I live in Iowa and have the privilege of getting to hear and meet several of the candidates running for president. I usually go grudgingly because my job dictates I be there and I listen to the empty sounding promises of a person who seems to have more important things on his/her mind than listening to and talking with a bunch of Iowans.
Most recently I heard Bill Richardson speak and was struck by the fact that he actually sounded sincere. He didn’t just say he would do some thing, he outlined the steps he would take to make a difference in the way our country is run. He also talked about the importance of a bi-partisan cabinet and how he felt it was crucial for the Democrats and the Republicans to come to an agreement on certain issues rather than constantly being at odds with each other. The whole time I kept thinking that if this guy was for real, he’d make an pretty good president.
Of course my job, and past experiences, have taught me to be skeptical of all politicians – after all, they just want your vote. Has anyone else met or heard Richardson speak? Did anyone else get the same vibes I got? I’m just curious what other people have thought of him.
I would consider Bill Richardson. He has valuable experience.
I liked that after the "debates" Richardson (and Kucinich, Ron Paul, and a few others) talked directly with TV commentators, while Hillary, Obama, Romney, etc - the "front-runners" - all had "spokespersons" speak for them. I have no intention of voting for a spokesperson - I want to hear from a candidate's lips.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
I understand that Bill Richardson has spent a great deal of time in the past as a Washington Lobbyest. Is this true? If so, he will be more of the same ol', same ol' special interest groups.
Bill Richardson is a statesman. He has negotiatied peaceful treaties and negotiated peaceful solutions to numerous international crises. He has completed many of his promises in the state of New Mexico. He appears to be honest and follow his conscience. Despite being a fairly conservative Republican, I believe that Bill Richardson may be just the type of leader the United States needs at this time.
he ain't doing much good for New Mexico and illegal immigration.
I don't consider him a person who would bring USA citizens together.
I like Richardson, he really seems to understand the issues, and he truely is the most qualified candidate. He would be an excellent candidate for Unity08.
However, just because he's the most qualified candidate doesn't mean he's the best candidate.
I think we need to take into consideration some of the troubling things in his past, such as his lobbyist connections. I'm sure that they are false or blown out of proportion, but if we to fight corruption we have to have a candidate with a crystal clean past.
______________________________________________________________________
"The harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph," Thomas Paine
Bill Richardson does have that feeling that he does care, however he would probably be a better secretary of state. His vast experience as a diplomat can be better used in the State Department than in the Oval Office.
He could win. All three Democrats running are all Senators/ex Senator. Senators don't become presidents. Richardson is a governor, governors become presidents (along with VP's). I could see Richardson winning the presidency, I couldn't see him winning the Democratic primary. He is somewhat moderate, he will protect my right to bear arms, but he won't win. He could though, he wouldn't be the first obscure governor to become a dark horse candidate to win.
I like Governors as opposed to Senators, etc - have REAL world experience resolving issues where the rubber meets the road. And Ricahrd in addition to gactual governing experience he has an additional asset that we should not ignore - an intuitive sense on how Washington and the World actually works. He knows most of the world leaders (strengths and foibles) and what makes them tick with his International experience. Richardson and another former Governor/Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska would be to me a GREAT combo!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Make no mistake about it the Neocons want Hillary to be the next occupant of the White House. The same big money that funded the current little dictator is now sending their money in her direction. Rupert Murdoch has already fired two reporters for attempting to publish reports less than flattering on Hillary and has hosted two major fund raisers for her campaign.(That is something for all you Fox News believers to chew on!) The neocons have a problem however, half the People despise the woman and would register to vote against her if she manages to steal the Democrat nomination. She has finished no better than third in any of the online polls after the debates. Finishing behind the likes of Gravel and Kucinich in a couple of them. I think Obama has a better chance than she has of getting the nomination but either of them will have a hard time in the general election against a white male, no racial or feminist snide intended, just the way the cookie still crumbles. I am sure overtures will be made to Obama to accept the VP end of the ticket with Hillary but he may be hesitant to do so when his numbers are better than hers. If it appears that he is standing in Hillary's way however I wouldn't want to be in his shoes as she is by far the most vengefull, vindictive horse in the race. I think the Democrat nomination is much more in quetion than the GOP nomination where the candidates stances on the war in Iraq are all the same save one, Ron Paul. They will fracture the GOP vote with none of them receiving a majority and Paul will walk away with the nomination. If he does get the GOP nomination it won't matter who gets the Democrat nod because there is no one in the Dem race who can come close to beatig him.
