So Long to 8 Horrendous Years

Sally Anthony "So Long"
I just wanted to post a video of disturbing images that I hope will serve to remind everyone of the importance of voting in not just your primary election (which for many of us is next Tuesday, February 5th), but also in the general election in November, and please make sure that your vote represents a true change away from the criminal course of the current administration that is responsible for all of these disturbing images. In other words - vote for the Democratic candidate because any of the GOP clowns will just perpetuate the same Bush/Cheney horrible, evil policy. Don't stay home, don't leave this decision to your neighbors or co-workers, stand up for yourself and your family, vote for an America of which we can all be proud. Vote DEMOCRATIC!!! Do it for yourself and for future generations. Thank you.

Important Victory in Cobell Litigation

Judge calls Cobell historical accounting 'impossible'

Yesterday, Judge James Robertson ruled that a government accounting is impossible after hearing arguments in a ten day trial last next October. After 11 years of litigation in the courts and debate in Congress, Judge Robertson on Wednesday declared an historical accounting of the Indian trust "impossible." Robertson took over the case after Judge Royce Lamberth was removed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2006, which said he had lost his objectivity.

The government had asked that Lamberth be replaced after the Judge Lamberth lambasted the Interior Department, writing in a decision that labelled the Department of Interior "is a dinosaur _ the morally and culturally oblivious hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist government that should have been buried a century ago."

In his decision, Robertson detailed the extensive background of the case, saying that it would "stretch the limits of understatement" to say the case's history has been exhaustively chronicled in district court. He noted there are 3,504 entries on the case's docket and 10 circuit judges have been engaged in the case. His opinion will have the shorthand of "Cobell XX," he noted.

In a 165-page decision, Judge James Robertson said the Interior Department is "unable to perform an adequate accounting" of the Individual Indian Money (IIM) trust. The government "has not" and "cannot" cure its breach of trust to hundreds of thousands of Indian beneficiaries who have never been told how much money they are owed for the use of their land, he wrote.

"Indeed, it is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an impossible task," said Robertson, who describe the breach of trust as "irreparable."

The upshot of this historic decision is to finally establish a powerful place from which Native plaintiffs may negotiate with the federal government who has been one of the most egregious foot-dragging defendents in the history of all litigation. The Cobell Lawsuit (AKA the Trust Fund Litigation) is a class action lawsuit filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell on behalf of herself and thousands of other similarly situated Natives across America which asked that the federal government account for all outstanding individual Indian moneys that have been "held in trust" or otherwise (mis)managed under the guise of the "Trust Responsibility" established through treaties and other agreements with Indian people.

"This is a great day in Indian Country," Cobell said yesterday. "We've argued for over ten years that the government is unable to fulfill its duty to render an adequate historical accounting, much less redress the historical wrongs heaped upon the individual Indian trust beneficiaries."

"Instead of truthfully seeking to remedy the government's admitted historical mismanagement, the government elected to fight plaintiffs every step of the way," she said. "Judge Robertson has settled the debate in favor of plaintiffs and found that an adequate historical accounting is, in fact, impossible."

The government proposed paying $7 billion partly to settle the Cobell lawsuit in March 2007, but that was rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimate the government's liability could exceed $100 billion. The Interior Department estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in the past five years.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Wednesday that he hopes the judge's decision is a catalyst for a settlement.

"Ultimately the question is going to be for the administration and the Justice Department, are they willing to settle for all of these years of mismanagement," he said.

Judge Hits Gov't on Indian Money Delay (Washington Post, January 30, 2008)

For complete access to all of the documents filed in over eleven years of litigation, please visit: Indian Trust: Cobell v. Kempthorne

Pioneer Editorial: Judge gives the Dickens to Interior (Bemidji Pioneer, January 31, 2008)

Oh, No He (Bush) Doesn't!!!

Bush has issued yet another signing statement that we as a people cannot ignore. This one should immediately force the Congress to bring impeachment charges against Bush/Cheney. Bush has announced his right or his intention to ignore four components of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The four points of law that Bush is stating that he may disregard at his pleasure include the portions of the Act outlined in the following sections:

Subtitle D--Accountability in Contracting
Sec. 841 Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sec. 846. Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for disclosure of certain information.
Sec. 1079. Communications with the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Sec. 1222. Limitation on availability of funds for certain purposes relating to Iraq.

Whether this is a consitutional action for the president to take is fairly clear - IT IS NOT.

