By Timothy Evans
Chief Political Commentator
MarkBlum Report.com

12/08/05

The Democratic Strategy Part II: Political Morality

When our forefathers drafted the Constitution of the United States of America, they took many lessons of history into consideration. It was the end of a bitter revolutionary war where these new American Patriots had fought to free themselves from the English Monarchy, taxation without representation and the oppression and corruption of the Church of England and its influence upon the ruling Monarchy. They started the Constitution with the most powerful and influential words in our nation’s history, "We the People". The major factors taken into consideration when drafting the document was accountability to the people for the actions of their governing authority, checks and balances with the different governing authorities and freedom from outside influences for the governing authorities by any groups or organizations except the people of America themselves. After suffering from the immorality of the rule they fought to free themselves from, a new view of morality became prevalent when beginning the new era of what would become the most powerful nation in the World.

The Will Of The People

After the elections of 2004, many religious and political group representatives from the Right made the comment concerning many various topics that "it is the will of the people" when it came to the support of Conservative and Neo-Conservative agendas. It began to appear that voter supremacy would dictate what social, foreign and economic policies would be implemented because it is "the will of the people" according to the results of the elections of 2004. When it comes to the electoral process of this country, the majority wins. Both candidates put forward their agendas and policies and the people of the country vote for the best candidate and policies that make the most sense for the country as a whole. Their claims of "the will of the people" are to a certain degree, valid but history has taught us that this may not necessarily be the case. In the 2000 elections, Presidential candidate Al Gore won the popular vote but the electoral vote (with the Supreme Court’s ruling) handed the Presidential victory to George W. Bush. With the concept of "one man, one vote", the will of the people spoke clearly but in a rare occurrence, the will of the people was over-ruled. It was the will of the people to have legalized slavery, segregation of blacks and Jim Crow laws, discrimination against women, women and minorities denied right to vote and lawless and uncontrolled immigration. So why is it now that we have slavery being illegal, equal rights and treatments of blacks, anti-discrimination laws, women and minorities legal right to vote and a better controlled immigration system in place? Quite simply, it was the will of the people.

This country has had many polarizing topics where both sides have taken the "will of the people" opinion or view of the subjects at hand. Some topics and the will of the supporters of either side has even led to a civil war that was our nation’s most deadliest of wars with over 300,000 troop casualties. This war was definitely the will of two very different people in our nation where the polarizing issues were taken to the very extremes of support with one side eventually claiming victory in a war that our country as a whole, lost. So have there been any differences with polarizing views of Americans since the Civil War of the late 19th Century? Well as whole, the country still has different views of the wills of different people but we refrain from going to war with each other over them. So what are the wills of these two very different groups of people and how do they shape the political structure of our country.

It’s Blue vs. Red

The will of the people can be narrowed down to Republican vs. Democrat and/or Liberal vs. Conservative but when it comes to economical, sociological, and foreign policies, the division is more demographic than it is party or agenda affiliation. The will of the people in the red states differ quite substantially then the will of the people of the blue states. These two groups and what they have to offer our nation’s economy differentiate the capitalist society as a whole. The red states rely heavily on traditional sources of industry such as low-wage non-durable goods manufacturing, agriculture, horticulture, mining and drilling. The blue states rely heavily on more modern sources of industry such as technology, higher education, higher wage durable goods manufacturing and tourism. Then there are moderate states that have the best of both such as blue states like New York and Pennsylvania that have heavy mining, agriculture and horticulture industries and red states like Texas and Florida that have good technology, manufacturing and tourism industries. The views of morality and faith follow along the same rails as the reliance on their demographic capitalism with red states being much more traditional while blue states being much more modern.