I suppose I could be described as a neocon, I don't want Hillary in office. Your characterization of George Bush shows that you have no idea what a dictator is. Your political analysis seems to be based more on your personal emotions and opinions than reality. Ron Paul has no chance, Hillary won the first debate, and Ron Paul has no chance. No chance.
Again, it's that administrative and real world people issues that give them what it takes.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
Richardson - Bloomberg is sounds good to me also! Let's get hard-nosed pragmatism/competency back in government - and somebody who knows intuitively how Washington and the world (international/business) REALLY works. We need no "babes in the woods" in this tough town DC or a tough, tough world.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
The Speaker of the House has a unique position as well, it is both legislative and administrative. The Vice Presidency operates in the same way as president of the Senate. I could see 2024 coming down to Gore v. Gingrich, two Nixonian stories from the same era facing off after 20 years of either Bush or Clinton.
The best thing that could happen to this country and restore government of the people,by the people and for the people is to limit the amount of time these people have control of the purse strings and and stop this runaway spending by the few. How can we give millions of dollars to other nations when we can't afford health care for our children and elderly. How can any selfrespecting representative of "the people" vote themselves a raise and vote down an increase in minimum wage.Opportunity for all citizens should be the usual and not just for the corrupt politicians of both parties.
Term limits limit the power of the people. I believe in term limits, I call them the ballot box. If a politician can only be in time for a short period, how are they suppose to contain runaway spending? It seems to me that if a politician can only be in office for so many terms then competition for those terms will increase and so will the need to use their office for personal political gain. It would seem that long term debts would be ignored for short term gains if all we have are short term politicians.
P.S. The minimum wage passed. It was incorporated into the troop funding bill as a compromise. Also, you operate off of the assumption that the minimum wage or the government buying healthcare result in good things. Both are flawed assumptions.
The biggest problem with lack of term limits is that politicians develop an invincibility to the electoral process. If they can never be unseated, they have no real fear of dabbling in corruption. Dabbling becomes habit, and habit becomes second nature.
The invincible politicians are the most likely to become gateways to all sorts of horrible legislation. When members of a certain industry want to change the laws to favor them, often at great expense to the citizenry, they simply look for the most secure legislator, who often is also of the most corrupt. A good example is Fritz Hollings in South Carolina, aka "The Disney Senator." He served for over 3 decades, and retired recently, but was famous for introducing all sorts of wretched legislation. If the industry wanted a nasty bill, Fritz was your man.
We the people like to cite how the all-powerful ballot box solves these problems, yet look at the facts: the relection rate is about 95%. How can the approval rating of Congress be so low, yet all these people get elected over and over again? Once they are established, they are tempted (or have already been bought) by that special interest money. That money, in turn, shields them from being defeated in future elections. Rinse. Wash. Repeat. The relationship between senator and lobbyist strengthens as the bond between senator and citizen breaks.
Term limits can be reasonable. A dozen years always seemed reasonable to me. If you can't get something positive done in that amount of time, you probably shouldn't be in there in the first place.
-GP
Let's do as The Beatles' said: "Come together, right now. Unity." Something like that... ;)
Supports a plan to provide legal status for some illegal immigrants. Opposes building the 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border authorized by Congress. Opposes giving state troopers the authority to detain illegal immigrants.
His detractors point out Richardson’s negligence in preventing nuclear secrets from being stolen from Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1998—when Richardson was US Secretary of Energy—and his six-figure investments in a Texas oil company and perhaps-too-genial relationship with the nuclear industry.
ABC NEWS BLOTTER - Corporate ethics experts are raising new questions about the role of Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson in the implosion of a technology firm whose top executives are facing federal prosecution for a financial conspiracy being compared to the Enron fiasco. Richardson sat on the board of San Diego-based Peregrine Systems for more than a year prior to its collapse in late 2024. Its top brass stands accused of conspiring to falsely inflate its revenue by more than $500 million; many have already pleaded guilty.
Richardson has taken a lot of flack in the New Mexico press for having his entourage (2 or 3 SUV's) take advantage of their police escort to cruise the highways at over 100 mph so he can get to meetings faster, or maybe just because it's fun. He has even had Ralph Nader publicly lecture him for it. Critics see this as a sign of arrogance, but frankly it makes me want to like the guy. Then again, I've gotten a few tickets myself....
"New Mexicans know the Governor’s record better than most. They have tolerated his political ambition and arrogant showmanship, and during his four years as governor they have seen little action besides sound bytes and photo ops in response to border security, public scandal, and slow response to dangerous weather events," said the statement, put out by GOP political director Chris Atencio.
