James A. Dahlgren - Old Commentaries

	James A. Dahlgren Commentary jdahlgren@justiceandhumanity.com Back to 2006 Commentaries Jim's Picks Links to Some Web Sites That I Recommend
December 19^th To Kill Or Not To Kill I could understand there being differences of opinion concerning the death penalty if our courts were infallible. Some people feel that it is wrong to take a life under any circumstances and that the government of a civilized nation debases itself when it executes an individual. Others, including myself, feel that some crimes are so heinous that their perpetrators deserve to die. I have to admit that there are cases where I feel that the guilty party deserves worse than death and even a slow torture wouldnt fully satisfy my desire for retribution. Unfortunately, our courts arent infallible. Convicts on death row have been proven to be innocent by means of DNA evidence. In most of these cases there has been a real struggle to get the convictions overturned even with incontrovertible exculpatory evidence. We can only guess how many more innocents await execution in cases where there is no DNA evidence. Eyewitness accounts are very convincing in the courtroom, but scientific studies have shown us that they are also very unreliable due to the way our brains react to stressful situations. Judges and jurors cant help bringing their prejudices with them into the courtroom. A high price legal team almost invariably does a better job than a court appointed lawyer. For a myriad of reasons, even if everybody involved in a case does their best in the quest for justice, some innocent people will be convicted. As long as we have the death sentence, some innocent people will be executed. I consider this situation intolerable, and I cant understand how we as a society allow it to continue. Whenever an innocent man or woman is executed, we all have their blood on our hands.
December 11^th An Incident in Hunting Park On the 3^rd of November I was riding my bicycle traveling east through Hunting Park. A woman sitting on a park bench on the south side of the street, approximately 150 feet into the park, spoke to me. I didnt understand what she said, and my first thought was that she was panhandling. I stopped my bicycle ten to twenty feet past her and backed up to hear what she was saying. The woman was an African American female, on the heavy side but not quite what I would call obese, and looked to be about 40 years of age. She had blood on her sweater and one eye was swollen shut. She said that she had been assaulted and asked me for help. I asked her what she wanted me to do. I didnt see any place where she was bleeding and couldnt think of any appropriate first aid. She asked me to get the police. A state police car happened to be passing by traveling west on Hunting Park towards Old York Road. Both of us called out, and the trooper appeared to glance at us, then turned away. He got caught at the traffic light at Old York Road, and I rode my bike over to his car and up to the drivers side door. When he rolled down the window, I explained that the woman on the park bench had been assaulted and was asking for police assistance. The state trooper explained that he had a prisoner in the back and couldnt do anything. He told me I would have to call the Philadelphia Police. I asked him if he could contact them, and he replied in the negative, repeating that I would have to contact the Philadelphia Police. I rode to my parents house to call 911. I gave the information to the 911 operator and was transferred to the rescue department. I repeated the information and returned to the park. I told the woman that I had called 911 and that a response should be imminent. She told me "She took my coat." Implying that her assailant had been female. It was a nice day, and I thought that the sweater she was wearing was more than was needed, so her having a coat as well made me wonder if she might be homeless. In a short time a rescue wagon arrived, and the paramedics began to tend to the womans injuries. I didnt see anything else I could do, so I left and went on to the store where I had been heading before I was interrupted. When I returned from the store about 45 minutes later, the woman and the rescue truck were gone. I could understand the presence of a prisoner precluding the trooper from taking any action himself, but I couldnt help thinking that he would have been able to contact his dispatcher, and have them contact the Philadelphia Police, had he wanted to. I sent an e-mail letter to the editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer describing the incident that evening. I sent a similar e-mail to Governor Rendell, Senator Kitchen, and Representative Thomas on November 6^th. On November 11^th, the Inquirer printed my letter. About two weeks later I received a letter from the acting commander of the local state police barracks. He stated that the letter was in response to my e-mail to the governor and that he had started an investigation immediately after reading my letter in the Inquirer. An internal affairs officer was assigned to the case, and he contacted me a week after I received the letter from the state police. I was informed that the officer involved in the incident had identified himself after the commander launched the investigation. He told me that he didnt understand why the trooper didnt just pick up his mike and request a response from the Philadelphia Police. He said that the trooper faced a possible suspension. A few days later the internal affairs officer came by my house for me to sign a complaint. The internal affairs officer that I spoke to assured me that this troopers response wasnt typical. I still suspect that many other state troopers would have reacted similarly. My intention wasnt to get an individual officer in trouble, but to point out that despite all the talk of need for communication between government agencies in the wake of 9/11, there is still a long way to go. It is gratifying to get a real response for a change. Most of my e-mails to politicians elicit an automatic e-mail response, a form letter, or nothing. I just wish that my complaints about our governments policies got the same attention that this complaint about an individual state trooper received.