The following commentary on the impact of the signing statement is from the Boston Globe, "Bush Asserts Authority to Bypass Defense Act," (January 30, 2008).

"Some legal specialists disagreed with the administration's legal theory.

'Congress clearly has the authority to enact this limitation of the expenditure of funds for permanent bases in Iraq,' said Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor who was the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration.

Bush's frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency. Previous presidents occasionally used the device, but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.

Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006. After Democrats took over Congress in 2007, Bush initially issued fewer and less aggressive signing statements. But his new statement returned to the previous approach, observers said.

The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts (Section 846). The new law expands employees' ability to disclose wrongdoing without being fired, and it gives greater responsibility to federal inspectors general to investigate complaints of retaliation.

In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over 'any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion' requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days(Section 1079). If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.

Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan 'Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan' to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors (Section 841).

The law requires the Pentagon to provide information to the panel 'expeditiously' upon its request.

The signing statement did not make clear whether Bush is objecting to the creation of the commission because some of its members will be appointed by Congress or whether he is reserving the right to turn down its requests for information - or both.

Phillip Cooper, a political science professor at Portland State University, noted that Bush's statement does not clearly spell out the basis for any of his challenges. Cooper, who has been a pioneer in studying signing statements, said the vague language itself is a problem.

'It is very hard for Congress or the American people to figure out what is supposed to happen and what the implications of this are,' Cooper said.

The White House did not respond to a Globe request to explain the objections in greater detail. But the Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that its use of signing statements has been both lawful and appropriate.

Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.

'What this shows is that they're continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president's unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that's a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition,' said Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s.

In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as 'contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.'"

Here's a link to the NYTimes Op-Ed piece, The Fine Print, (January 30, 2008)

United for Peace & Justice call for Impeachment over Signing Statement (January 31, 2008)

A Rousing Rally for John Edwards

This morning I got up, checked my e-mail over my morning coffee, posted an entry to my blog that I had written the night before (see the following critique of Bush's last SOTU address), and headed out the door to a rally being held in North Tulsa at the Transportation Workers Union Local #514 Hall. The rally was being held for John Edwards. I realize that I may be perceived to be somewhat of a flip-flopper on my presidential choice for 2008. As I have explained to anybody who will listen, I know myself too well, and I know that once I choose a candidate, it will be very hard for me to switch my allegiance to another candidate come Convention time in Denver. So although I have posted entries on my blog that suggest that I am supporting Barack Obama (and I am impressed with his eloquent style, his vision of hope and unity, and his ability to inspire us to be our very best selves), and I have been vocal about my misgivings about Hillary Clinton, I am also a realist, and I know that whoever gets the nod in August from the Democratic Party is the candidate I will support in November. I have survived the ravages of a senseless, remorseless, ugly, and fear-based republican administration, and I will not in good conscience support any candidate that even hints at continuing any of Bush/Cheney's horrendous policies. So I went to hear Senator Edwards this morning, in large part to thank him for taking the time to stop and visit with a group of supporters here in Tulsa, Oklahoma (admittedly not the center of anyone's political universe), and once again and in person to applaud John Edwards' consistent message that this country has a huge problem, and at the root of the problem is a growing chasm between the ultra-rich and the very poor. John Edwards' "two Americas" theme is one that he has been espousing for many years, and it rings even truer today than it did when he first pointed it out to those of us whose situations are more comfortable than many other people's lives.

I was proud to be standing in the Tulsa Union Hall holding up a John Edwards for President sign, and I was prouder still that fellow Tulsans reserved their loudest applause and their longest standing ovation for Edwards' remarks about his plan to get the U.S. out of Iraq. It may be the "economy stupid," but here in the heartland of America, it is not completely lost on Okies that the economy here is inexorably tied to an ongoing and indefensible occupation halfway around the world. As I stepped out of the Hall after shaking Edwards' hand (twice), I was met with a very strong wind (40 mph, I later learned), and I thought that this breeze will blow clean across this country and sweep away the garbage that has piled up over the last seven years. It will sweep into power a new and better adminstration and things will change.

I just want to say to all of my friends and acquaintances who are so worried that the fight between Billary and Barack is going to tear the Democratic party apart - relax, we're Democrats, we pick and poke, but in the end we're not going to allow a republican, no matter how wealthy or devious he may be, claim the (White) House that will be ours in November. Viva la revolucion! Si se puede! Yes we can, and we will. Can't you just taste the change in the air?