In a predominantly Catholic and Protestant nation, the views of morality in both the red states and blue states are truly represented on the opposite end of the spectrums of faith with the Baptists and Evangelicals being the most dominating and despotic presence within our governing structure. The blue states have a more modern and liberal view of faith and morality while the red states take a very traditional and somewhat draconian view of morality and faith. The strongest red states of this traditional view of faith are historically been referred to as the Bible Belt. The significance of these views can best be exemplified in the way in which these states raise and empower their children. The Bible belt states traditionally have the worst ranking education systems in our country as a whole and are generally lacking or lagging when it comes to higher education where as most blue states’ education systems and higher education are quite the opposite. Currently there is a debate in red states like Kansas to offer Intelligent Design vs. Evolution as part of the curriculum in their education system. These are the same education systems that are seriously lacking in the basic fundamentals of math, reading, writing and common sense empowerment. The students of these schools and the teachers are strongly encouraged and almost extorted to view faith, God and Jesus as being more prevalent than a self sense of accomplishment and a higher sense of respect and achievement. This debilitating form of extortion comes heavily from parents, churches and the political officials that these churches and parents lobby and vote for.

A case study in point, the State of Alabama and a recent tax-hike proposal that was brought before the citizens for approval in September of 2003. Republican Governor, Bob Riley had put forth for consideration a $1.2 billion tax increase for the state of Alabama. The purposes of this tax hike was to provide relief to the state’s massive deficit, ease the tax burdens on the elderly and the poor of the state but most importantly, provide a much-needed injection of funds to the state’s truly poor and one of our nation’s worst education systems. The state of Alabama has one of the most regressive tax systems in America and this tax increase would’ve been a strong turning point for the state to become more progressive. These were modest changes that were part of the proposal but desperately needed changes none the less especially to the education system by providing an increase of teachers and salaries cutting down on classroom over-crowding, providing modern and up to date textbooks, teacher and student supplies and an education systems ability to compete within our nation’s education system as a whole. This tax increase would also add stability to the state’s deficit and provide necessary assistance to the elderly with healthcare and prescription benefits.

On September 9th, 2003, the voters of the state of Alabama overwhelmingly defeated the proposed tax increase sending a wave of shock and disbelief across the Republican leadership for the state including the Republican Governor, Bob Riley. This alarming vote created education cuts of $268 million for much needed textbooks and supplies and increased the class sizes in the state of Alabama by as much a 50%. This created an enormous strain a detriment on an education system that was already considered our nations worst. This also cancelled nursing home care for many of the elderly, dropped the ceiling on the state’s Medicaid benefits for home health care, threatened the state’s prescription drug program and created a serious increase in the cost of healthcare insurance for state workers including teachers. Special interest groups like Tax Accountability Coalition, various small businesses, banks, farmers but most importantly the Alabama Christian Coalition lobbied the against the proposed tax increase. The same people and organizations that lobbied for Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore to defy an order to remove a granite statue of the Ten Commandments from in front of the court house in August of 2003, less than one month prior to the tax increase vote. These individuals in the state of Alabama turned their backs on and "sold out" the futures of their own children as well as the security and stability of their Mothers and Fathers because of a carved piece of stone sitting in front of a court house with ten rules carved onto it that most of them fail to even follow. And how did Republican Governor Bob Riley handle this massive defeat of his tax proposal, he hung a plaque of the Ten Commandments in the Exhibit Room at the State Capital Building just ten days after the granite statue was removed from in front of Roy Moore’s Court House. He may have lost the tax vote and the futures of his state’s children but he certainly had no intention of losing his base.

This is what differentiates the Blue from the Red. The parents, politicians and religious leaders of the Red states will teach their teenage boys that it is a "right of passage" to join the military (even better if the nation is at war), pursue a trade that requires very little education that will lead to low-wage work and lead a very simple life. The parents, politicians and religious leaders of the Red states will strongly encourage their daughters to prostitute themselves through marriage to the first boy that gives them the time of day, get themselves pregnant and find a meaningless job usually before they are old enough to legally have their first alcoholic drink. This social and moral irresponsibility on behalf of these parents, politicians and religious leaders has created an entire work force for Wal-Mart, created an enormous reliance on Blue State funded welfare subsidies and have made millionaires out of people like Jerry Springer. The parents, politicians and religious leaders of the Blue states are quite the opposite. They encourage both their sons and daughters to pursue higher education. This is why the Blue states have some of the best universities in the country. They encourage their sons AND daughters to pursue an education and to develop to provide for themselves the best security and stability and NOT to rely on subsidies or public assistance. The sons and daughters of the Blue states are taught that morality is a forever-evolving process and that life must be lived in order to develop the best character for themselves in developing their own identity as well as being the best role models for their own children.