Fri, 14 Nov 2003 I write letters to the editor. I send e-mails to President Bush, my representatives in Washington DC and in the state capitol. I vote. I try to be a good citizen. But, in the end, I have a hard time arguing with my friend who considers me a sucker. He considers the writing and voting to be playing along with a charade. The politicians are going to do what's best for themselves personally. This includes serving the powerful interests that fund them. The interests of the common man and woman don't have a chance. I have to agree with him; it is rather discouraging. On the other hand, remaining silent is just conceding the game. There may be no chance of influencing the downward spiral that our society seems to be caught in, but it is certain that there is no chance if we give up. The percentage of eligible voters that actually vote provides a clue as to how many people feel that they can't make a difference. It's hard to push the value of voting when the current President isn't the person that won the election, but if more people had voted Bush wouldn't have had the opportunity to steal the election. We know that the technical capacity exists to make the world a much better place where hunger and war are nothing but distant memories. The world has the capacity to provide health care and medicine to everyone. The forces of greed and self-interest guarantee that we will never see this utopia in our lifetimes. The abolitionists that started the fight against slavery died long before slavery was outlawed. The women that began the movement for the right to vote never saw their objective fulfilled. But, if these visionaries hadn't begun the fight, these injustices would still be confronting us. It is true that outlawing slavery didn't end the practice, but it was a start. While it would be foolish to presume that we can complete the task, it would be negligent not to try. We owe it to our children and to the succeeding generations to continue the fight for justice. If our efforts do no more than to encourage some in the next generation to take the baton and continue the struggle, they will have been worth it.
Mon, 27 Oct 2003 Many in the Senate have been calling for separating the money for rebuilding Iraq from the portion for military activities in the President's request for an additional 87 billion dollars to fund our presence in Iraq. They have passed a bill converting half of the rebuilding money into a loan and which is being reconciled with the house version which gives into the President's request. There is the implication that some would be willing to provide the money needed for the military, but not for the rebuilding. I too, would much rather see the billions of dollars go toward funding our schools, towards rebuilding our infrastructure, towards providing medical care to our citizens. One intuitively objects when we are told that there isn't enough money to provide services for our people, but we should go deeper in debt to provide for Iraqis. But, I wonder how we can lend money to Iraq when they don't have a legitimate government to sign for the loan. What right does the Unoted States have to saddle Iraq with a debt whithout the consent of the Iraqi people? Unfortunately, this is the position we are in after blindly playing follow the leader. President Bush repeatedly told us that Iraq was an imminent threat because of its weapons of mass destruction. He told the American people that he knew Iraq had these weapons and we couldn't afford to wait until they were turned against us. He mentioned 9/11 so frequently in his speeches calling for war with Iraq, that many Americans got the impression that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorism. Bush recently announced that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attack, but he went on to assert that Iraq did have close ties to Al Quieda. Everything I have read indicates that Ossama Bin Laden had contempt for the secular government of Saddam Hussein, and that Saddam in turn, considered the fanaticism of Al Quaida a threat. Now that Saddam is out of power and close to 150,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq, fanatics are going to Iraq and joining with Saddam supporters and other disgruntled Iraqis to drive the invaders from Arab land. We have driven these otherwise antagonistic groups together. I wish that we could just pull out immediately, but that would probably lead to a civil war that could destabilize the whole region even worse than it is. Every day that we have soldiers on Iraqi soil without improving the conditions there, more Iraqis will turn against us. If we don't fund reconstruction, the troops will have to remain there longer, and the ultimate cost will be even greater. Many Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam, but they miss the security that he provided. I've heard some American servicemen quoted calling the Iraqis ungrateful, saying that it's worth giving up some security for "freedom". We should remember that the majority of American's said they were willing to give up some freedom to get better security after 9/11. Many Iraqis are distrustful of our motives and believe we are only there because of the oil. If they know about President Bush's close ties to the energy industry, this has to reinforce their suspicion. The fact that we announced that we were coming as liberators, not as conquerors, had to be less than reassuring. Our main ally, Great Britain, had announced the same thing when they displaced the Ottoman Empire in Iraq. Great Britain proceeded to occupy Iraq as a colony for over twenty years, helping themselves to Iraqi oil. Our best bet to extricate ourselves from this unseemly position would be to give as much control to the United Nations as they are willing to take. As long as we insist on maintaining control of Iraqi oil, it will look like that is why we're there. Many more nations would be willing to help provide security and work towards rebuilding if it were a UN sanctioned enterprise. It's easy to understand the reluctance that many have to get involved when it looks like the war was for the benefit of Bechtel, Haliburton and other firms with connections to the Bush administration.
