A Musing Cat

Nazi apologist still a KBOO Director

2010-08-14T00:07:00.000-07:00

Becky Chiao - is now KBOO's Director after she resigned as President of KBOO's Board of Directors, but she brings the same limitations she had serving as President to her new position. In the recent past Becky's conservatism, her vaunted respect for some of Portland's political figures and her present employment with the Portland Police Dept. seem to have affected her judgment; expect more of the same.

On June 02, 2010, Lisa Loving had Alan Graf (Portland's "Hippi Lawyer") on her KBOO talk show as a guest - describing his experience with the Portland Police Department's very own Nazi sympathizer, Capt. Kruger. It seems that the good Captain got married at Hitler's summer villa in Germany, and he put together a memorial park for fallen Nazi soldiers in S.E. Portland. Alan Graf had other pertinent information to share: Saprize! saprize! Would ya believe it?! There seems to be extensive video and other testimony which documents Capt. Kruger's intolerance for diversity, and/ or for the "left" (anyone to the left of Hitler or Genghis Khan?) and his frequent, "gleeful" use of excessive violence. Who woulda thought?! Nazis, as I recall, weren't especially known for a kindlier, gentler approach - rather they retain a reputation as bullies and thugs and as fanatic racists. I would fail to see how Capt. Kruger could make any Portland citizen feel any safer. I also wonder if at least some of Kruger's fellow officers don't feel ambivalent about Kruger's status, because they must be tempted to question whether or not Kruger enhances citizen respect for its police force and/or jeopardizes their safety on the job.
(Source - http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2010/07/400845.shtml?discuss)

Becky Chiao had ruffled a number of KBOO's members because of comments she made when she called into Lisa Loving's talk show to defend Kruger. Of some interest to many KBOO members is the fact that Becky Chiao, until this Monday's board meeting, was the President of the KBOO board of directors. Becky spoke only for a few moments, but Becky's statements - on air and in a letter she later posted on KBOO's website - reveal more about her than I think she meant to divulge. (The audio recording of that show and Becky's letter can be found here: http://kboo.fm/node/21803 )

Becky Chiao called in to the program and defended Kruger and stated
"it is just an innocent hobby of his"; she thought Alan shouldn't deny Kruger his right to his own "ideology", "lifestyle", or "hobby".

Sorry, some of us citizens think that it is our right - even our DUTY - to insist that politicians and public servants SERVE only at our pleasure, and their ideologies are very much our business, especially since Capt. Kruger has been known to take out his ire upon peace demonstrators - types whose contrasting ideology is often that of Gandhi.

In Portland, I suspect that many taxpayers - as taxpayers - would like to exercise their right to cancel any future paychecks made out in the Capt.'s name. Unfortunately, as Beckie reminded Portland in a letter posted to KBOO (thank you Beckie!), Portland's oblivious political leadership has not taken any action about Kruger; Vera Katz and Police Chief Rosie Sizer, in particular, put their stamp of approval upon Kruger, so that fine officer, sic, remains a stain on Portland's police force.

(I will not hesitate to say, "Shame on Vera and Rosie!" I fully expect that this Kruger decision, among other decisions by Portland's political leadership, will eventually cost the City of Portland ever more in the way of out of court settlements to victims of police violence.)*

Certainly, right now with a city budget strained by a recession, Portland should question whether it can afford Capt. Kruger.

It may be relevant that Becky works for the Police Department in Risk Management. It is also relevant, I think, that Becky admits that she is "pretty conservative", and that she personally admires Vera & Rosie as "strong" women.

Given the lap dog status of our corporate media, some of us think that our independent media is more important now than ever before, and that our "watch dog' should, therefore, be ever more vigilant.

IMO, Beckie's avowed "admiration" for Portland's political leadership betrayed a certain lack of objectivity - much less a spirit of persistent inquiry. Left, right, and center - there's many in Portland who think that the media's first loyalty should be to all of Portland's citizens, black, white, and gay - NOT its politicians.