So how can the Democrats "win" the hearts, minds and votes of the people from the Red states? The more appropriate question to ask is why would the Democrats waste campaign time and dollars on them and are their votes worth it? In Part III, why the Democrats can no longer be the party of the nation and the new beginning.

Timothy E. Evans


-----------------------------------------------

12/03/05

The Democratic Strategy Part I: Terms In Review


As we are about to begin the 2006 midterm election year, it is time to take stock of what should and can be expected for vital elections for this year. With the poll numbers reflecting a poor opinion of the GOP and the current White House administration, 2006 looks to be a bleak year for Republicans. 63% of America disapprove of George W. Bush and 81% disapprove of his 2000 and 2004 running mate and Vice President, Dick Cheney. A large percentage of America disapprove of the War in Iraq, the current status of our economy and the record high deficit, cronyism and the horrible responses to national disasters, indictments and corruption investigations and the basic moral bankruptcy of our country and it’s current leadership. There is a division of the Republican Party where Moderate Republicans and Libertarian Republicans are now questioning and speaking out against this current leadership and it’s staunch supporters. A division bell has rung between traditional Conservatives and the Neo-Conservatives. If one who embraces the Democratic or Independent agendas would choose to read the political "tea leaves" so to speak, it would appear that the tide may be turning, correct? Not without a vision.

The Democrats begin the 2006 election year with a stronger standing than the Republicans. $16 million dollars in the war chest and 43 strong candidates to challenge seats in the House and Senate. The Republicans have less than half of that figure in their war chest and are desperate to find candidates to hang onto seats they already have let alone take new seats. Republican Senator Rick Santorum is proof of this with his election numbers already trailing without having a Democrat challenger even chosen yet. It may take a family to raise children but it takes the state to raise votes, especially woman voters. Tom DeLay is another example in his district in Texas. He barely won his last election with 55% of the votes and that was before 3 Ethics Committee admonishments and a money laundering indictment. The GOP will be forced to run another candidate in Texas whether DeLay is acquitted or not. Senator Bill Nelson in Florida will be challenged by none other than Kathrine Harris from the infamous 2000 election debacle. The Republicans blamed her because of her irresponsibility while the Democrats blamed her because of scandalous behavior. Either way, she more than likely will not win. The GOP has desperately tried to get former Republican Congressman and MSNBC on air personality, Joe Scarborough to challenge Bill Nelson and has been unsuccessful in their attempts. It really does look bleak for the GOP and 2006 will be a foretelling for the Presidential election of 2008, not to mention loss of control for the House and the Senate.

Three Strikes...

President George W. Bush and his current administration made vital mistakes in his first and second terms by outsourcing important policy decisions. He allowed big business and corporations to dictate economic policies which created the outsourcing of jobs to other countries, corporate welfare programs that create unemployment and record high healthcare costs and the posting of record high quarterly earnings of large conglomerates that the consumers pay for out of their bottom line. Your average Bush supporter praises the President for his tax cuts that may allow them to earn a $1500 tax return check this year without realizing or completely ignoring the fact that they just paid over twice that amount in heating fuel and gasoline costs for the Winter. A citizen from a Red State may praise this current administration for their outstanding economic policy in providing subsidies for the principal commerce that exists in these states such as low-grade non-durable goods, agriculture and extraction industries while the Blue States are taxed at over twice per capita that provides the principal funding for these subsidies. Then these Red States turn around and "bite the hand that feeds them" by allowing a principal extraction industry in their states to post record high profits in oil production and distribution while conducting business with one of the worst terrorist sponsoring nations in the World, Saudi Arabia .