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 I was pleased to see that the Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision to prevent the federal government from prosecuting doctors that tell patients about potential benefits from medical marijuana. The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventative Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the New England Journal of Medicine, have all endorsed supervised access to medical marijuana. Even If you feel that any recreational drug use is immoral, I don't see how you can object to using a drug to alleviate the misery of the sick and dying. Preventing people from having access to a medicine that can mitigate their suffering is tantamount to torturing them and is morally reprehensible. If we can't afford national health care, we shouldn't be able to afford to spend money to interfere with a patient's treatment. It is time for the federal government to stop interfering with states that have legalized marijuana for medical use and to provide federal legislation to make it unnecessary for individual states to pass their own medical marijuana laws.
Wed, 15 Oct 2003 Four Republican Senators have just returned from a fact finding trip to Iraq and reported that things are going much better than the news reports indicate. Meanwhile, four senators from the Democratic Party have been prevented from making their own fact finding trip to Iraq, with the administration and pentagon officials citing the difficulties that such a trip entails. I fail to see how the difficulties differ between Democrats and Republicans. I can't help thinking that the administration believes that the Democrats would come back with a different conclusion than their Republican counterparts and wants the Republicans to be the only ones that can say "I've been there and seen it myself". A democracy depends on a well-informed citizenry, and the Bush administration seems to be determined to interfere with that goal.
Mon, 06 Oct 2003 It is disgraceful that there are people in the United States that are suffering because they can't afford the medicine that would alleviate their misery. What is even worse, is that there are people suffering because the federal government is spending money to prevent them from getting the medicine that they need. The AIDS Action Council, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Nurses Association, the American Preventative Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, and the New England Journal of Medicine, have all endorsed supervised access to medical marijuana. There are 10 states that have responded by approving medicinal use of marijuana under a doctor's supervision. Despite supposedly supporting states rights, President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have directed the justice department to target those who use or dispense marijuana for medical purposes in the states that have legalized it. For some AIDS and cancer patients, marijuana is the only thing that alleviates the nausea caused by the other medicines that they have to take. Without it, some of them are unable to keep the life preserving medicines down. It is unconscionable to prosecute sick people, and those assisting them, for trying to fight their illness.
Wed, 01 Oct 2003 A panel chosen by the Bush administration reported that the U.S. must counteract its image in the Muslim world. They state that people are ignorant or misinformed. Will knowing the facts make people like us? We preach democracy, but we financed and organized the overthrow of a democratic government in Iran. We continue to support Israel while it is driving Palestinians from their homes. We supported Saddam Hussein when he attacked his neighbor Iran, even after he used chemical weapons against them. We continued our support when he used those chemical weapons against the Kurds in his own country. Months before invading Iraq, contracts were given out for getting oil production running again, while there was little preparation for providing security for the Iraqi people. If we want to change the way we are perceived, we need to change the substance of our actions. Words won't do it.
