing the waters as to how trashed he will be played in the Media…

Fred Thompson who says he is Anti-Abortion obviously had no problems working for a Pro-Abortion organization…I don’t know what he’s worried about with his hypocritical background; he should feel right at home with the other GOP candidates…

I came across a Useless Stat that might help you if you are ever on Jeopardy and the category is Cost of College. The Cost of College has increased 800% since 1977. Source: US Census Bureau

Another stat that I recently read is that the majority of insurgents who are fighting us in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia (See story on Home page)…You can be sure that Bush would never mention this…We learned earlier this year that the Saudi’s were giving money to the Sunni Insurgents in Iraq who use the money to buy weapons that kill American’s and Iraqi’s alike…

We are told that Iran has also been supplying weapons to the Shiite’s in Iraq, who use these weapons to kill American’s and Iraqi’s alike.

But on the up side we did start to supply the Sunni Insurgents with weapons, that they promise to use only against al-Qaeda…

Dubai, Dubai, Dubai…

Halliburton is moving its Headquarters to Dubai, to avoid paying taxes from the Billions they have been stealing…

Rudy Giuliani is also moving his “Giuliani Partners” Headquarters to Dubai, to avoid paying taxes from the Billions they will be stealing…

553 Days until Bush and Cheney retire to Dubai…

www.YodasWorld.org