The second strike and one that Democrats as well as Moderate and Libertarian Republicans can agree on is the outsourcing of foreign policy to the Neo-Conservatives. The proud producers and defenders of an inept War on Terror, torture and prisoner abuse, the Patriot Act and the systematic stripping of civil liberties and of course, the War in Iraq. The ones who have alienated the USA from most of our strongest allies. The ones who have created the highest anti-American sentiment the World has ever seen. In the few months after 9/11, the President had a 96% approval rating. Liberals, Conservatives and all those in between supported this President and administration in bringing to justice those responsible for such a vile act. Bush had the entire World in the palm of his hands. A more Liberal country like Japan was willing to re-write their Constitution for the sole purpose of supporting our country and our anti-terrorist efforts. Neutral countries like Switzerland, Australia and The Netherlands region pledged support, troops and policies for the support of our nation. "You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists!" 96% of our country was with the President. The American Eagle was proud, well-fed and primed for vengeance with it’s talons well groomed and sharpened with the state of the art weaponry goliaths likes of The Carlyle Group, The United Defense Corp., Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The war machine was powered up and ready with Americans yearning to see terrorist blood spilled in high-definition color on their flat-screen, plasma TVs.

So what happened? The War in Iraq. The operation that the Neo-Conservatives wanted whether 9/11 happened or not. The war started based upon lies. There were no WMDs, no ties to the Al Qaeda, nothing to do with 9/11, no Iraqis on board those planes that morning and no Iraqis involved with any act of terrorism committed against us or our allies in the past 100 years. In the post Desert Storm Iraq, Saddam Hussein ruled by the power of suggestion and in the end, Iraq was a country that had no ability to defend itself. We were bullies that came in to take these people’s lunch money. After over 2000 American troop casualties, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, a Presidential photo op with a Mission Accomplished banner on the deck of the USS Lincoln, a drafted Constitution and two elections, these people still aren’t giving up their lunch money.

As the debate wages for whether or not to keep troops there to "stay the course" here in America, the tide of public opinion in Iraq is also turning. A recent poll of Iraqis shows that 76% of the civilians view our troops as occupiers and not liberators. The well-defined difference between democracy and oppression. Those from the Left and the Right have been labeled un-patriotic, anti-American and unsupportive of our troops if anybody dared to speak out against the War in Iraq or lobbied to bring our soldiers back home. The Neo-Conservative movement has even gone so far as to refer to a decorated Vietnam War Veteran, a United States Marine as a "coward" for lobbying to pull the troops out and send them home from Iraq. A "coward" from the likes of Republican Representative, Jean Schmidt from Ohio. Democrat Representative John Murtha gave a blazing speech for the withdrawal of troops and was met with fierce Neo-Conservative character assassination that is typical of the last 10 years of politics from the Right. How do you support your men and women in uniform by calling a decorated war veteran a coward?

The tide of sentiment in Iraq has pretty much taken the same turn for the worse. Various leaders of the interim government in Iraq have met with and negotiated an "understanding" with Tehran and the leaders of Iran. The current Prime Minister, Allawi has been quite outspoken against the American Neo-Conservative agenda in stating that a Coalition troop withdrawal timetable should be established with the end of 2006 as the final resolution deadline. He has been quite critical about the torture and abuse at prisons not only by Coalition troops but also the new Iraqi forces and their complacency. Allawi has also stated that militias that exist within the military and the law enforcement forces of the new Iraq have carried out crimes against humanity just as bad if not worse than Saddam Hussein’s secret police. Instead of trumpeting the battle cry of "stay the course", the President’s time might better be served in evaluating how and why the Neo-Conservatives have delivered our country into a poorly planned and even more poorly executed war and his role in allowing this to happen.