In Becky's letter, she described her remarks on air as an attempt to be "fair and reasonable" about Capt. Kruger. Sorry, I think its far from reasonable to look upon Kruger's Nazi fascination/admiration as "an innocent hobby" - if I may say so, I think it's insane. If a private citizen belonged to a white supremest group - one would hope that our police or the FBI would be keeping a close eye on him. Some of us think Kruger and any other Nazi lover in the Portland police force should return to civilian life so the proper authorities can more easily keep track of them.

Beckie's exceptional respect for leading political figures - feminine or not - and her "conservatism" are traits which I think jeopardizes her ability to be an aggressive watchdog for the public interest. For instance, Beckie had praise in her letter that Portland's Police Force has won awards for their excellence; some of Portland citizens look askance at an award for a city:
(Source link to www.portlandcopwatch.org )

- where in the last year, an autistic teen was tasered,
- where, in the last 8 years, there has been 4 police killings of an unarmed black man,
- where 3 people in 5 years have been shot in the back by a police sniper while they were talking to a police negotiator.

In this Orwellian era I think any reward for "excellence" should automatically make us suspicious; haven't Obama and Kissinger both received the Nobel Peace Prize?! Just as the corporate media's endorsement of any - usually well funded - candidate should cause the prescient voter to write that particular candidate off our list, so, too, we citizens of Portland should not become less vigilant because of any such "award".

That Becky's contribution to the media's watchdog role is questionable, is one thing, but to have nearly every sitting board member come to her defense - not only excusing her lapse of judgment - but praising her as "courageous" and "open minded" is quite another.*** I'm sure that Becky is probably a very pleasant person to work with, but I would insist that Becky's ability to make positive contributions to an independent media outlet is mediocre at best.

Again I'll quote the wise gnome: "...the respected intellectuals< http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20031028.htm>;in virtually every society are those who are distinguished by their conformist subservience to those in power. Others who take elementary human responsibilities seriously tend to suffer overwhelmingly in one form of repression or another."

In his own words Alan Graf says:
"Captain Kruger has a free speech right to his hobby !?! How about the right to abuse his authority and wreak violence on people exercising their right to free speech? Guess that's ok." Personally, I'd feel more comfortable if Alan Graf were on KBOO's Board.

Kathleen Bushman aka the Big Mouthed Frog

PS Becky - the Nazi Apologist resigned her office as KBOO Foundation President but still continues as KBOO's Nazi apologist Director. Is that what the members wanted when they elected her ?

*** This profuse praise for Becky littered KBOO's last board meeting of 7-26th, 2010.

Kucinich introduces a bill to prohibit the extrajudicial killing of US citizens

2010-08-05T00:33:00.000-07:00

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced back in May of this year that he would introduce legislation that would end the practice of targeting U.S. citizens for extrajudicial killing after The Washington Post and The New York Times revealed that the Obama Administration was continuing the Bush-era policy of including U.S. citizens on lists of people to be assassinated without a trial.

Just about a month ago, JULY 30TH, Kucinich introduced the following bill - http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_cr/hr6010.html - but I'm sure that few Americans heard about it, cause there seems to be a media blackout on the bill.

I fully expect that the DLC will make sure that Kucinich has a strong - VERY well funded Democratic challenger to face the next time he runs for re-election, he or she will get Obama's endorsement, or the Dims will simply rig the voting machines. Well - Dennis will sure be welcome in the Green Party, but he will face the same problems in the Green Party. Unfortunately, we Greens face the same difficulties as progressive Democrats do: easily rigged voting machines, two party collusion to keep 3rd Party candidates off the ballot, and the main stream media's tendency to totally ignore 3rd Party candidates. If the Dims take Dennis on in his next race, at least the Dims may be forced to expose the real secret - our democracy is a myth.

2010-08-05T00:08:00.000-07:00

- http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_cr/hr6010.html

111th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. R. 6010
To prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 30, 2010

Mr. KUCINICH (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. STARK, Mr. ELLISON, and Mr. JACKSON of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To prohibit the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

The Washington Post

(2) The January 27 Washington Post article reported that the JSOC and CIA maintain lists of individuals deemed `High Value Targets' and `High Value Individuals', whom they seek to kill or capture, that the lists currently include United States citizens, and that the President has authorized military operations with the express understanding that a United States citizen may be killed.

in testimony

(4) The Obama administration has publicly authorized the extrajudicial killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki, a United States citizen born in New Mexico who is accused of involvement in terrorist organizations abroad, the first confirmed United States citizen to be added to a CIA list of targets for capture or killing.

