Steve is a Baker County Democrat, he asked me to put this up.
It’s hard to miss the latest round in Oregon’s land use wars. The Governor, Thousand Friends of Oregon and, The Portland Oregonian, are pushing hard to repeal measure 37. If we don’t, they contend Oregon will lose open space, wildlife habitat, farm land and quality of life. It’s almost laughable. Our land use wars and environmental problems in general are a direct result of too many people fostered by an immigration policy that should have been altered years ago. You’ve heard it from me before so how about hearing it from one of the icons of the American environmental movement, Edward Abbey, the inspiration for Earth First and other groups. In a letter to the Industrial Worker Oct 1st 1988 he had this to say. “…..As I have said and written many times, in many places, I am opposed to all further mass immigration, legal or illegal, from any source, and my reasons for this position are quite conventional. Like all Earth Firsters, almost all environmentalist, most union members and (according to polls) the majority of blacks and Hispanics, I think we should seal our borders for the following good, clear and obvious reasons:1. The USA is overcrowded already.2. A large influx of cheap labor- docile, uneducated and desperate foreigners- will put bona fide native-born (or naturalized) American working people at further disadvantage in their struggle with big business and big government;3 A growing population means greater pressure on all resources, including clean air, clean water, clean soil, open space, schools, medical facilities, wildlife, wilderness and our public lands in general;4. A growing population leads inevitably to more government laws, regulations, police, centralized control, authoritarian policies and a generalized stifling of personal freedom for all but the very rich. Yours fraternally, Edward Abbey, Oracle Arizona. In a nutshell there is the basis of Oregon’s land use wars. We had 210 million people when we passed Senate Bill 100, the law that created our draconian land use laws. We have 300 million now and are growing rapidly because of immigration. Others warned us too. In Sept. 1974, a year after Senate Bill 100 passed in Oregon Garrett Hardin, a prominent ecologist wrote, Life Boat Ethics: the case against Helping the poor. Garrett Hardin’s writings can be found on the internet. We were warned decades ago what the effects of unrestricted immigration would be. We are now at a crossroads. Congress will soon debate an immigration bill. Its time to get real. No longer can we spout a cliché like “we are a nations of immigrants” and think that says anything. That’s history. We have to look at the future now.
Steve Culley Baker City Or
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
Iraqi Surge: some things cost what they cost
I have to admit my main objection to continuing the war in Iraq is that the only thing worse than pulling out is to continue the war with George W. Bush calling the shots. I think pulling out will be catastrophic, but losing in the long-run is assured as long as America will neither conduct serious diplomatic efforts to end the civil war there or supply enough troops to actually control the territory on which our forces our deployed.
"Controlling the territory on which it is deployed" is actually the real purpose of the Army. Ignore the increasingly publicized body counts and other benchmarks of success until the territory is under control. It's not. And that's why this surge is so ridiculous, because it won't accomplish that--22,000 more wasn't enough when this started and it's far too few now.
Suppose you go to the store to buy a candy bar to share with your friends. The price is $1.00 and you go in with a quarter. You argue with the clerk, but he won't sell. After serious reflection, you go home, smash your penny bank, and decide you can only part with a quarter more. You go back to the store the next day with fifty cents. But that stubborn clerk still won't sell you a candy bar! Obviously he must hate you and all you stand for--that's it: he hates your freedom.
You go back to your friends and say, "Oh well, at least I tried. I even DOUBLED my efforts. But it's all that mean clerk's fault for not selling to me when I did all I could." Heck, maybe you even get together with your pals and graffiti tag the store or egg the windows. Why not? He's got it coming, right? Maybe the clerk's name is Maliki?
That's what this surge is all about--a too little, too late effort, which even W. must know is doomed but which gives him a good story to tell about how hard he tried. If Democrats oppose the surge, he can even try blaming the inevitable failure of his policies on them.
Want to win in Iraq? It'll take a couple hundred thousand more troops at this point, now that Iraqis on the street hate us for the years of hell they've been through. But with recruitment down and "stop loss" the only thing keeping our existing units full, the only option is a draft. (Start with the membership of the College Republicans, IMHO.) But even proposing a draft has political costs, which the four-flushing G. W. Bush is the master at ducking.
But regardless of your position on a draft, I doubt most folks--hawks or doves--are any more likely to trust W. with the lives of draftees than they would be to trust him to bring back that candy bar. That leaves withdrawal as the only serious option on the table. That is, unless we get serious about impeachment. . .