Sat, 27 Sep 2003 I've been hearing complaints about whining reservists. The reservists signed up to be available to respond to threats to our country. During the Vietnam War, Bush didn't report for his flight physicals and missed so many National Guard meetings that he was assigned to a disciplinary unit for those who had failed to complete obligations in a satisfactory manner. Now he has disrupted the lives of thousands of reservists and National Guard members to respond to a threat that didn't exist. The weapons of mass destruction that he assured us were the reason we needed to go to war are nowhere to be found. He implied a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, but has recently announced that there is no evidence to support that. He continues to insist that Iraq was linked to Al Quaida, even though the evidence indicates that they were antagonistic towards each other. Bechtel, Haliburton and other giant corporations with connections to the administration have billions of dollars in government contracts. Servicemen have their combat pay and family separation allowances cut. The reservists have good reason to gripe.
Fri, 26 Sep 2003 Surprise, surprise! Census numbers show an increase in poverty in the U.S. for the second year in a row. President Regan's trickle down economics with record military expenditures and national debt coincided with massive unemployment and increases in the number of impoverished Americans. Now that President Bush has resurrected Regan's economic policy of giving breaks to the wealthy and massive military expenditures on questionable items like the Strategic Defense Initiative, we are seeing similar results. Is it possible that there's something to be learned from this?
Fri, 26 Sep 2003 Many families of military personnel seem to feel that not supporting President Bush is like not supporting the troops. Supporting troops that are sent into harms way in our name is our obligation. Supporting a hypocritical President that sent them there isn't. President Bush joined the National Guard when his student deferment ran out after graduating college. Maybe he wasn't trying to avoid Vietnam and patriotically believed that he could serve his country better stateside. While many in his age group were dying overseas, Bush didn't even attend the National Guard meetings that he signed up for. Bush and his supporters claim that the fact that there aren't any records of him attending meetings for over a year doesn't prove that he didn't attend any meetings in that period. What there is proof of, is that he was transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to Obligated Reserve Service duty in Denver, a unit for those who had failed to complete obligations in a satisfactory manner. It is only speculation that he was afraid to take a drug test. It is a fact that he was removed from flight duty because he wouldn't show up for a flight physical. There is something wrong with a man that took his military obligation so lightly asking others to make the ultimate sacrifice. He continues to show his attitude towards those in uniform by cutting combat pay from $225 to $150 a month, dropping the family separation allowance from $250 to $100 a month, and canceling a plan to pay families of war dead $12,000 instead of $6,000.
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 One of the major obstacles facing the United States in Iraq is the impression that many Iraqis have that we invaded because we want control of their oil. The fact that President Bush and many members of his administration are closely connected to the oil industry just adds to this misconception. Quite a few people correctly pointed out before the invasion that any oil that the U.S. would get out of Iraq would be worth far less than what a war would cost us financially. This doesn't even take the cost of American lives into account, not to mention the social cost of having so many reservists and national guard members lives totally disrupted. Some cynics might think that because companies like Bechtel and Haliburton, that are profiting handsomely from the war, have close ties to the administration, and because the rush to go to war began during the last election campaign and distracted voters from domestic problems, that President Bush may have initiated the war for reasons other than what he stated. This would be questioning his integrity and character. Besides his going AWOL for a year while he was in the National Guard avoiding service in Vietnam, his drunk driving conviction, and his apparent insider trading which the head of the S.E.C., who was appointed by his father, decided not to investigate, we have no reason to question his integrity. Certainly, he would never do something against the best interests of the nation just to benefit the special interests to which he is beholden. I'm sure that it's only a coincidence that the oil ministry was the only one secured when our troops first occupied Baghdad, leaving other government buildings, power stations, museums, and hospitals to be looted. Still, one can see how people from other countries, particularly Iraq, might question President Bush's motives. The surest way to overcome these doubters would be to give the United Nations the authority which it wants. By ceding control we would prove that control of Iraq's resources wasn't our motivation. By giving up control of the reconstruction we would prove that we didn't go to war as a means of giving Bechtel the big payday in Iraq that it's been pursing since the early eighties when Donald Rumsfeld met with Saddam Hussein to try to get a major pipeline contract for the company. At the same time we would eliminate the objection that so many countries have to sending troops to help with the peacekeeping and money to help with the reconstruction. With one simple step we can immeasurably gain the confidence of the Iraqis and get the help we are requesting from the international community. We have accomplished the goals of removing the tyrant Hussein, and preventing his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists. All that is left is the establishment of a functioning democracy, which will be accomplished much easier with a truly international presence and with increased trust of the Iraqi people. There is no reason not to give the United Nations the authority it is requesting, unless of course President Bush does have ulterior motives. But, we Americans know that couldn't be the case.