The Nation

Instruction 1100.22

(7) United States Attorney General Eric J. Holder recognized that the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted many terrorism defendants in Federal courts, stating on Friday, November 13, 2009, that `for over two hundred years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice . . . Once again we will ask our legal system to rise to that challenge, and I am confident it will answer the call with fairness and justice'.

Executive Order 12333

Executive Order 11905

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that-- (1) due process of law is a fundamental principle in the United States Constitution, the United States has a commitment to the principles included in the Bill of Rights, and no United States citizen, regardless of location, can be `deprived of life, liberty, property, without due process of law', as stated in Article XIV of the Constitution;

MORE GO TO ORIGINAL

2010-08-04T05:07:00.000-07:00

Today I want to share today's LUV - a free news service to which I subscribe. This excellent news source keeps me well informed no matter how busy I get; I can't recommend it highly enough. It brings each day's important news items to my attention, and provides whatever background information may be necessary to put any particular event into a comprehensible context.

2010-08-04T04:51:00.000-07:00

DEMOCRATS THWART DEMOCRACY

When the Democratic National Committee gets involved in a primary election, their primary fear is that democracy might somehow break out. In their blackest nightmare, someone like Dennis Kucinich, who actually represents the public interest in wanting to end the wars, cut the defense budget and provide public health care, as polling shows do the American people, would become the Democratic Party candidate for president.

The system works to not allow a candidate who represents the public interest to get publicity for their campaign through the tightly-controlled corporate media, nor to appear in debates, or in most cases, even to appear on a ballot. There are thousands of hoops to jump through for this, and even a Green Party of millions has a difficult time getting on the ballot in many states. The ruling Forces of Greed (FOG) fear democracy more than anything else, guarding against it here and with nearly a thousand military bases abroad (in case it should break out somewhere else, and they might lose control of the local natural resources, access to consumers or cheap labor).

Democratic activists, not seeming to understand that actual democracy is not allowed, recently tried to get rid of the "superdelegate" rule which allows mostly DNC inside Party corporatists to have veto power over the popular vote in Democratic primaries, superdelegate votes far more powerful than votes of us mere peasants, so that if someone like Kucinich, Barbara Lee, Marcy Kaptur or the likes should do well in an election, they can easily be replaced by a corporatist stooge acceptable to the establishment, including the ruling FOG, the National Security State, and their extremely compliant mass media on behalf of corporate greed at any cost.

But the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee would not hear of it. Superdelegates stay, Democracy continues to be thwarted, ironically by those who run a political party which goes by the bizarre euphemism "Democratic." Thankfully for the Dems, most of their rank and file haven't figured out the scam and continue to line up to have their votes altered.

KATIE COURIC: WAR IS GOOD FOR WOMEN, SO LET'S KEEP IT GOING!

Activists are upset that Katie Couric has allowed propaganda messages on CBS News to make it appear that Afghan women are better off under the corrupt government put in power by the US, and that life will be hell for them if US troops should ever leave.

Much of this pro-war line came from a propaganda story in Time Magazine, which has a long record of supporting war and corporate greed against the public interest.

For years we have been running reports at LUV News by Afghan women saying things are worse for females under the brutal warlords installed by the US government, as at least the Taliban protected women and girls from rape and murder which have become far more common under the warlords. There are as many religious fanatics in the current Afghanistan government as under the Taliban, some even advocating for extremely misogynist sharia laws to become the legal code of the land.

HIDING POISONED MAKEUP

Corporate Crime Reporter has a piece this morning showing that the cosmetics industry is fighting efforts to regulate them, so that their products are free of harmful ingredients. They don't want you to know how dangerous their products might be.

Some time ago we ran a story showing that many lipsticks had lead in them, and that it can cause brain damage if ingested.