The third and final outsourcing strike against this President and his administration is allowing the traditional Christian fundamentalist right to dictate domestic, social and judicial policy for our country. His determination to cater to his "base". From Terri Schiavo to the intelligent design theory vs. evolution and all moral discussions in between with Roe vs. Wade being the crown jewel of victory up for grabs. The Christian Radical Right has declared a war against the Judicial Branch of our government with outcries like "Supremacists" and "Out of control judicial system" if a Justice dares to rule against a perceived view of morality for upholding the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. With media, attorneys and morally corrupted politicians, these extremists have been able to completely bleed the lines of the Separation of Church and State and have been on a strong campaign to free citizens of our nation of democratic liberties and enforce their own distorted versions of morality, law and faith. If certain leaders and organizations stand up against this oppressive campaign and defend the Constitution, the Christian Fundamentalists "borrow" a page from the Neo-Conservative play-book and comfortably resort to playing victim while carrying out character assassinations and demonizing their opponents with blatant lies and disinformation.

In the past six years, it has become obvious that the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and the American Center for Law & Justice’s Jay Sekulow have been a strong and forceful influence on American legal, social and political programs and policies. This has had a strong polarizing effect on our nation as a whole and has laid division lines not only between Religions but also between views of the courts, civil liberties and the Constitution. After November 2nd, 2004, the polls suggested that the re-election of President Bush and other Republicans was based on faith and values. The suggestion of these poll results have given the Christian Right and their congregations an urgency of power to influence domestic decisions based solely on a view or interpretation of the New and Old Testament. This radical Christian Right agenda has lead to moments of insanity from labeling a brain-dead woman "handicapped" to Jerry Falwell and legal representatives from various fundamentalist Christian groups filing lawsuits against businesses and organizations that use the salutation "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". These Christian Extremists have taken a strong and undeniable anti-Semitic stance against the Jewish celebration of Hanukah and an even stronger racially bigoted stance against the African-American celebration of Kwanzaa by enforcing the "White Christmas" holiday on all citizens of our nation. The white robes, hoods and swastikas have been traded in for lawyers, politicians and Justice Sundays I & II.

Requiem For A Future

Our country finds itself in a crossroads of a serious nature. Some from the far Left view this as the worst of times while some from the far Right view it as the "end of days". What we all must remember is that we have seen worse times such as the Civil War, the great depression, Vietnam and so forth. Labeling these days with extreme emotions and views leads to extreme decisions that can and more than likely will lead to worse times. The winds of change definitely need to start blowing but cannot effectively do so without the opposition whether it be Democrats, Moderate Republicans and/or Independents, get themselves a solid understanding of having a vision. The vision we have been given in both the first and second terms of our current leadership has made a bleak outlook for our nation. The Republicans and their corrupt use of power and the Democrats and their weakness and lack of direction have made many Americans feel disenchanted with the view of their nation and our future. In Part II, the discussion of morality in social, foreign and economic policies and how it plays out in politics.

Timothy E. Evans


--------------------------------------------

10/24/05

The Reckoning America!

This upcoming week, federal indictments are expected to be handed down from the Grand Jury investigating the leak of the identity of CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald has assembled all the facts and the testimony and the doom appears to be inevitable for the White House and this current administration. This has been the headlines, bylines and water cooler subjects for the past two weeks and will continue well into 2006. All the players have been played and are in place for their cues from Robert Novak who leaked the identity originally to Joseph Wilson who was the reason why. With baited breath and anxious anticipation, the entire World waits and wonders what will come from this investigation and who will fall before the “Scales of Justice”.

The cast of characters are a sordid and intriguing bunch straight out of a Robert Redford/Dustin Hoffman movie. Joseph Wilson; the man who told the truth. Valerie Plame; the CIA operative who paid the price because of it. Robert Novak; the man who revealed the identity. Judith Miller; the jailed reporter with a book deal. Matt Cooper; the man who exposed the lies. I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby; the right hand man. Karl Rove; Bush’s brain. Richard “Dick” Cheney; the man who stood against the CIA. President Bush; the man who has no choice but to stay the course. Then there is the “mystery man” who may very well have flipped on this administration and told the truths nobody wanted to be known. Then there is the cast of supporting characters; Colin Powell, Mary Matalin, Dan Bartlett, Andy Card, Scott McClellan, Ari Fleischer, Karen Hughes and many, many more. Coming soon to a theater near you, All The President’s Men II.