Here's a link to the Fresno Bee's endorsement of John Edwards.

John Edwards for President 2008

Paul Krugman's column in the NYTimes (February 1, 2008), The Edwards Effect.

Thanks for Nothing, Dumbya's SOTU

I started out the day reading a few entries on a marvelous site put together by ProgressOhio.org entitled "This I believe is the Real State of Our Union." The overwhelming consensus of over 300 people who mostly live in Ohio (the should-have-been-swing state of the 2004 election) is that the State of Our Union Sucks - big time. People talked about the growing cost of gas, groceries, health care, and their shrinking or non-existent paychecks. They mentioned with disgust the ongoing occupation of Iraq and our collective desire to end that foreign entanglement and quit spending our children's and our grandchildren's futures in a country that never attacked us. They want to know whether there will be any safety net for them in old age, and how we will repair our shattered reputation abroad, not whether Iran may be, just may be, dreaming up a way to perhaps sometime in the future think about getting the plans to contemplate the beginnings of a civilian nuclear program... whaaaa? I wonder if the president has been briefed on the contents of his own NIE that stated clearly that Iran has ended their nuclear enrichment program over three years ago.

That set the stage for the lackluster performance that George W. Bush delivered tonight. I followed his talk along with the good and fun folks at Four Freedoms Blog (thanks mucho Mondo, Raine, Liv, VJ, & Tri). It helped me to stick it out and stay the course through another uninspired talk by an uninspirational president, I had to laugh at how much disgust was registered on the blog, how so much of the disgust we have expressed is more than six years old, and weighs so heavily on all of us who care so very much about our nation and feel as if we have been watching our country sink into quicksand.

Listening to Tweety (AKA Chris Matthews) wonder out loud why the president didn't use this opportunity to explain the connections between the stock market and the economy and the sub-prime housing fiasco - the anwer is simple, Tweety, the president can't explain something he himself doesn't understand. He is a moron.

Here are some of the stupidly more memorable lines (memorable only in the sense that they made me say "WTF?"):

"Embolden[ing] the purveyors of false populism" who writes this crap?

"American troops are shifting from leading operations to partnering with Iraqi forces and, eventually, to a protective overwatch mission." (translation: according to Bush/Cheney we will be in Iraq for freakin' ever).

Here are a few of the truly memorable (in the more widely understood sense of the word) lines that came out of pundits' and politicos' mouths in the aftermath of the president's nonsense:

"The speech was like boasting about his college record and listing nine incomplete classes."
Keith Olbermann, on the SOTU 2008

"This speech is out of touch, out of touch with the American people... he is totally out of touch with where the American people are. He was just checking the box like a salesman on his last day, just checking a box."
Joe Biden, on the SOTU 2008

"No challenge has been laid before the American people. No vision. Devoid of reality... This is the most disengaged speech I've ever heard."
Joe Biden on the SOTU 2008

"It was not a very memorable speech, not any very memorable lines..."
Pat Buchanan on the SOTU 2008

Here is a link to Governor Kathleen Sebelius's (Kansas) keen Democratic Response to the SOTU.
More later, I'm sure. This is just to get you all fired up first thing this morning...

Sunday Morning Activism =)

Good Sunday Morning Activists,
I am passing on an alert that I received from a woman named Mary Francis - a fellow Oklahoman who I don't know, but I'm guessing from her message that she won't mind me passing on the valuable information that she has compiled to encourage all of us to increase our voice in the democratic process. Here is her e-mail message, with minor changes:

Time for another citizen revolt! I just left a voice message with both Coburn and Inhofe (Oklahoma's senators). They take voicemail messages on the weekend!
Tom Coburn, (R) (202) 224-5754
James M. Inhofe, (R) (202) 224-4721

FISA legislation is on the Senate floor. The vote is Monday. Senator Dodd will filibuster again, but he needs help! Isn't our privacy worth an hour of your time? Please - thank Senator Christopher Dodd [CT] Washington, DC 202-224-2823, Wethersfield, CT 800-334-5341 for what he is willingto do again ... filibuster! Leave a message with Harry Reid and as many others as you can over the weekend.

Senator Harry Reid [NV] Washington, DC 202-224-3542 (DC mailbox full), Carson City, 775-882-7343, Las Vegas, 702-388-5020 (Both take messages) Reid can stop any bill at any time - just needs a stiffer backbone. Most senators take voicemail messages on the weekend. Following please find a list with key Senators and their contact information (including homestate phone numbers).