Our corporations control the Food and Drug Administration so that they don't have to worry about any consequences from poisoning their customers. Campaign financing bribes allow them to put their people in charge of the agency, and of course, write the related laws in Congress.

When our government accuses you of being a terrorist without evidence being made public, even if you are an American citizen you can be murdered by government agents without having had a fair trial in a court of law, as things stand today. You are not given an opportunity to prove your innocence, and if a lawyer tries to represent you, the lawyer can get twenty years in prison just for giving you advice, and a million dollar fine (accused of aiding the enemy in times of war).

Any of us, of course, can be accused of being a terrorist, at any time, and subject to this. If it should happen to you, there is no place to appeal, nowhere to go for help, the highest levels of government will be on the side of murdering you, so you shouldn't even try to contact them.

These are the draconian rules of a fascist state. Thankfully, Bill Quigley is doing something about it, and tells us, following, about his actions to bring back the rule of law, as our "war on terrorism" takes us down a rabbit hole into a world of insanity --Jack

Why We Sued to Represent Anwar Aulaqi

By BILL QUIGLEY

Anwar Aulaqi is a US citizen and Muslim cleric living somewhere in Yemen. The US has put him on our terrorist list and is trying to assassinate him. The Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU filed suit today so we can be pro bono lawyers for his father, Nasser Aulaqi, to stop the government from killing him.

We filed suit today challenge the US requirement that lawyers must seek permission from the government before we can provide free pro bono legal representation to a US citizen.

This case will not decide whether the US can legally assassinate US citizens or anybody else. This case is about whether the government can deny pro bono lawyers to US citizens who the government accuses of being terrorists. Once we win the right to be lawyers for his father, we will challenge the constitutionality of the US efforts to kill him.

The barrier to us becoming lawyers is a set of rules enacted by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (usually called OFAC) which is a part of the Treasury Department. US law essentially prohibits trading with the enemy in a time of war. OFAC regulations go further and prohibit lawyers from giving free representation to people on the terrorist list unless the government gives them permission. Violations trigger punishment of up to 20 years in jail and fines of up to one million dollars.

We think the US Constitution overrules these OFAC regulations. The First Amendment protects the right of non-profit lawyers and legal organizations to give pro bono legal representation to any US citizen. The Fifth Amendment protects the right of citizens to have that legal representation.

We know this is a controversial case. Representing someone accused of being a terrorist is a tough decision. CCR is a human rights organization. We condemn all killing of civilians for political purposes by any government or any organization or any individual.

What this case is really about is not Aulaqi but about our government disregarding the rule of law.

There are many reasons we can argue that premeditated killing by the government off the battlefield is illegal. The rule of law guaranteed by the US constitution binds even the President of the US and the military. Our constitutional system of checks and balances does not allow the executive branch of government to just decide in secret that they are going to kill people. The government certainly could not just execute him if he was in the US. The US would not allow other governments to come here and assassinate someone they opposed. And the US would never just fire drone strikes into the UK, China, Russia or Australia to kill someone. Yemen is over a thousand miles away from the battlefield of Afghanistan or Iraq. So why would anyone think it is legal to assassinate a US citizen in Yemen?

Despite these questions, Aulaqi has been the target of several unsuccessful drone strikes as the US military and CIA are actively trying to kill him.

These are all issues that should be decided in a court of law. That is why we are filing this suit.

His father, Nasser, said it best. If the government has proof his son violated the law, then they should charge him in public and let the law take its course.

If the government can find him to assassinate him, they can find him to bring him to justice.

The right to go to court to challenge the government is a core US value. It is important that we win the right to represent him no matter how controversial he is. Otherwise the government can deprive citizens of their right to a lawyer at the exact same time as they are trying to kill them. The courts should make these decisions and people deserve the right to have lawyers try to challenge the government. That is what we are after and that is fair.

http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley08032010.html

Bill Quigley is legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. His email is quigley77@gmail.com

If you wish to be removed from this list, please let us know

To join the Liberty Underground news service email libertyuv@hotmail.com with "join" for a subject

You may also join our talk group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/libertyundergroundtalk/ if you would like to participate

email: libertyuv@hotmail.com

Tell your friends about LUV News because some people just don't get it

2009-10-24T01:43:00.000-07:00

A DISTURBING REPORT IN THE NEWS:

The Atlanta Journal reports that "Former Democratic U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Decatur has agreed to pay $6,000 to the Federal Election Commission for violations during her failed 2006 reelection campaign, according to documents released Monday." I suppose I could be the only semi-conscious American who is LIVID, but I certainly hope not. Since I often find humor in irony it's possible that report might have struck me as a hilarious hypocrisy if I still had a sense of humor - but after the bailouts and the "recession" my sense of humor is not so easily tickled. McKinney made some relatively minor errors and all hell breaks loose, even as we know for certain that the Democrats and the Republicans - McCain & Obama - all took millions in LEGAL BRIBES from the health care industry, Big Pharma and the likes of Goldman Sacs. How do I know that Cynthia did not get just as many big corporate donations? - well, for one thing,the corporate media kept Cynthia's candidacy as big a secret as the location of the The Lost Dutchman Gold Mine.

The following list from OpenSecrets.org provides the list of Obama's top campaign contributors:

University of California	$1,591,395
Goldman Sachs	$994,795
Harvard University	$854,747
Microsoft Corp	$833,617
Google Inc	$803,436
Citigroup Inc	$701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co	$695,132
Time Warner	$590,084
Sidley Austin LLP	$588,598
Stanford University	$586,557
National Amusements Inc	$551,683
UBS AG	$543,219
Wilmerhale Llp	$542,618
Skadden, Arps et al	$530,839
IBM Corp	$528,822
Columbia University	$528,302
Morgan Stanley	$514,881
General Electric	$499,130
US Government	$494,820
Latham & Watkins	$493,835

Comparing the figures above to those of Cynthia is an interesting exercise:

Rank	Industry	Total
1	Retired	$24,596
2	Education	$11,000
3	Computers/Internet	$6,650
4	TV/Movies/Music	$3,500
5	Real Estate	$2,900
6	Civil Servants/Public Officials	$2,600
7	Printing & Publishing	$2,500
8	Lawyers/Law Firms	$2,200
9	Health Services/HMOs	$1,950
10	Democratic/Liberal	$1,700
11	Misc Issues	$1,696
12	Telephone Utilities	$1,600
13	Business Services	$1,548
14	Special Trade Contractors	$1,250
15	Other	$1,200
16	Misc Business	$1,000
17	Telecom Services & Equipment	$972
18	Non-Profit Institutions	$900
19	Leadership PACs	$750
19	Oil & Gas	$750
19	Misc Services	$750

KBOO Interview of Rich Albertson

2009-10-23T21:39:00.000-07:00

KBOO Community Radio:
9 a.m. - Nov. 4th
Stephanie Potter Interview; Topic: Global Warming/Climate Instability

*Portland 90.7 FM *Corvallis 100.7 FM

*Hood River 91.9 FM

OR LISTEN ONLINE: http://www.kboo.org

If all else fails listen to the podcast which will become available on KBOO's website.

The Fascist Farce Plays Us for Fools: William Tower, Guest Author

2008-01-17T05:54:00.000-08:00

If we don't respond to the recent attempts (these all-too-successful attempts...so far) by the mainstream media, MSNBC & ABC, to limit and manipulate the democratic process, the MSM will see our inaction as tacit approval of their unilateral 'culling' of candidates, until we are left with nothing more than Coke vs. Pepsi electoral 'options'. Their lack of concern for fairness shows their contempt for robust political discussion (which is, we are told, what distinguishes our American democracy from a run-of-the-mill banana republic). It also signals their contempt for us the voters and for the candidates who seek to represent our interests

Having one African American and one female candidate among the usual cast of gray-suited white men might give a cosmetic cover to claims of political diversity; but it represents nothing approaching a genuine divergence of political thought. These cosmetic differences might satisfy the honchos in the boardrooms on 57th Street or "K" Street; but if they satisfy us, the citizenry, the game is pretty much "up"...the bad guys have won. Business-as-usual politics and status quo economics can continue virtually unchallenged.

