Arties Articles

THE STROKE OF A PEN ELIMINATES 200 YEARS OF FREEDOM

2007-03-12T22:01:00.000-07:00

The Stroke of a Pen Eliminates 200 Years of Freedom
By Arthur M Sachs
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 800 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Some laws President Bush said he can ignore are military rules, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress know about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research, as well as altering base laws for FISA, torture, withholding information, suspend Habeas Corpus, regulate Science and by omissions rewrite history.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on Presidential power.
In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association found such Signing Statements as "contrary to the Rule of Law and our Constitutional System of separation of powers.” When the President signs a Bill into law and says he is not going to enforce parts of that Bill that he deems unconstitutional, it is in effect an absolute veto, because the Congress has no power to override him. This is considered a “Line Item Veto” and was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Bush is using signing statements like Line Item Vetoes.
A Signing Statement is a written comment issued by the President at the time of signing legislation. Often Signing Statements merely comment on the Bills signed saying that it is good or meets some pressing needs. In George Bush’s case, the vast majority of Signing Statements is of the Constitutional type that refers to the Presidential interpretation of the Constitution.
Many instances the President compromises with Congress on a Bill. They meet for a public bill-signing ceremony. Afterwards he has been known to take back those compromises through non-funding of the Bill or using Signing Statements without knowledge of Congress, Press, or the Public rather than veto the Bill.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to create armies, declare war, make rules for captured enemies, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. But President Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military citing his role as Commander in Chief. A President who ignores the Court backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."
Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the Presidential Veto instead of the Signing Statement if they had a serious problem with a Bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions. President George W. Bush has quietly been using these Signing Statements to bolster presidential powers. It is a calculated, systematic scheme that has gone largely unnoticed.
The President's Signing Statements are, in some instances, effectively rewriting the laws by reinterpreting how the law will be implemented. Bush's use of Signing Statements thus potentially brings him into conflict with his own Justice Department. The Justice Department is responsible for defending the constitutionality of laws enacted by Congress.
It is remarkable that Bush believes he can ignore a law, and protect himself, through a Signing Statement. By his abuse of Signing Statements, President Bush is bypassing the laws of the Land, the Constitution, and the will of the people. He thus has transferred his interpretations of laws to those who are questioned by Congressional Committees such as Condoleezza Rice, Roberto Gonzalez, and Vice President Chaney. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the President can avoid laws of the land, and therefore ASSUME dictatorial powers upon the people.

WHAT WAS GEORGE ORWELL TRYING TO TELL US?

2007-02-16T16:19:00.000-08:00

WHAT WAS GEORGE ORWELL TRYING TO TELL US?
By ARTHUR SACHS

The term “Orwellian” comes from the writings of George Orwell in the early 1900’s. Two of his more famous books were “1984” and “ANIMAL FARM”.

George Orwell based many aspects of his book on the Stalin-era Soviet Union, as well as Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany which were part of the life and times in which he grew up. These books were reminiscent of the Totalitarian society and were seen as politically dangerous. They were banned by many libraries in various countries, not to mention Totalitarian regimes.

We see the life and times of this fictional depiction through the eyes of the main character in “1984”, Winston Smith. He works for the Ministry of Truth and his job is to change history to fit the propaganda of the day. He shreds old history and rewrites new history. He meets a woman, Julia, at a street rally. Together they go through a love affair and betrayal by their government. They are caught together and are imprisoned by the Ministry of Love where they betray each other in order to become free of torture and fear.

The characters Winston and Julia, as well as the population were watched by a “one-eyed” TV called Big Brother. Big Brother is the Dictator who controls their lives. By using the name Ministry of Truth to depict the changing of history and facts, and the Ministry of Love to teach hate and fear is what George Orwell did very well. Life is not what it seems.

ANIMAL FARM is a story of animals being starved by the Farmers who own them. They rebel against the Farmer and his wife and throw them off the farm. They decide to create a utopian society where they will share the food, work and profits among themselves. They will all work together to be successful together. The farmer is a symbolic depiction of Stalin as Dictator. The Utopian society is the new perfect Communist Society of sharing. They create a Constitution of equality with seven commandments which says “All Animals Are Equal”. But there is dissention among the animals. The stronger animals take over the weaker animals and form a hierarchy. The Constitution is reduced to a single phrase “All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals are More Equal Than Others”. The breakdown of the animals is the breakdown of society into Government, Wealthy Class and Working Class.

Again and again, Orwell writes of life not being what it seems. The animals are still starving and the stronger animals take over the weaker animals.