Please call as many as you can. Please....give an hour of your time. In Washington this weekend and Monday, the telecom lobbyists are launching a full-court press for retroactive immunity. Bush/Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want. Senate Democrats MUST filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity"to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens. Their corporate lawyers are not stupid. They knew what they were doing was UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Please tell every Senate Democrat to do everything in her/his power - including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation - to stop retroactiveimmunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price. Here are 27 key Senators to call first: (27 x 2 min each = less than an hour of your time).

Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln [AR] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-4843, Texarkana, 870-774-3106, Little Rock, 501-375-2993

Senator Mark Pryor [AR] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER, Washington, 202-224-2353, Little Rock, 501-324-6336

Senator John McCain [AZ] Needs to be pressured, Washington, 202-224-2235, Press1 for voicemail, Tucson, 520-670-6334

Senator Ken Salazar [CO] DEMOCRAT NOT SUPPORTING FILIBUSTER, Washington, 202-224-5852 (DC mailbox full), Colorado Springs, 719-328-1100 (mailbox full), Grand Junction, 970-241-6631 (press 10)

Senator Joseph Lieberman [CT] SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-4041 (press 1), Hartford, 860-549-8463

Senator Joseph Biden [DE] DEMOCRAT must support Dodd's filibuster! Washington, 202-224-5042, Wilmington, 302-573-6345, Milford, 302-424-8090

Senator Thomas R Carper [DE] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-2441 (30 second message), Georgetown, 302-856-7690, Wilmington, 302-573-6291

Senator Bill Nelson [FL] DEMOCRAT- not supporting filibuster, Washington,202-224-5274, Tallahassee, 850-942-8415, West Palm Beach, 561-514-0189

Senator John Ensign [NV] Great Guy! Needs encouragement, Washington,202-224-6244, Reno, 775-686-5770, Las Vegas, 702-388-6605, Carson City,775-885-9111

Senator Edward M Kennedy [MA] Ask him to speak on the floor against immunity. Washington, 202-224-4543, Boston, 617-565-3170

Senator John F Kerry [MA] Washington, 202-224-2742 (press 1), Worcester,508-831-7380

Senator Charles Schumer [NY] Ask him to speak also! Washington, 202-224-6542 (no answer), Rochester, 585-263-5866 (wait for beep), Buffalo, 716-846-4111, New York, 212-486-4430

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton [NY] Yeah, Yeah Yeah -- Just call her. Washington, 202-224-4451 (DC mailbox full), Albany, 518-431-0120 (One minute message), New York, 212-688-6262, Syracuse, 315-448-0470

Senator George Voinovich [OH] An Honest Republican! Needs encouragement --has broken with Repubs before on torture, Washington, 202-224-3353 (2 minute message), Cincinnati, 513-684-3265, Columbus, 614-469-6697

Senator Arlen Specter [PA] Repub. OPPOSED to IMMUNITY, has shown firm support for the rule of law, Washington, 202-224-4254 (2 minute message), Philadelphia, 215-597-7200, Erie, 814-453-3010, Harrisburg, 717-782-3951, Scranton, 570-346-2006, Pittsburgh, 412-644-3400

Senator Jack Reed [RI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-4642 (press 1), Cranston, 800-284-4200, Providence, 401-528-5200

Senator Shelton Whitehouse [RI] New Senator. Newbies usually pay close attention to phone calls. Washington, 202-224-2921, Providence, 401-453-5294, Newport, 401-845-0700

Senator Tim Johnson [SD] DEMOCRAT swing vote (He supported Alito's nomination but said he was "troubled" - so by now he should have seen the light), Washington, 202-224-5842, Aberdeen, 605-226-3440, Sioux Falls, 605-332-8896, Rapid City,605-341-3990

Senator John Warner [VA] Honest Repub. NOT running again - is ranking Rep. on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Washington, 202-224-2023, Norfolk, 757-441-3079

Senator Patrick Leahy [VT] DEMOCRAT- may oppose IMMUNITY, Washington, 202-224-4242, Burlington, 800-642-3193, Montpelier, 802-229-0569

Senator Bernie Sanders [VT] INDEPENDENT, Washington, 202-224-5141 (no answer), Burlington, 802-862-0697 (always busy), Brattleboro, 802-254-8732, Montpelier, 802-223-2241

Senator Patty Murray [WA] DEMOCRAT - sometimes swing vote, Washington, 202-224-2621, Everett, 425-259-6515, Seattle, 206-553-5545