The alliance between the mainstream media and the two 'chamber of commerce' political parties is never more evident than on those rare occasions when their hegemony is threatened. Ralph Nader has the scars to prove it...after their hatchet job on his reputation. Both Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are being similarly marginalized by the mockery directed against them and the trivialization directed against their ideas (when they are acknowledged at all).

If we don't confront this unholy alliance between the two status quo parties and the media which sustain them, we as a nation will be facing a Brave New World that no longer even makes a show of free elections. I only hope we have the gumption to take to the streets if all else fails.

- Bill

It's time to fight back or roll over and die: Scott Peden (guest author)

2008-01-16T23:40:00.000-08:00

Is anyone checking the voting records of the Democratic candidates?

Dennis

http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=318

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=318
Clinton
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
Edwards

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107
Obama

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Dennis is the only one that has a HISTORY - a VOTING RECORD - of trying to make the Corporations accountable, especially the War Profiteering corporations in our perpetual war profit scheme.

You know how much the MSM refused to even let his visage be on TV, but it should console Kucinich supporters to know that the MSM has lost 45% of it's viewing audience since 9/11/01.

Democrats and Republicans have lost LOTs of voters to the point that at the polls, when people are asked how they vote (not asking how they are registered) that straight ticket Repos get 22-23% of the votes, Democratic loyalists get 23-25% of the votes and those that say they vote independent of party lines are 46-48%. That's the target audience any viable candidate must appeal to. By remaining within the Democratic Party (I think they'll have to throw Kucinich out like President Tyler's party did when he refuse to abide by the world bankers agenda of controlling the US in the 1840's) Dennis also gains the chance of getting more Democrats to vote for him.

By far, those who claim to vote independent, look at candidates records. They are the educated bunch. Probably only 2-5% of the Dems and Repos know their own party records, they only concentrate on keeping the party issue polarized and attack the Republicans for the same things that the Democrats in office do.

Talk voting records. Talk who walks their talk. None of the CEO's have walked their talk this sElection Season.

People who will only go where there are other people, are followers. Those are the ones who don't get educated and easily succumb to the mass media spin frenzy, and the idea is to keep them confused and voting on sound bytes alone.

Most voters are aware that voter fraud is rampant. Diebold and it's affiliates are the ones being fingered, but who is covering their ass? Think about that closely.....It sure seems like the Big Corporate War Democrats aren't very concerned, never have been and none of them in the last 8 years have ever fought it through legally, always taking the easy way out even with a mess of the nation behind them.

The MSM are Multi-National Mega corporations and that consortium of Corporations are also the ones controlling who gets on the ballot. It's time for fight back or roll over and die.

A Warning Label for the 3 CEOs

2008-01-15T16:13:00.000-08:00

I hear there's are a lot of uncommitted voters out there in blue America. The three leading candidates keep trying to convince the many undecided voters that there is something about them that sets them apart from the rest. One candidate says, "I am the peace candidate", or I bring "hope for the future" or I will initiate "real change" - the other says "No that's me!" How are we to recognize the real Democrat - aren't they they all sounding pretty much alike?

I wonder if the many undecided voters find it so hard to decide on a new "decider" because there's hardly a tinge of difference between any of the 3 "leading" non-leaders who have so eagerly acted as rubber-stamps for just about everything Bush has wanted. This primary strikes me as a choice between vanilla, French-vanilla, and diet vanilla. Has any voted against the war or at least its funding; Obama and Edwards voted for the Patriot Act and Obama for each renewal, and they all supported the domestic terrorist legislation. Clinton even voted against restricting cluster bombs, and which of the three hasn't voted for or supported the recent Peruvian free trade agreement?

As a matter of fact, any candidate, Ron Paul (R) or Dennis Kucinich (D), with a slightly differing take on the problems facing America have been increasingly excluded. Dennis has proved he can think on his feet and has a quick wry wit capable of bringing down the house. In the first few debates even as the moderators tried to ignore Kucinich the audience went wild with enthusiasm on more than one occasion. With each succeeding debate, Kucinich was allotted less and less time - my guess is he posed to big a threat to the status quo. (That may have been true of Ron Paul, too, but I must admit I stopped listening to the Republican debates after the first one.) This last year, Jay Leno might have envied the laugh Kucinich got from the audiance during one debate when he asked himself a question. The more lemons he was served, the better the voter pleasing lemonade Kucinich seemed to make. For whoever makes these decisions it seemed obvious that omiting Kucinich to a single question or two during a debate, wasn't working out very well so he began to be exluded all together, but why would that be?