George Orwell grew up in the age of Adolph Hitler and Third Reich. The Third Reich was known for their mass brain-washing. “The broad mass of the nation…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” – Adolph Hitler said this in his 1925 book Mein Kampf. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.

The use of “Orwellian” has been used during this administration and their use of the information coming from the CIA and FBI, and other Ministries of our Federal Government. The Iraq War was predicated on the “truths” of the CIA. The changing of the Constitution and its Amendments were changed through the Patriot Act on the predication that we have to give up our freedom in order to retain our freedom. Lies and wire tapping are good for us in order to protect us. Privacy is bad. Big Brother needs to watch us so we won’t do anything against our Country. Geneva Convention is bad and Torture is good. Some slogans or “buzz words” in the book “1984” were: WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. 2 + 2 = 5.

Our Government also uses “buzz words” or “doublespeak” which is a power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

One essential consequence of doublespeak is that the Party can rewrite history with impunity, for “The Administration is never wrong”. The ultimate aim of the Administration is to gain and retain full power overall the American people.

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

HOW ORWELLIAN!

Mental Health Screening for CHILDREN

2007-01-29T14:13:00.000-08:00

As a retired retail pharmacist and pharmaceutical consultant over the last 35 years, I have been very concerned about the excessive use of drugs to control our children’s behavior. I saw abuses when I was in practice. I have become very concerned after talking with several parents and educators in the area, that Governmental mental health testing is being brought into Wisconsin. I hope that this essay will open some eyes to the dangers of testing and the prescribing of drugs without the proper regiment of therapy.

The Texas Medication Algorithm Project from Columbia University is called Teen Screen. Teen Screen is now a national mental health and suicide risk screening program for students and adolescence. The screening for mental illness is probably one of the most controversial topics concerning mental health today. Screening adults is controversial, and screening children is even more so. In 2002, President George W. Bush established the New Freedom Commission on mental health and charged it with the mission of reviewing mental health care in the United States. The following year, the National Freedom Commission released its findings and recommendations. The report called for the establishment of an ambiguous Orwellian plan to screen every American for mental illness from prenatal to the elderly. Teen Screen was developed by several psychologists. Most of them were employed by drug manufacturers.

The screening itself generally consists of a short 10-30 question survey. The questionnaire is very generic and ambiguous. Because of that, it is not really a valid screening device. It is conducted in the public and private schools, doctors' offices, clinics, youth groups, shelters and other youth serving organizations. As of October 2005, Teen Screen has had over 460 active screening sites in 42 states. One of these states is Wisconsin.

I am sure that many of you are now thinking our children cannot be tested and/or given drugs without our permission. The New Freedom Initiative passed by Congress in 2003, allowed American children between ages of 3-18 to be evaluated at school by State sponsored advocates to see if they are potential mental cases. If the screening is part of the school’s curriculum, it will longer require active parental consent. Passive consent can be applicable. This passive consent could allow the administration of Ritalin (amphetamines) barbiturates, tranquilizers, and mind altering drugs to innocent children.

Teen Screen is a test that is administered to children and/or their parents. However, after much testing, it was found that 84% were false negatives. In other words, 84% of the children testing positive for mental illness had no real mental illness. These children were singled out by the testing facility as needing some kind of therapy. Eight of ten children were recommended to receive psychotropic drugs upon the recommendations of technicians who sometimes only had 2 days training on these types of drugs. Doctors associated with Teen Screen wrote the prescriptions for these drugs based on the findings of these technicians.

In order to properly address the issue of Teen Screen, I feel I have to discuss a little bit about the drugs being used. These drugs have been prescribed since the late 1950’s for ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) with great success when ADD had been diagnosed by a Psychiatrist. However, in the past 50 years the administration of drugs like Ritalin has been abused. Many doctors have prescribed Ritalin along with anti-depressants, anti-convulsants, sleeping pills and other types of tranquilizers to counteract some of the side-effects of drugs like Ritalin. These drugs such as Ritalin have also found their way into the drug culture as they are abused in the same manner as cocaine, methadrine, and Ecstasy.

Pharmaceutical companies are positioned to gain millions of dollars in profits from this Teen Scene program. The Teen Screen program has been funded by these Pharmaceutical companies because the psychotropic drugs given to these children are very expensive. The children may be hooked on them for years to come and into their adulthood. This would be a classic definition of “pill pushing” for profit.

Mental health screening of teenagers is something the Government should stay far, far away from. Allowing families to look after their children instead of government corrupted by drug companies concerned only with profit is dangerous to all of our children. Government sponsored and controlled mental health screening, no matter how sweetly wrapped, should never ever be implemented. It is never the proper role of government to set norms and assess or interfere in the thoughts and emotions of free citizens, much less innocent, vulnerable and still developing children. It is our thoughts and emotions that make each of us a unique individual and we use these thoughts and emotions to understand the world and maintain our inalienable rights of liberty.