"Controlling the territory on which it is deployed" is actually the real purpose of the Army. Ignore the increasingly publicized body counts and other benchmarks of success until the territory is under control. It's not. And that's why this surge is so ridiculous, because it won't accomplish that--22,000 more wasn't enough when this started and it's far too few now.
Suppose you go to the store to buy a candy bar to share with your friends. The price is $1.00 and you go in with a quarter. You argue with the clerk, but he won't sell. After serious reflection, you go home, smash your penny bank, and decide you can only part with a quarter more. You go back to the store the next day with fifty cents. But that stubborn clerk still won't sell you a candy bar! Obviously he must hate you and all you stand for--that's it: he hates your freedom.
You go back to your friends and say, "Oh well, at least I tried. I even DOUBLED my efforts. But it's all that mean clerk's fault for not selling to me when I did all I could." Heck, maybe you even get together with your pals and graffiti tag the store or egg the windows. Why not? He's got it coming, right? Maybe the clerk's name is Maliki?
That's what this surge is all about--a too little, too late effort, which even W. must know is doomed but which gives him a good story to tell about how hard he tried. If Democrats oppose the surge, he can even try blaming the inevitable failure of his policies on them.
Want to win in Iraq? It'll take a couple hundred thousand more troops at this point, now that Iraqis on the street hate us for the years of hell they've been through. But with recruitment down and "stop loss" the only thing keeping our existing units full, the only option is a draft. (Start with the membership of the College Republicans, IMHO.) But even proposing a draft has political costs, which the four-flushing G. W. Bush is the master at ducking.
But regardless of your position on a draft, I doubt most folks--hawks or doves--are any more likely to trust W. with the lives of draftees than they would be to trust him to bring back that candy bar. That leaves withdrawal as the only serious option on the table. That is, unless we get serious about impeachment. . .
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Continue War?
Jack Kirkwood is a member of DPO Platform & Resolutions and this is re-printed with his permission.
CONTINUE WAR OR CHOOSE EXIT STRATEGY?
By Jack Kirkwood
President Bush wants victory in Iraq. He says that if the enemy wins we can expect them to unite under a caliph to attack the United States.
Apparently it has escaped Bush’s notice that the war in Iraq is as much a war of Sunnis against Shiites as it is a war against coalition forces.
The Sunnis and Shiites have been rivals for nearly fourteen centuries. Both claimed their leaders to be the legitimate heirs of the Prophet Mohammed.
In the early days of strong caliphs, they spread the Muslim religion as they overran much of northern Africa and parts of Spain. They dominated the entire Middle East. Parts of central and south Asia were conquered as well.
Over the centuries these areas have developed into nations with distinct cultures. Diversity makes it inconceivable that they would unite in war against the United States.
The President’s reasoning is just as flawed as when he took the United States and coalition forces to war against Iraq.
The CIA and others knew that Iraq had no imperial design against the United States, nor did Iraqis hate America as al Qaeda does. Iraq was not a hotbed of al Qaeda cells and Saddam Hussein had resisted their penetration into Iraq. He and Osama bin Laden were bitter enemies and rivals for influence in the region.
A wiser course for President Bush would have been to ask Iraqi cooperation in isolating al Qaeda cells and seeking information about them.
The Bush Administration has tried to bring democracy to Iraq, and millions of Iraqis were proud of purple fingers symbolizing their courageous participation in voting despite the violence around them.
But time has passed, with steadily increasing violence, high unemployment, shortage of electricity and other necessities. Reconstruction is stalled. So, too, have most Iraqis lost any sense of benefit from the presence of occupation forces; 80% of Iraqis want us to leave.
Now, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress looking for bi-partisan engagement and a special bi-partisan committee of experienced problem solvers appointed by the President to propose solutions, the world should see positive change in the near future.
American voters have themselves to thank for that. Hopefully our leaders can learn to deal with terror as law enforcement rather than quest for victory.
Jack Kirkwood
Aloha, OR 97006
CONTINUE WAR OR CHOOSE EXIT STRATEGY?
By Jack Kirkwood
President Bush wants victory in Iraq. He says that if the enemy wins we can expect them to unite under a caliph to attack the United States.
Apparently it has escaped Bush’s notice that the war in Iraq is as much a war of Sunnis against Shiites as it is a war against coalition forces.
The Sunnis and Shiites have been rivals for nearly fourteen centuries. Both claimed their leaders to be the legitimate heirs of the Prophet Mohammed.