Senator Maria Cantwell [WA] DEMOCRAT also a swing vote - needs encouragement, Washington, 202-224-3441(may re-record message), Everett, 425-303-0114, Tacoma, 253-572-2281, Seattle, 206-220-6400

Senator Herb Kohl [WI] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington, 202-224-5653, Appleton, 920-738-1640, Madison, 608-264-5338, Milwaukee, 800-247-5645

Senator Russell Feingold [WI] Usually does the right thing, Washington, 202-224-5323, LaCrosse, 608-782-5585

Senator Robert Byrd [WV] DEMOCRAT who should be URGED to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, Washington, 202-224-3954, Charleston, 304-342-5855

Senator John Rockefeller [WV] DEMOCRAT SWING VOTE, Washington,202-224-6472, Charleston, 304-347-5372

Love this country....it has great potential. We must pass these rights on to our children and grandchildren.

Many, many thanks to Mary Francis, whoever and wherever you are =)

Shillary - Still Not Gracious After All These Years...

The Clintons just don't get it - we, and in that collective pronoun I am referring to progressives, liberals, democrats (both yellow and blue dog), independents and a smattering of not-too-closed-minded republicans, are sick and tired of the politics that divide us. We want a uniter and we like what we see in Senator Barack Obama. I have always admired Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg who this morning endorsed Senator Obama in the NYTimes writing that "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." She is, of course, referring to the man of the hour, Barack Obama.

Those of you who have been following my take on the political scene will recall that my initial objection to Senator Hillary Clinton centered around her "electability." As a resident of oh-so-red Oklahoma and a frequent visitor to even redder Indiana, I have seen first hand the kind of wrath that the right-wing reserves for the Clintons, and my fear has always been that the only true danger that lay before the Democrats in November is the prospect of a mobilized right-wing base. And I have maintained all along that no candidate can mobilize that base like Hillary Clinton, but last night after a week of questionable campaign tactics - many of them demonstrated by Senator Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, I found yet another reason to support Hillary's opponents. Senator Clinton's utter lack of graciousness and her obtuse denial of the voice of the voters in South Carolina turned me off in a way that I will not soon forget. The fact that she had her husband deliver her not-really-a-concession speech, and then she gave less than a second or two to her incredible drubbing in her own speech that was delivered not from South Carolina, but rather Nashville, Tennessee, was to my eyes and ears not just a shocking lack of courtesy, but also a demonstration of poor sportspersonship that left a bitter and ugly taste in my mouth. In short, the more I see of the Clinton team on the campaign trail the less I am inclined to support them, EVEN IF THEY DO MANAGE to GET the NOMINATION. I know, I know, that kind of attitude could leave the country in the hands of a president McCain, and I vowed early on that I would work my butt off for whomever the Democratic nominee turns out to be, but I'm just saying, I may not work with such enthusiasm if the nominee turns out to be Hillary Clinton. The more I see of her and her husband during this race, the less I see them as agents of change, rather they are looking more and more like the same old, same old, politics as usual, of which I believe a majority of the country is sick and tired.

In stark contrast to Senator Clinton's snarky little Nashville speech, was Senator Obama's magnanimous speech that once again reminded me of the grand oratory that has been so sorely lacking in an American leader for the last eight years. In his speech, he spoke to the people's hunger for unity and true vision and leadership that we have gone without during the Bush/Cheney years. He spoke eloquently of an America and a wider world community of which I am once again eager to be a part (rather than a world in which travellers abroad are inclined to tell locals that they are Canadian, rather than American, in order to ensure a more positive reception).

I have officially joined the Barack Obama camp, although I still have great admiration for John Edwards, and I truly appreciate his contribution to the debates that have thus far formed this campaign. His message of "two Americas," his tireless effort to remind the better-offs that there are still those who go to bed hungry and under bridges in this great nation, his unflinching stand with unions and working people, and his ongoing reminder that the middle class is dying in this country and the enormously tragic consequences that that demise will have on our land as a whole, are all important and vital issues that the Democrats neglect at their peril. I would love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I fear that Mr. Edwards having already accepted the running mate position in an unsuccessful campaign is unlikely to go down that road again.

See Frank Rich's column in today's NYTimes: The Billary Road to Republican Victory

Here's a link to coverage of Senator Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama: Obama Ready on 'Day One,' Kennedy Says (Washington Post, January 28, 2008)

Toni Morrison Endorses Obama for President