In conclusion, as American parents, we have to do everything we can to remain responsible for our children’s well being. If we allow the Government to become intimately involved with our children’s minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against our over-reaching bureaucratic state.

Checks and Balances Reborn

2007-01-02T12:26:00.000-08:00

Checks and Balances Reborn
Arthur M. Sachs

New Years 2007 has arrived and we all wonder what the future will have in store for us. In a time of chaos in the world we, as Americans, watch the events unfold throughout the world and try to respond in a meaningful, intelligent and thoughtful manner for the sake of mankind and the continued existence of the world.

In the November Elections of 2006, the United States voters let their voices be heard. They elected to change the majority of the House and Senate because they we not happy with the direction or the policies. The Government under George W. Bush and his Administration are no longer the choice of the majority of the American People.

With the two branches of government being controlled by the Democrats, the two-party system of government, which our Founding Fathers always wanted, is again intact. The one-party system we have lived under the last 6 years is now gone and the American government can function again as it was designed.
The CHECKS AND BALANCES have been restored.

After observing the single governmental powers these past 6 years, no one should have any illusions about President Bush’s character. In my opinion he is an insecure bully who believes that by owning up to a mistake, any mistake, would undermine his manhood. He lives in a dream world. Just a few weeks ago President Bush declared he was pleased with progress he was making in Iraq even though his Generals and Iraqi people now stated that Iraq was a lost cause and it was time to get out. We have now reached 3,000 American soldiers killed and 25,000 wounded, as well as hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqi citizens killed. It’s time to stop.

We are now spending $2 billion a week on the war and this upcoming year, the total could top $170 billion dollars. Before the bloodshed is over, US taxpayers may drop $1 trillion dollars into Bush’s war. Last week, Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State, stated: “The deaths and money we are spending on the Iraqi war are worth it.” I ask: “To whom is it worth?” How many more lives and more tax dollars is this government going to invest in this debacle? How much more are we to sacrifice in the desperation of this Administration to save face and salvage their reputations? They are willing to see more Americans die to save their investment.

George W. Bush should never have been put in a position of authority, let alone been given the kind of unquestioned power, free from the normal checks and balances that he gained in the Presidency. It’s too late to vote George Bush out of office, but most Americans seem prepared to punish his party for his personal failings, especially for criticizing the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with his or their policies. The function of criticism and questioning are the foundation that the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration if Independence were based.

The Democrats having obtained the majority in the House and Senate doesn’t guarantee a change in policy. Even when the Republicans had the majority controlling Congress, George Bush has been in the habit of declaring the he had the right to disobey the laws he signed into power by the use of Signing Statements. He had signed well over 700 since he took office, which was more than all the Presidents combined in our history. If George W. Bush is faced with demands for information from the Congressional Democrats while investigating war profiteering, the Bush administration plans a “cataclysmic fight to the death “as per a Time magazine article written by a White House strategist on the issuance of subpoena.

George W. Bush’s unchecked mistakes has rested in part on the G.O.P. control of Congress. As of January 3, 2007, the Democrats hope to see the United States back on the right track as a democracy with the will of the people taking precedence over that of a single man or administration.

In conclusion I would like to repeat a statement I have used before and now seem to be coming true. “The biggest fear that George W. Bush and his Administration has is the education of the American People.” After the November elections it seems that the American People have received their diplomas.

Music makes children think better.

2006-11-11T15:07:00.000-08:00

Music makes children think
Children who take music lessons score better
on IQ and scholastic tests.
A new Canadian study shows young children who take music lessons have better memories than their nonmusical peers. The study showed that after one year of musical training, children performed better in a memory test than those who did not take music classes.
If you take music lessons your brain is getting wired up differently than if you don’t take music lessons,” Laurel Trainor, professor of psychology, neuroscience and behavior at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, told Reuters.
“This is the first study to show that brain responses in young, musically trained and untrained children change differently over the course of a year,” said Trainor who led the study.
The children who take music lessons were asked to discriminate between harmonies, rhythms and melodies, and a memory test in which they had to listen to a series of numbers, remember them and repeat them back.
Trainor said while previous studies have shown that older children given music lessons had greater improvements in IQ scores than children given drama lessons, this is the first study to identify these effects in brain-based measurements in young children.
She said it was not that surprising that children studying music improved in musical listening skills more than children not studying music. It is also true that children, who take music, train their minds to think at a more concentrated rate than those who do not. Thinking is a function which is usually automatic, when one learns music; the mind is trained to concentrate at a much higher level. This phenomenon promotes creative electricity and therefore causes more complex thinking.
“On the other hand, it is very interesting that the children taking music lessons improved more over the year on general memory skills that are correlated with nonmusical abilities such as literacy, verbal memory, visiospatial processing, mathematics and IQ,” she said.