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 The United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling on Israel not to "remove" Yasir Arafat saying that the resolution should include condemnation of Palestinian terrorists. It then voted against a resolution passed in the U.N. General Assembly, which did include the condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings. In a speech from Camp David, President Bush puts all the blame for the stalled Mideast peace plan on Arafat's shoulders. Israel's unwillingness to accept key elements of the peace plan go unmentioned by Bush. It is no wonder that King Abdullah of Jordan looks so distressed in the photograph accompanying the New York Times article. As long as the United States maintains a biased attitude concerning Israel and the Palestinians, we are going to distress our allies, buttress our enemies, and prevent the foundation of any lasting peace in the region.
Fri, 19 Sep 2003 The House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 2754 Energy and Water Development Appropriations act for fiscal year 2004. It includes 6.1 billion dollars for nuclear weapons programs. The Senate Committee on Appropriations approved 6.5 billion dollars for nuclear weapons programs in its version of the bill, S. 1050. Part of the difference is for research on new low yield weapons. It is bad enough that the United States is spending billions to maintain a nuclear arsenal while we are trying to convince other nations not to seek nuclear weapons themselves. We have refused to pledge not to use nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity. The idea of low yield nuclear weapons is that their use would be more "acceptable", so we would be even more likely to use them. The United States likes to see itself as a world leader, but a good leader leads by example, not by saying, "do as I say, not as I do". We need to send a signal to the world by greatly reducing our stock of nuclear weapons, not by doing research for potential new ones.
Thu 18 Sep 2003 It says something about how one sided our policy concerning Israel and Palestine has been when Howard Dean gets attacked for suggesting we adopt an even-handed policy. I guess that for years I've been laboring under a false impression that being even-handed was something good. At least we can't fault President George Bush. By having the U.S. veto a U.N. resolution calling on Israel not to "remove" Arafat, and by consistently referring to Arafat as an obstacle to peace while barely mentioning Sharon's refusal to accept many key elements of his own road map, Bush proves the he doesn't exhibit the character flaw of even-handedness.
Thu 18 Sep 2003 I am deeply disappointed by the United States veto of a United Nations resolution calling on Israel to withdraw its threat to "remove" Yasir Arafat. This veto sends the wrong signal, not only to Israel, but to all the Muslims of the world that see the United States as having anti Islamic bias. The administration spokesmen claim that the U.N. resolution is one sided and should include a condemnation of Palestinian violence. They would have a much better point, if they themselves didn't issue so many one sided statements calling for disarming Palestinians without mentioning Israel's harsh repressive actions. If there is to be any hope for peace in the region, the United States must stop appearing to harbor such a strong bias. We are only giving our enemies more ammunition to use against us.
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 Secretary of State Colin Powel's visit to Iraq and his presence at the Kurdish memorial museum points to more than our inability to find WMDs. One month after the Secretary of State, former Bechtel president George Shultz, was informed of Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, Donald Rumsfeld was sent as a special envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein to lobby for a pipeline deal for Bechtel. That deal never materialized, but in 1988, the year of the Halabja atrocity, Bechtel did get a contract to build a huge chemical plant. That project was interrupted by the invasion of Kuwait. Now that Rumsfeld is Secretary of Defense, and Shultz is on the Bechtel board, we invade Iraq, and Bechtel is awarded a huge reconstruction contract. It sure looks like we're more concerned with Bechtel's well being than we are with the welfare of the victims of chemical weapons.
Sat, 13 Sep 2003 I'm getting pretty tired of hearing Republicans whine about the Democratic filibuster to block the appointment of a federal judge. They like to imply that using procedural tactics to prevent a vote impinges on the president's right to appoint judges and goes way beyond the senate's mandate to advise and consent. The Republicans held up over sixty of Clinton's nominations in committee, preventing them from ever getting to the floor for a vote. What makes it right for Republicans to use procedure to block a judicial nomination, and wrong for Democrats to do something equivalent?