In the early days of strong caliphs, they spread the Muslim religion as they overran much of northern Africa and parts of Spain. They dominated the entire Middle East. Parts of central and south Asia were conquered as well.
Over the centuries these areas have developed into nations with distinct cultures. Diversity makes it inconceivable that they would unite in war against the United States.
The President’s reasoning is just as flawed as when he took the United States and coalition forces to war against Iraq.
The CIA and others knew that Iraq had no imperial design against the United States, nor did Iraqis hate America as al Qaeda does. Iraq was not a hotbed of al Qaeda cells and Saddam Hussein had resisted their penetration into Iraq. He and Osama bin Laden were bitter enemies and rivals for influence in the region.
A wiser course for President Bush would have been to ask Iraqi cooperation in isolating al Qaeda cells and seeking information about them.
The Bush Administration has tried to bring democracy to Iraq, and millions of Iraqis were proud of purple fingers symbolizing their courageous participation in voting despite the violence around them.
But time has passed, with steadily increasing violence, high unemployment, shortage of electricity and other necessities. Reconstruction is stalled. So, too, have most Iraqis lost any sense of benefit from the presence of occupation forces; 80% of Iraqis want us to leave.
Now, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress looking for bi-partisan engagement and a special bi-partisan committee of experienced problem solvers appointed by the President to propose solutions, the world should see positive change in the near future.
American voters have themselves to thank for that. Hopefully our leaders can learn to deal with terror as law enforcement rather than quest for victory.
Jack Kirkwood
Aloha, OR 97006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Christian Nation by Bill Eagle
Christian Nation
My church has a fellowship hall, with an ample kitchen. When our Sunday worship service concludes, people are encouraged to congregate and visit. Members take turns in supplying refreshments, and each Sunday’s repast brings about new and pleasant surprises.
I remember sitting at a table with my wife and a couple of other church members. I also remember starting to stuff my face with carrot cake, and some small finger sandwiches (filled with some sort of tasty mystery meat), when a man sitting next to me said: “Don’t you think that our country should go back to its beginnings? We started as a Christian Nation, and it’s about time that we return…”
My wife squinted her eyes and looked across the table “A Christian Nation?”
“Yeah, a Christian Nation.” Said the man. “Our founding fathers were Christians, and our whole nation was founded on Christian principles. It’s right there in the Constitution.”
My wife Claudia is not a big person, but her eyes narrowed and she half rose from the table, giving her an appearance of size. “No it isn’t,” she said. “There is nothing in our Constitution that says that we are a Christian nation. In fact, our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God.”
“Sure it does.” Said the man, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
“That’s in the declaration of
“Acknowledging a creator does not mean that these people were Christians.”
“Yes, but they were,” said the man. “They weren’t Hindus, Jews or Moslems.”
“I don’t know about Hindus or Moslems,” replied Claudia, as she lifted a small cookie from her plate,” but Jews did play a part in our American Revolution, and helped form our country. Much of
Claudia looked at the man and continued. “The declaration of
Another Jew, Hayim Solomon bankrupted himself supporting the American Cause. He arranged for arms to be shipped into the colonies from the Dutch
“So some Jews helped us,” said the man. “We’re still a Christian Nation, and most of our founders were Christians.”
“No they weren’t,” replied Claudia. “If we say that a Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then it is safe to say that some of our key Founding Fathers were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists. They believed in a God, but they rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of our faith. John Adams was a professed Unitarian, and he also appeared to be more a deist than a Christian.
“How do you know so much?” asked the man.
Claudia replied: “I used to teach school, and I read.”
“Let me continue,” said Claudia; “Our Founding fathers weren’t necessarily religious men, and they fought hard to create, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, “A wall of separation between church and state.” George Washington and James Madison didn’t take much interest in religious matter and leaned toward deism.
“Ok,” said the man. “We still have under God on our coins, and God is in our pledge of Allegiance. Our founders must have thought that it was important to institutionalize God.”
Claudia gave a saintly smile. “Our Founders didn’t institutionalize God. “In God”, didn’t appear on our coins until after the Civil war, and “Nation under God” wasn’t inserted into our pledge of Allegiance until 1954.”
“Let’s get back to this business about us being a Christian Nation,” continued Claudia. Do you remember reading about the Barbary Pirates?”
The man scratched his head. “Uh vaguely.”
“Let me refresh your memory,’ Said Claudia. “They are sung about in the Marine Corps Hymn. The Barbary pirates preyed upon American ships off the coast of
“As the Government of the United states…is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
According to an article by Brooke Allen, President John Adams signed this document. The Senate ratified it and the vote was unanimous.”