But she wasn’t covert!

In the later part of the 1990's, Valerie Plame was sent to Niger to set up an operation to monitor weapons of mass destruction. Niger was a popular spot to secure uranium “yellow” cake which is a vital ingredient in manufacturing nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. This operation she set up was an energy consortium which was a front for the CIA to prevent uranium cake from getting into the hands of terrorists or terrorist sponsoring nations. This was an effective and vital operation in protecting our nation and our nation’s allies from hostile terrorist actions that would make 9/11 look like a car accident. Miss Plame set up the front, introduced all the human assets and set the operation in full motion. Although she returned to America, she was still a vital part of this operation and her identity was to be kept clandestine due to the assets in play in Niger and their ties to her. At one point, a State Department memo was seen being circulated on Air Force 1 concerning Valerie Plame and her classification as an agent. This memo was seen in the hands of former White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer and former Secretary of Defense, Colin Powell. Her classification was TS/F, Top Secret Foreign. That indication means that her identity was not only classified as clandestine in the United States but also foreign countries as well. You really can’t be much more covert then that.

And what about the CIA operation in Niger? If somebody was seen so much as having a donut with Valerie Plame, they were now considered CIA. All the human assets that were introduced by Plame and working for this consortium were now exposed as well. The operation was a complete bust. Currently, uranium yellow cake could be in the hands of terrorists or terrorist sponsoring nations and we would have no idea. A part of the War on Terror and our nation’s security has been compromised by the same administration who marketed and sold the fear of terror to the American people to the point of sacrificing our civil liberties for our national security. Would you sacrifice those brave individuals who fight the war on terror and if so, why?

Hell Hath No Fury

Scott Ritter was a US Marine who publicly spoke out against the case for war in Iraq. He was in Iraq for many years and sacrificed his American life so that the rest of us may be protected under the blanket of freedom. He spoke out against the Iraq war making bold statements of lies being told and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The mainstream media persecuted him for it. First, there was CNN’s Paula Zhan who used her television platform to discredit him. Then he was handed off to Fox News to conduct even more character assassination before they handed Ritter back to Paula Zhan. After she chewed on him for awhile longer, Ritter was handed back to Fox to finish him off and swallow him whole. By the time they both got done with him, Ritter was an unpatriotic American who was having questionable deals with Saddam Hussein. He was treasonous and lacked the character of a true American and should be investigated for being a spy for Iraq. They ruined the character of a United States Marine and his credibility for the purpose of getting imbedded and getting better ratings for televising the war in Iraq. A United States Marine! When the David Kay report came out proving that Scott Ritter was in fact telling the truth, he suddenly became involved with sexual predator and child pornography claims that was murky at best. This was an American trend with Ritter being one of many casualties in exercising Freedom of Speech against the War in Iraq. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was the only media representative who offered a sad excuse for an apology in tossing out the casual statement, “It looks like Scott Ritter was right.”

This was the trend of the administration when it came to the dogged determination for this war in Iraq. “Remember 9/11!” The enormous political extortion and peer pressure that came from the spin machine in justifying this war. Weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, ties to Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq and so many more statements were made to justify the war in Iraq and if you stood against them, you stood with the terrorists. Character assassinations were being handed out like candy and former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was no exception to the rule. He was suggested to be the perfect candidate to go to Niger to investigate the yellow cake claims, he was given permission to go and when he returned, he had the answers this administration did not want the American people to hear. Mr. Wilson and his beloved wife paid the price for having those answers. The Truth.