Fri, 12 Sep 2003 Israel has once more shown that they don't want a just peace but are instead intent on complete subjugation of the Palestinian people. Their intention to expel Yasir Arafat from the occupied territories demonstrates their contempt for Palestinians in particular and for democratic ideals in general. As the popular elected leader, Arafat's place is with his people. Israel has been intent on destroying the secular movement to free the Palestinian people, which will leave nothing but the Islamic fundamentalist resistance. It is much easier to portray the Islamists as fanatical terrorists. Sharon claims that Arafat is linked to violent acts and is an obstacle to peace while he himself is clearly linked to the violence perpetuated by Israel and is more of an obstacle to peace than Arafat could ever be. The United States has "voiced objections" to this latest move by Israel. It is time to do more than voice objections. The time has come to cut off aid to Israel, to stop vetoing U.N. resolutions regarding Israel, and to publicly declare Israel to be the rogue nation that it has shown itself to be.
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 Rabbi Michael Lerner is right on target with his commentary in the September 11th Inquirer. United States and Europe owed the Jewish people a great debt after WWII for the injustices of many years, but new injustices against the Palestinian people was a poor solution. The original U.N. mandate, which divided Palestine, was an injustice; it would have been more appropriate to take a chunk of Germany for a Jewish state. Israel wasn't satisfied and grabbed way more land than the U.N. mandate called for. There is a limit to how much you can try to turn back the clock, but calling for a return to the pre 1967 boarders is the minimum that has any semblance of fairness. President Bush stated that he was troubled by the fence that Israel was erecting which in effect was establishing a new boarder confining the Palestinians into unsustainable pockets. After talking to Sharon, he dropped the matter and went back to the rhetoric of condemning Palestinians. The Palestinian people are placed in a position where there is no hope for justice in this world. It should not be surprising that some of them choose to seek revenge and the promise of reward in the afterlife. If there is to be any hope for peace, the United States will have to apply serious pressure on Israel to abandon its expansionist policy. As long as we support Israel vocally and financially regardless of what it does we are part of the problem, and there will be no peace.
Thu, 11 Sep 2003 On this September 11th we can't help but to remember the events that unfolded horrifically before our eyes two years ago. We all mourn the senseless and tragic loss of life as so many were sacrificed in New York City. September 11th has special meaning for everyone in the United States. But, while we remember the victims of September 11th two years ago, let us not forget the victims of that infamous September 11th thirty years ago when the democratic government of Chile was overthrown, and the elected leader Salvador Allende lost his life. He was replaced by the notorious Pinochet dictatorship. The United States supported this overthrow of democracy and the imposition of harsh military rule that ultimately cost as many lives as were lost in New York, The Pentagon, and Pennsylvania two years ago. This doesn't count the thousands of additional people who were tortured and exiled. There is no direct connection between these two horrendous examples of mans capacity for inhumanity, but science teaches us that every action has a reaction. It is easy to see the reaction in mechanics when, for example, a golf ball is struck and it then flies through the air. In sociology the relationships are more complex, but the laws of science remain unbroken and still demand a reaction for every action. The complicity in the Chilean coup is just one instance of the "democracy loving" United States helping to destroy democracy abroad. The coup that the U.S. organized to destroy a democratic regime in Iran in 1953 was a forerunner of the Chilean coup, and may well be the first link in the chain of events that led to our own September 11th tragedy. After that tragic day two years ago, I kept hearing pundits say that everything had changed, that we had lost our innocence, that we could never feel secure again. Living in North Philadelphia, I didn't feel any less secure the day after, than I had the day before. I didn't feel that I had any innocence to lose. But suspected that everything had changed, and alas I was right. September 11th marked a genuine turning point. While we mourn the September 11th victims in New York, Arlington, Pennsylvania, and Chile, let us also mourn what may be the greatest victim of all, our nation and our way of life. President Bush has been using September 11th as the excuse to dismantle the Bill of rights, environmental protection, and every piece of progressive legislation that helps the public in general. At the same time as he's been saying there's no money for social programs, he's been strengthening the military/industrial/congressional complex and shoveling money to the wealthy and his rich cronies. While we pray for all those innocent souls that lost their lives in September 11th's of the past, let us also pray that it isn't too late wrest control of our government from this pack of leeches that seem to be intent on overthrowing the democracy here in the United States much as their predecessors did on foreign soil.

Contact Us!