Germ, couldn't do much better than Richardson esp in terms of governing experience and an intuitive sense of how Washington and the World really works. He's done it all and his record may not be picture perfect but it's pretty darn good stacked up against the others all in all. He would be no "Babe in the Woods" which is good IMHO and what we need at this juncture. I disagree with him on several things but overall the Demos would be really stupid to pass him up somewhere on the ticket and if they do we should be ready to draft this guy. He and Bloomie or Hagel would be Golden!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official
13:58 | 20/ 07/ 2024
Print version
WASHINGTON, July 20 (RIA Novosti) - A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.
Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, blasted Thursday a new Executive Order, released July 17, allowing the White House to seize the assets of anyone who interferes with its Iraq policies and giving the government expanded police powers to exercise control in the country.
Roberts, who spoke on the Thom Hartmann radio program, said: "When Bush exercises this authority [under the new Executive Order], there's no check to it. So it really is a form of total, absolute, one-man rule."
"The American people don't really understand the danger that they face," Roberts said, adding that the so-called neoconservatives intended to use a renewal of the fight against terrorism to rally the American people around the fading Republican Party.
Old-line Republicans like Roberts have become increasingly disenchanted with the neoconservative politics of the Bush administration, which they see as a betrayal of fundamental conservative values.
According to a July 9-11 survey by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company, President Bush and the Republicans can claim a mere 31 percent approval rating for their handling of the Iraq war and 38 percent for their foreign policy in general, including terrorism.
"The administration figures themselves and prominent Republican propagandists ... are preparing us for another 9/11 event or series of events," he said. "You have to count on the fact that if al Qaeda is not going to do it, it is going to be orchestrated."
Roberts suggested that in the absence of a massive popular outcry, only the federal bureaucracy and perhaps the military could put constraints on Bush's current drive for a fully-fledged dictatorship.
"They may have had enough. They may not go along with it," he said.
The radio interview was a follow-up to Robert's latest column, in which he warned that "unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the U.S. could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran."
Roberts, who has been dubbed the "Father of Reaganomics" and has recently gained popularity for his strong opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq War, regularly contributes articles to Creators Syndicate, an independent distributor of comic strips and syndicated columns for daily newspapers.
HC
Enter another theory from wacky world of left wing fantasyland. Always good to hear the lighter side of life. I think that reminds me of a song.
Not imitation blood red either, it will be the real thing. Like I have said the biggest mistake the People have made is underestimating the criminals desire to not only survive but to also continue to rule. I would hardly consider Paul Craig Roberts a left winger by the way and definitely not a nut. He is a courageous patriot who knows a dictatorial embryo when he sees one.
Bush Outlaws War Protest -
Citizens Face Full Asset Seizure
From Dave Livingston
7-20-7
WELL IT HAS HAPPENED. THIS MANIACAL SON OF A BITCH HAS OUTLAWED ALL WAR PROTEST AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
PASSED INTO LAW JULY 17TH. SINCE CONGRESS IS TOO WEAK-KNEED TO STAND UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING, PERHAPS IT WILL BE LEFT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WILL THIS BEGIN THE CIVIL WAR HERE IN THE UNITED STATES PREDICTED BY JOHN TITOR? READ THE ARTICLE BELOW, "Bush Outlaws All War Protest In The United States"..........best of luck.........dave livingston
Bush Outlaws All War Protest In United States
By Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
7-19-7
In one of his most chilling moves to date against his own citizens, the American War Leader has issued a sweeping order this week outlawing all forms of protest against the Iraq war.
President Bush enacted into US law an 'Executive Order' on July 17th titled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq", and which says:
"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2024, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2024, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2024, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2024."
According to Russian legal experts, the greatest concern to the American people are the underlying provisions of this new law, and which, they state, are written 'so broadly' as to outlaw all forms of protest against the war. These provisions state:
"(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken."
To the subsection of this new US law, according to these legal experts, that says "...the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit...", the insertion of the word 'services' has broad, and catastrophic, consequences for the American people in that any act deemed by their government to be against the Iraqi war is, in fact, supporting the 'enemy' and therefore threatens the 'stabilization of Iraq'.