The man got up to leave “You sure seem to know a lot of stuff, but the majority of people here are still Christians. I think that we still should be considered a Christian nation.”
“It’s true,” said my wife; “that the majority of people in this country claim to be Christians, but that still does not make our country a Christian Nation. If we were a “Christian Nation” then church leaders, instead of politicians, would run the country. Our Constitution gives us the right to worship or not worship as we choose.”
Claudia smiled and said: “I read that John Adams once while addressing a group of students expressed admiration for the Roman system, whereby every man could worship whom, what and how he pleased. When his young listeners objected that this was paganism,
The man started waking toward the exit.
Claudia stepped in front of him. “Let me ask you one question before you leave. If you believe that we are a Christian Nation, which Christian denomination do you think should be in charge of our government? Catholic? Orthodox? Protestant? If you think it should be Protestant, what flavor do you think we should have?”
He didn’t answer.
I enjoy my church, and I gain comfort from my faith. I also believe in the Constitution of the
God bless
###30###
Friday, September 01, 2006
ACLU by Bill Eagle
Submitted in MS Word
Bill Eagle is a PCP from Columbia County, his Letter to the Editor of St Helens Chronicle re: Stealing Christmas follows:
The Gaffer huffed and puffed, he stood so close that our noses were almost touching: “That ACLU is ruining our country. They’re a bunch of pinkos Commies and they’re working right now to try and ban Christmas.”
“Aw come on,” said I. “There’s no way that the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas.”
“Oh yeah!” responded the Gaffer: “I heard about it on the O’Reilly factor and I read about it in my BushCountry newsletter. I read that kids can’t sing Christmas songs, and those ACLU guys are planning to make the entire holiday disappear. Christmas is under attack, and it’s those Commie ACLU guys that’s try’n to make it happen. ”
I backed away from the Gaffer and said: “The ACLU isn’t made up of Commies. Their mission is to preserve our Constitution and to keep our Bill of Rights.”
The Gaffer sneered at me. “You bleeding heart liberals would just as soon let them a-rabs and commies take us over, than stand up for Christian Values. We’re a Christian Nation but those ACLU guys are gonna change that. You just wait and see. They are working right now to outlaw Christmas.
The Gaffer walked away from me fully sure in the knowledge that the ACLU was working to destroy Christianity in America.
I wrote Will Potter and Paul Silva, national spokespersons for the ACLU. Both people mentioned that this was total nonsense. The ACLU has nothing in common with the Grinch. Will Potter told me: “The ACLU defends civil liberties of people of all faiths. We have worked on behalf of Christian students to allow them to distribute Bibles on public school grounds. We even helped the Reverend Jerry Falwell with a legal problem regarding his church.
Paul Silva provided me with more information. He Wrote: “...The ACLU is not trying to ban Christmas. There are a couple of groups who are engaged in a PR campaign to gain publicity (and raise funds) by trying to paint an image that Christmas is under attack. The ACLU supports the same sensible guidelines for schools that evangelical groups endorsed a decade ago in regards to Christmas and holiday displays… It’s hard to see why media outlets are making a fuss over this now when the laws simply have not changed…”
He also mentioned that some of the media outlets are biting on this PR bait without bothering to do any research. Paul Silva was kind enough to send me a number of cases where the ACLU supported the rights of students to speak out regarding their religion, to distribute Christian literature, to have religious yearbook entries, to sing Christmas carols, to have school religious organizations, and to publicly proclaim their faith.
Wrote Silva: “The ACLU does not take on cases based on religious beliefs or demographics of clients. Instead, we look at the constitutional merits of an issue.”
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from it. It allows people to worship as they wish, or not worship at all. They just can’t use the government to impose their beliefs on others.
In schools, teachers may not be allowed to lead prayers, but school facilities can be made available to clubs or outside groups for that purpose. The only stipulation being that they must allow equal access for all.
Children can sing Christmas songs in schools, as long as the program includes secular seasonal songs as well, and is inclusive of other faiths.
Nativity scenes on public grounds are legal, as long as space is allowed for other religions or secular displays. Religious beliefs can’t be banned, as long as programs and displays are inclusive and respect the rights of all.
I called The Gaffer and told him what I found out. His comment to me was: “Sonny I listen to Fox and talk radio. I know all about the ACLU. They want to ban Christmas. One of them talk show guys thought we should send the ACLU Christmas cards. Kind of subtle, but maybe that way those pinkos will get the message…”
Actually, the Gaffer’s idea isn’t all that bad. It might be nice to send the ACLU a card thanking them. We can thank them for volunteering to help protect our First Amendment rights, and guarding our rights to worship as we chose.