The doughnut hole is not sweet cake

2006-10-26T13:11:00.000-07:00

If members of Congress had seized the opportunity to create an affordable and comprehensive Medicare drug benefit, today senior citizens and persons with disabilities would not be paying premiums for non-existent coverage. Instead, too many members of Congress sided with the drug industry and insurance companies who stood to make (and are making) huge profits from Part D. That's how we ended up with the doughnut hole, a phenomenon that does not exist in any other public or private policy and has no place in Medicare.
The doughnut-hole gap in coverage results from the bill’s authors’ desire to cap the overall price of the program. After they made it way too expensive by allowing their drug company friends to charge high prices, they had to cut a gaping hole in the seniors’ coverage in order to save money. Economist Dean Baker has calculated that if the Part D program had been structured to get the best, lowest prices from the drug companies—as the Veterans Administration does today—we could have saved enough money to eliminate the donut hole without raising the cost of the Part D program.
The Bush administration pushed through this sham of a Medicare prescription drug benefit saying that it would help seniors and people with disabilities. But what we got was a plan that shifts costs to seniors and people with disabilities while padding the profit margins of drug and insurance companies.

After their first $2,250 in drug expenditures are covered, seniors must pay all their drug costs completely out of pocket for the next $2,850, even while still paying a monthly premium for a program that gives them no benefit at all.

Over the last few weeks the pharmaceutical industry, through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been spending millions of dollars on an ad campaign in 10 districts or states praising incumbents who voted for the controversial Part D prescription drug plan.
Below are the top 10 Drug Company contributors and top 10 recipients of pharmaceutical money in the United States. As your can see the majority of money donated and received was to the Republicans who wrote and voted in the Medicare D prescription Drug plan, after illegally holding the vote open for over 6 hours until the lobbyists bribed and twisted the Republicans arms to vote for the Bill.
September 22 was “doughnut hole day”—the day the average senior who endured the aggravation of enrolling in the program fell into the coverage gap. When they recover from the shock of being charged hundreds of dollars for the same prescription that cost them only dollars on their last trip to the pharmacy, seniors (and their younger family members) want to know why this happened. Why would politicians design a program with this kind of potentially life-threatening gap in coverage?
Here’s the answer that most seniors are starting to understand: The Republican majority wanted to win support from older Americans, but they also wanted to do something for their very powerful political donors in the drug and insurance companies. Seniors got some subsidy, but they also got a confusing array of plans run by private insurance companies. And the pharmaceutical industry got the biggest gift of all: the law creating the Part D program prohibited the government from requiring the drug companies to compete to offer the lowest price on drugs. This provision in the Bush program said to the drug companies: “Charge whatever you want, and we’ll make sure you get paid.”
So, as seniors fall into the doughnut hole—and as they and their families get wise as to why this happened to them—the drug industry-Chamber of Commerce TV spots are a great guide to who they should hold accountable. And all over country, activist citizen groups, led by the Americans United coalition, are publicly pointing to drug company contributions to specific incumbent senators and representatives as an explanation for why seniors are falling into the doughnut hole— with potentially life-threatening consequences. And they point to the TV spots as just another way the industry helps their servants in Congress.
Republicans, anxious to cut popular public programs like Medicare, viewed their Part D plan as a means of shifting the burden of paying for expensive prescription drugs to private individuals while benefiting the pharmaceuticals who have paid literally tens of millions of dollars hand over fist into their campaign funds. For the GOP, programs like Part D are a first step toward gutting Medicare benefits and privatizing the program in the guise providing more benefits.
In exchange for this kind of financial support, the pharmaceutical lobby has gotten several important legislative maneuvers from the Republicans to protect their profit-making plan. Since the Part D prescription drug plan was passed in 2003, there have been three amendments introduced in the House of Representatives and one introduced in the Senate authorizing Medicare to use its bulk purchasing power to negotiate the price of drugs, thereby reducing the cost of the program and providing Congress with the funds to fill in the coverage gap. Republicans blocked all four amendments.
Although it would be "smart" for beneficiaries with high drug expenses to buy "supplemental insurance that would cover the doughnut hole," the 2003 Medicare law "specifically prohibits you from buying insurance to cover the gap. Congressional leaders "weren't actually trying to protect retired Americans against the risk of high drug expenses"; instead, "[t]heir purpose was purely political: to be able to say that President Bush had honored his 2000 campaign promise to provide prescription drug coverage by passing a drug bill, any drug bill."
Arthur M. Sachs

What does it mean to Suspend Habeas Corpus?