In an even greater affront to the American people are the provisions of a law called The Patriot Act, and that should they run afoul of this new law they are forbidden to allow anyone to know about it, and as we can read as reported by the Seattle Times News Service:
"The [Patriot] act also expands the use of National Security Letters, which are a kind of warrant that the Justice Department writes for itself, authorizing its agents to seize such things as records of money movements, telephone calls and Internet visits. Recipients of a National Security Letter are not allowed to tell anyone about them, and so cannot contest them."
It is interesting to note, too, that this is not the first time that the United States has unleashed the brutal power of their government against its citizens to further their war aims and stifle domestic dissent, as during the European conflict of World War I they enacted a law called The Sedition Act of 1918 and which "...forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war."
It is curious to note that after the enactment of this new law there has been no protest by any of the other political leaders in the United States, with the exception of the only Muslim member of the United States Congress, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, and who compared President Bush to the Nazi War Leader Adolph Hitler by stating the attacks upon the World Trade Center could be likened to the burning of the Reichstag.
Today, as the United States faces an imminent economic collapse, while at the same time its war bill has reached the staggering amount of $648 billion, one of the last freedoms the American people have had to protest their leaders actions against them, and other peoples in the World, has now been taken away from them, the freedom to speak and write in opposition to what is being done to them.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.", said the great British writer George Orwell, but, and sadly, liberty has been lost to the once free people of the United States who are no longer allowed to tell their leaders, or each other, what they don't want to hear.
With this being so, the American people should, likewise, contemplate their 'new' future, and as, also, stated best by George Orwell, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
© July 19, 2024 EU and US all rights reserved.
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]
********************************
New Executive Order Stomps on the Fifth Amendment
"...any (citizen) person who undermines efforts to promote
economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
Gambling911.com
7-18-7
Did anyone get the license plate of that Mack truck that ran us over yesterday? By executive order, the Secretary of the Treasury may now seize the property of
The Secretary may make his determination in secret and after the fact. Click here to read this new little gem out of the Bush Administration.
What's it say, you ask? The White House will decide if you are in any way "undermining efforts" in Iraq, or related to Iraq or pretty much anything else, the Treasury Department is authorized to seize your money, property, stocks, etc
Although good in overall notion (stop terrorist funding), the ridiculously broad language in this order takes the 5th amendment, and flushes it down the toilet. As an example, if it appears that if you, say, donate to a charity that the Bush administration determines, without any proof, is trying to undermine the Iraqi government, all of your assets can be frozen. No due process, do not pass go.
The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not. And under Section Five, the government does not have to disclose which organizations are subject to having their assets frozen:
For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
How does the Secretary of the Treasury feel about a t-shirt that says, 'Stop the War?' Is such a T-shirt considered destabilizing?
HC where do you find this weird stuff. It's a shame you didn't take the time to separate the letter into what was really said and the speculation of "Russian experts", and your own ramblings. Thanks for the lighter side of life.
~ Congress immigration report card ~ as of : July 20, 2024
lnk ~ congress' immigration report card
(lnk is ~ http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_all.html3?Flag=GRADE)
Americans for Better Immigration (ABI) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization which lobbies Congress for reductions in immigration numbers.
~ sampling ~
Tom Tancredo............Final Grade: A+
Duncan Hunter...........Final Grade: A+
Jeff Sessions...........Final Grade: A
Ron Paul................Final Grade: B
Fred Thompson...........Final Grade: C
Newt Gingrich...........Final Grade: D
John Mccain.............Final Grade: D
Barack Obama..........Final Grade: D-
Hilary Clinton..........Final Grade: D-
Dennis Kucinich.........Final Grade: D-
Joseph Biden............Final Grade: D-
Chuck Hagel.............Final Grade: D-
Bill Richardson.........Final Grade: F-
Nancy Pelosi............Final Grade: F- (& sanctuary city)
Michael Bloomberg.......Final Grade: F- (& sanctuary city)
Rudolph Guliani.........Final Grade: F- (& sanctuary city)
It's strange how southern border governors who have to deal with the immigration influx and related border issues thereof in the REAL world big time more than anyone all come down in favor of comprehensive immigration reform and earned legalization and thus score low in your stilted "report card". Please explain that dicotomy Germ??
"Ask yourself which political leadership is able to reject flatterers and draw close to the wise." - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Any candidate who comes down on the wrong side of the illegal immigration issue is toast! Just ask Juan McCain. We either return to the rule of law or we disintegrate further into totalitarian government.
He's a great guy. I've not met him personally, but he was in my home town recently, twice in the last few months actually, and friends of mine who did meet him were pretty impressed. The guy wouldn't leave the Democratic party though, its just that simple.