I think I might even say a little prayer on their behalf, after all prayer is a First Amendment right.
Bill Eagle is a PCP from Columbia County, his Letter to the Editor of St Helens Chronicle re: Stealing Christmas follows:
The Gaffer huffed and puffed, he stood so close that our noses were almost touching: “That ACLU is ruining our country. They’re a bunch of pinkos Commies and they’re working right now to try and ban Christmas.”
“Aw come on,” said I. “There’s no way that the ACLU is trying to ban Christmas.”
“Oh yeah!” responded the Gaffer: “I heard about it on the O’Reilly factor and I read about it in my BushCountry newsletter. I read that kids can’t sing Christmas songs, and those ACLU guys are planning to make the entire holiday disappear. Christmas is under attack, and it’s those Commie ACLU guys that’s try’n to make it happen. ”
I backed away from the Gaffer and said: “The ACLU isn’t made up of Commies. Their mission is to preserve our Constitution and to keep our Bill of Rights.”
The Gaffer sneered at me. “You bleeding heart liberals would just as soon let them a-rabs and commies take us over, than stand up for Christian Values. We’re a Christian Nation but those ACLU guys are gonna change that. You just wait and see. They are working right now to outlaw Christmas.
The Gaffer walked away from me fully sure in the knowledge that the ACLU was working to destroy Christianity in America.
I wrote Will Potter and Paul Silva, national spokespersons for the ACLU. Both people mentioned that this was total nonsense. The ACLU has nothing in common with the Grinch. Will Potter told me: “The ACLU defends civil liberties of people of all faiths. We have worked on behalf of Christian students to allow them to distribute Bibles on public school grounds. We even helped the Reverend Jerry Falwell with a legal problem regarding his church.
Paul Silva provided me with more information. He Wrote: “...The ACLU is not trying to ban Christmas. There are a couple of groups who are engaged in a PR campaign to gain publicity (and raise funds) by trying to paint an image that Christmas is under attack. The ACLU supports the same sensible guidelines for schools that evangelical groups endorsed a decade ago in regards to Christmas and holiday displays… It’s hard to see why media outlets are making a fuss over this now when the laws simply have not changed…”
He also mentioned that some of the media outlets are biting on this PR bait without bothering to do any research. Paul Silva was kind enough to send me a number of cases where the ACLU supported the rights of students to speak out regarding their religion, to distribute Christian literature, to have religious yearbook entries, to sing Christmas carols, to have school religious organizations, and to publicly proclaim their faith.
Wrote Silva: “The ACLU does not take on cases based on religious beliefs or demographics of clients. Instead, we look at the constitutional merits of an issue.”
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from it. It allows people to worship as they wish, or not worship at all. They just can’t use the government to impose their beliefs on others.
In schools, teachers may not be allowed to lead prayers, but school facilities can be made available to clubs or outside groups for that purpose. The only stipulation being that they must allow equal access for all.
Children can sing Christmas songs in schools, as long as the program includes secular seasonal songs as well, and is inclusive of other faiths.
Nativity scenes on public grounds are legal, as long as space is allowed for other religions or secular displays. Religious beliefs can’t be banned, as long as programs and displays are inclusive and respect the rights of all.
I called The Gaffer and told him what I found out. His comment to me was: “Sonny I listen to Fox and talk radio. I know all about the ACLU. They want to ban Christmas. One of them talk show guys thought we should send the ACLU Christmas cards. Kind of subtle, but maybe that way those pinkos will get the message…”
Actually, the Gaffer’s idea isn’t all that bad. It might be nice to send the ACLU a card thanking them. We can thank them for volunteering to help protect our First Amendment rights, and guarding our rights to worship as we chose.
I think I might even say a little prayer on their behalf, after all prayer is a First Amendment right.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Vacation
Due to the stated purpose of this Blog and in the interests of fairness, I am going to have to take a vacation from writing Articles. If you've enjoyed them, I'm doing some writing here; http://chuckfor.blogspot.com . I will still Adminster this site and get your Articles up, but for now it's up to you. Have fun with it and get something done.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
New service for DPO and elected Dems
Ok,
in view of some recent controversies and some other not too reasonable existing situations, I'm providing a service to the Party and our elected Democrats. Here's an opportunity to propose, vent, and track opinions within the Democratic Party. This will be exactly as useful as YOU make it. I'll try to keep things relatively polite with a very light moderation hand. Please be patient, I have a real job. I intend to publish your articles, I have little time to be a moderator, much less, an author. Nobody here has more or less standing than anybody else, what will determine how soon or whether or not you get published is going to have everything to do with it being relevant to this site and adherence to the simple policies outlined.