Even though I thought it was obvious that the more the crowd responded to Dennis the more the DLC became determined to exclude him. I began to wonder if I weren't getting a bit too cynical untill last night when I stumbled over a new, to me at least, site. I didn't know that in 1986 the debates "were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters. when the The parties snatched the debates from the League and formed the Commission on Presidential Debates -- the CPD -- in 1986." I didn't realize either that '"mportant issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control, nor that Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists....Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics....For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare."' Oh - could it be that some of the big defense contractors had issues with the "peace candidate"?

Since we don't have the League of Women Voters working on our behalf anymore, since the media's fairness doctrine is a thing of the past, and since the "debates" have become more like serial campaign ads. I guess we voters will need to do more homework (damn, and I've always hated homework!) I guess we should do it even though I know it's mean - candidates won't like it if we look too closely at their voting records, but maybe - just maybe - we should consider their voting records, anyway.

IRAQ/IRAN - War & Peace:

On war with Iraq and possible (or probable?) war with Iran - all three of the Democratic "leaders" were followed Bush as closely as if they were all playing a game of Simon Says. Clinton and Edwards voted for the Iraq War Authorization - and all three have continually voted to fund it, - from time to time, they have even voted to give Bush more funding than he requested. All 3 of the leading followers were prepared to keep the nuclear option open. Only Kucinich tried to sound a warning: Collision Course with Iran.

Hillery - trying too hard, perhaps, to out-macho the men - gets campaign advice straight from the Decider himself, and she voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment which allows Bush to aggress against Iran on any pretext without so much as informing an apparently disinterested congress.

Of course, Hillery must have figured that since Bush didn't lie us into Iraq, GW should be trusted now.) Senator Obama, perhaps the smarter politician, took the fence sitter's way out and didn't vote on that amendment. Edwards, to his credit, did speak out against the amendment, even though he was the first candidate to swear to keep the nuclear option open for Iran.

THE TORTURE BILL:

None of the 3 so called "leaders" led a fillibuster to stop the passage of the torture bill - a non-action which allowed them to appear righteous on the issue but required no moral courage. The Seattle PI criticized The Democrats Who Enable Bush - that criticism could have specifically included the 3 non-leaders .

THE VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM BILL:

Clinton and Edwards have voted yes on the Patriot Act and all three, Clinton, Edwards and Obama, have voted for Patriot Act Renewals; those votes don't bode well that they will hold the line on the erosion of our right to dissent?

The bill had bi-partisan support in the House where the vote was 404 to 6 measly votes... SIX - yeah all of SIX Democrats came to the defense of our most basic civil right - the right to dissent. So much for our glorious Democrats - they certainly didn't come in on white chargers - but maybe they did come in by way of a big ass.

The bill may have passed the House but it has yet to pass the Senate, and has yet to land on the President's desk, but are we reduced to looking to Clinton, Obama, or Edwards to protect our right to dissent when C & E voted for the Patriot Act and the CEO's all voted for its renewals.

Kucinich was one of 6 Representatives who voted against the bill HR 1955 as the bill is known in the House where it originated; 404 voted for it. Dennis Kucinich - ever the trifling nit picker - said that he believes the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955/S. 1959) is unconstitutional. Someone really should tell him the constitution is, after all, nothing but a "god damned piece of paper."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29091

According to the site KnowYourDemocrats.com "Only Kucinich and Mike Gravel support substantial cuts to corporate welfare." Of course, that site nit picks because it doesn't rely on rhetoric - it insists on the evidence of recorded votes.

I would like to leave you my readers & fellow Americans with this WARNING: If you want more compassionate conservatism - you will soon see the Democratic version. Don't expect it to be any kinder or gentler than the Repo version unless you vote for the only real Democrat: Kucinich.