The Bigger Picture

We all know the facts of this unraveling scandal with the exception of the indictments. The questions in various conversations at the water coolers are who will be indicted and for what charge(s). One thing we know for sure is we’re all starting to see that this scandal will be far bigger and have stronger consequences than Watergate. With all the indictments, publicized trials, resignations, plummeting poll numbers and media spin frenzy, the end will provide the answer to the all important questions; was the war in Iraq necessary? We’re we lied to about it? Did 2000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians die needlessly? Did this administration break the law?

One of the charges that were filed against Saddam Hussein was invading and enforcing regime change on a sovereign nation without justification. This charge is from his invasion of Kuwait. Did America under the leadership of this administration break the same law? Quite simply, yes! There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no ability to make WMDs, no ability to transport WMDs and no ability to store WMDs. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Qaeda and/or any other terrorist organizations. Iraq had no ties at all to 9/11. This was a country that did not even have the ability to defend itself. Several months after it was determined that there were no WMDs, freedom and democracy replaced WMDs as the reason why we invaded this country. Patriotism? When it comes to freedom, democracy and patriotism, isn’t that best left up to the actual patriots living in a sovereign nation rather than at the sacrifice of their lives through our actions? And at great sacrifice of our lives as well? Did our leaders and military minds even consult the citizens of Iraq to see what would be the best approach to aiding them in their quest for freedom and democracy? Did the citizens of Iraq even ask us for freedom and democracy?

The more important question for us is if we were told back in the beginning of 2003 that we were invading Iraq to bring them freedom and democracy, would the good people of America have supported this $300 billion war at the sacrifice of thousands of American lives? The obvious answer is “absolutely not!” America under the leadership of this administration broke international law by invading and enforcing regime change on a sovereign nation without proper justification. The indictments being handed down this week against this administration will only scratch the surface as to the crimes that have been committed in the name of freedom and democracy. Crimes that never stood for the proud and revered glory that has forever been called the United States of America. The time has come for accountability.

Timothy E. Evans

-----------------------------

09/30/05

Mr. DeLay goes to Sharpstown

Soon after the indictment was unsealed for Thomas Dale LeLay, the claims came out with a fervor of conviction. "Blatant political partisanship!" The Republicans go on a campaign to show that this indictment is a Democratic tactic or ploy to take the wind out of the Republican agenda. Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle is pursuing the case for political reasons after all, he is a Democrat. In any other state, I’d say BALDERDASH!!! But in Texas, we can’t be so sure.

There is a saying in the legal community, "the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich!" Imagine all the local deli owners joining the ACLU if that were the case. At one time in the state of Texas, if a black man was caught stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, the prosecutor and the judge would fill the jury box with "friends" that would guarantee this black man would hang for it. The trial itself resembled a good old fashioned set of railroad tracks designed to take the already been determined he’s guilty to the gallows. In a modern America, it’s nice to believe the times have changed but the legal system in Texas unfortunately remains the same. The difference is it’s not minority folks that get "railroaded" but politicians. In the recent history of Texas, many politicians have fell victim to indictments and trials that have led to character and political assassinations that have ended their careers abruptly and permanently. The Democrats in Texas kn! ow this tactic all too well.

Immediately, many Republicans start pointing the fingers at the Clintons and all the wrong doings they have done. The question is, what have they done? Kenneth Starr brought case after case against the Clintons but never in a trial. Never before a grand jury. Never with any indictments being unsealed. He tried and convicted the Clintons using the media. The news channels and magazines and the freshman efforts of the internet. Not one single piece of evidence ever existed that proved that all the Clintons were accused of on the news 24/7 was actually true with the exception of Monica Lewinsky. Ronnie Earle is NOT Kenneth Starr after all, Starr couldn’t indict a ham sandwich when it came to the Clintons. He used the media to do it for him. An alarming amount of Americans believe that the Clintons were guilty of a lot of illegal activities despite no evidence existed to prove any level of guilt existed at all. If one thing Kenneth Starr and the Republicans have! proven, insinuation of guilt on the media is more powerful and effective than actual guilt itself. Well Mr. Starr, imagine what an indictment in the media can do? Checkmate!