If you've tried to Comment and failed, the Comment requires a name, "Blogger name" will not work unless you're a "Registered" Blogger with Blogspot, use "Other" and please, a real name. If you violate the "Guidelines" in your Comment, it'll go away, I can't selectively edit them, it takes very little to avoid that happening.
Contributors, if something seems complicated, email me, it shouldn't be.
More authors, more comments equals more credibility. Howard Dean, DNC Chair, wants to build this Party from the bottom up, communication is key. We'd like to have the Oregon House, maybe we ought to talk to each other.
in view of some recent controversies and some other not too reasonable existing situations, I'm providing a service to the Party and our elected Democrats. Here's an opportunity to propose, vent, and track opinions within the Democratic Party. This will be exactly as useful as YOU make it. I'll try to keep things relatively polite with a very light moderation hand. Please be patient, I have a real job. I intend to publish your articles, I have little time to be a moderator, much less, an author. Nobody here has more or less standing than anybody else, what will determine how soon or whether or not you get published is going to have everything to do with it being relevant to this site and adherence to the simple policies outlined.
If you've tried to Comment and failed, the Comment requires a name, "Blogger name" will not work unless you're a "Registered" Blogger with Blogspot, use "Other" and please, a real name. If you violate the "Guidelines" in your Comment, it'll go away, I can't selectively edit them, it takes very little to avoid that happening.
Contributors, if something seems complicated, email me, it shouldn't be.
More authors, more comments equals more credibility. Howard Dean, DNC Chair, wants to build this Party from the bottom up, communication is key. We'd like to have the Oregon House, maybe we ought to talk to each other.
VA Democrats Resolution Regarding Wiretapping
Is this something that DPO ought to pursue?
Resolution
of the
Arlington County Democratic Committee
WHEREAS, the People of Virginia and the Arlington County Democratic Committee firmly believe in the Constitutional principles of three co-equal branches of government, and the system of checks and balances by which that equality is preserved; and
WHEREAS, our Founding Fathers, including those great Virginians Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men; and
WHEREAS, any President who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government, and any executive who claims for himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to prevent in the Constitution – an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Branch of our federal government has admitted to secret electronic surveillance of American citizens, and has declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses; and
Although we believe that the threat from terrorism is all too real and that we must be ever-vigilant in protecting our citizens from harm, we reject the idea that we have to break the law or sacrifice our basic principles of government to protect Americans from terrorism, because by doing so we destroy the very way of life that we are fighting to protect; and
WHEREAS, “We the People” are the key to the survival of America's democracy, and as citizens we have a duty and a responsibility to help to preserve and protect our Constitution by speaking out and participating and by holding our elected officials accountable for their own responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, former Vice President Al Gore spoke at the Constitution Hall of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Washington D.C. on Monday, January 16, 2006 to sound an alarm and to call upon his fellow citizens to put aside partisan differences and join with him in demanding that our Constitution be defended and preserved; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Gore outlined five points of action to protect the constitutional liberties and American values that have been placed at serious risk by the unprecedented claims of the current White House Administration to a “truly breathtaking expansion of executive power”;
NOW THEREFORE, on this 1st day of February, 2006, it is hereby resolved that the Arlington County Democratic Committee endorses and supports those Five Points of Action and calls upon our elected senators and representatives to implement these measures in all haste.
The five points are:
- Immediately appoint a special counsel to investigate what many believe are serious violations of law, including the criminal issues raised by warrant-less wiretapping of Americans.
- Immediately establish new whistleblower protections for members of the Executive Branch who report evidence of wrongdoing.
- Both Houses of Congress should hold comprehensive hearings on these matters, including the criminal issues raised by warrant-less wiretapping of Americans.
- The extensive new powers requested by the Executive Branch in its proposal to extend and enlarge the Patriot Act should under no circumstances be granted, unless and until there are adequate and enforceable safeguards to protect the Constitution and the rights of the American people against the kinds of abuses that have so recently been revealed.
- Any telecommunications company that has provided the government with access to private information concerning the communications of Americans without a proper warrant should immediately cease and desist their complicity in this invasion of the privacy of American citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)