The nuts and bolts of the indictment is weak at best. Corporate contributions being given or funneled to political candidates is illegal established by the Texas House of Representatives. The charge is based upon $155,000 being given to Texans for a Republican Majority PAC through various corporate contributions. The amounts came from Diversified Collection Services, Inc., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Williams Companies, Inc., Cornell Companies, Inc., Bacardi USA, Inc., and Questerra Corporation. These funds were then deposited into an account for the Texans for a Republican Majority PAC and a subsequent check was issued from the same account for $190,000 payable to the Republican National State Elections Committee which contributed to Republican candidates running for positions in the Texas House of Representatives. How ironic. The indicted are Colyandro, Ellis and DeLay being accused of Criminal Conspiracy in arranging this illegal laundering of corporate contr! ibutions to republican candidates. The question is can they prove these funds were undoubtedly the same funds from the corporate contributions or is Mr. DeLay going to Sharpstown?

In 1971-72, the state of Texas went through a tumultuous scandal that had become known as the Sharpstown Stock-Fraud Scandal. Many conservative incumbent Democrats gathered in Austin to celebrate their political victories when the United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit in Dallas against numerous incumbent Democrats for alleged illegal stock purchases and sales for quick "turnover" profits. The scandal centered, initially, on charges that state officials had made profitable quick-turnover bank-financed stock purchases in return for the favoritism of passed legislation for a Houston businessman Frank W. Sharp. Many incumbent Democrats were ousted for their role in this scandal. Subsequent investigations would also reveal many more improprieties and corruption all the way up to the Governor. Many of the incumbent Democrats who fell victim to this political assassination made claims that it was the plot of Republican Richard Nixon and h! is Justice Department to "reconstruct" the political atmosphere of Texas politics and was able to easily carry out this change by using the Texas judicial system and the media at the time. By 1972, the incumbent Democrats were all but extinct as more liberal Democrats and Republicans campaigned on a promise of "reform" and won in landslide victories. The political atmosphere of Texas would be completely changed and gone were the days of conservative Democrats like Lyndon B. Johnson.

Read More

The judicial system in the state of Texas has always been quite an effective tool for the modern Democrats. Texas still has many "die-hard" Democrats in positions of authority and power and the judicial system can indict Tom DeLay’s ham sandwich if the Democrats see fit. Rumors were circulating around our Nation’s Capital that the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were aware of the indictment before it was officially unsealed. Nancy Pelosi"s "Culture of Corruption" comment could not have been better timed. Could the Republicans be telling the truth and that this is partisan politics on behalf of the Democrats? Could the Democrats finally be waking up from their slumber to capitalize on an already battered and weakened Administration and the GOP party? Is this a taste of their own medicine? Why demonize your opponent when they can demonize themselves? It reminds me of an old saying, "give somebody enough rope and they’ll hang themselves ! with it."

Tom DeLay has had to step down as House Majority Leader and he is up for re-election in 2006. His last election was a 55 - 45 percent victory which was a shock for the Texas "Hammer" that reconstructed the face of Texas politics in 2002 and handed Republicans control of the state. He barely got through. In the face of politics, an indictment is serious enough for a politician who seems to have his name in many sentences with the word "ethics". The Kenneth Starr "Trial by media" has already got the Republicans and Conservatives defending themselves a lot more than going on the offensive against others. Against the ropes so to speak. DeLay will naturally want a quick trial to get his name cleared. If Ronnie Earle agrees to a speedy trial, then it is safe to assume that there may very well be a "smoking gun" when it comes to the validity of this indictment. If Ronnie Earle takes his time on having the trial well into next year, DeLay will undoubtedly join the r! anks of the "Sharpstown Club" as another candidate will campaign on the promise of "reform" and snatch victory from the claws of the "Hammer". Guilt won’t matter much after that.

Timothy E. Evans