2006-10-14T12:18:00.000-07:00

What does it mean to Suspend Habeas Corpus?
By Arthur M Sachs

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passes by the House and the Senate and has been sent to the President for signing into law. This Bill is known as the Torture Bill. It is one of the most outrageous and unconstitutional bills ever to be processed through Congress in the entire history of the United States. It has shattered a number of bedrock legal protections for suspects, prisoners, and pretty much anyone else the Bush Administration deems to be an enemy.
In Article 1, Section Nine of the Constitution the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a proceeding in which the court inquires as to the legitimacy of a prisoner's custody. Typically, habeas corpus proceedings investigate whether a criminal trial was conducted fairly and constitutionally after the criminal appellate process has been exhausted.
Habeas Corpus, which is the right of the accused to confront his accusers in court, has been revoked. The Congress regards this as a job well done. The suspension of Habeas just one component of a far-reaching 'anti-terrorism' bill that has more to do with protecting the government from ordinary citizens of America and other nations than it does with combating terrorism
In this new Bill, Habeas Corpus has been suspended for detainees suspected of terrorism or of aiding terrorism. The Magna Charta era rule that a person can face his accusers is now gone. Once a suspect has been thrown into prison, he does not have the right to a trial by his peers. Suspects cannot even stand in representation of themselves, another ancient protection, but must accept a military lawyer as their defender. Illegally-obtained evidence can be used against suspects, whether that illegal evidence was gathered abroad or right here at home. This eradicates our security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, as stated in the Fourth Amendment, against illegal searches and seizures.
This Bill gives George W. Bush the final word on what constitutes torture. US officials who use cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to extract information from detainees are now shielded from prosecution.
The Hamdi decision held that a prisoner has the right of Habeas Corpus, and can challenge his detention before an impartial judge. The Hamdan decision also held that the military commission set up to try detainees violates both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. In short, the Supreme Court wiped out virtually every legal argument the Bush Administration put forth to defend its extraordinary and dangerous behavior.
The Republicans in Congress have managed, at the behest of President Bush, to draft a Bill that all but erases the Judicial Branch of the Government. Underneath all this is the definition of "enemy combatant" that has been established by this Legislation. An "enemy combatant" is now no longer just someone captured "during an armed conflict" against our forces, but an "enemy combatant" is anyone who has "purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States."
The broad powers given to President Bush by this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other part of the so-called "War on Terror." Just writing a letter to the Editor attacking the Bush Administration could be deemed as “purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the United States”. If you organize or join a public demonstration against Iraq or against the Administration, the same designation could befall you.
This lawmaking is intended to give the President absolute power and this has been the Neoconservative mandate all along. The President can now designate who is an Enemy of the State and who is abetting terrorists.
We have been heading this way for some time. Now that legal precedents have been shattered, overwritten, and ignored by this legislation so blatantly against what America stands for, the next milestones will involve how this legislation is deployed in the real world. Will Americans start disappearing because they speak out or will it simply mean that the already-disappeared disappear forever? If torture is now legal in a military context, will it become legal in domestic situations that can somehow be tentatively connected to terrorism? Are kids in gangs terrorists? How about drug dealers? Pot smokers?
The legal framework that made America a safe place to be a citizen and safe country from the standpoint of the rest of the world is disintegrating. Once the laws have been rewritten to circumvent those principles, it's too late.
Prisoners taken in the dead of night to Lubyanka were systematically beaten for days with rubber hoses and clubs. There were special cold rooms where prisoners could be nearly frozen to death and sleep deprivation was a favorite and most effective Cheka technique as well as near-drowning in water fouled with urine and feces.
We have seen America's President and Vice President sworn to uphold the Constitution, but advocating some of the same interrogation techniques the KGB used at the Lubyanka. They apparently believe beating, freezing, sleep deprivation and near-drowning are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. So did Stalin.
I never thought I'd see the United States, champion of human rights and rule of law, legislating torture and Soviet-style kangaroo tribunals. I never thought I'd see Congress and a majority of Americans supporting such police state measures. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln must be turning in their graves.
This bill is not a national security issue—this is about torturing helpless human beings without any proof they are our enemies. The bill simply removes a suspect’s right to challenge his detention in court. This is a rule of law that goes back to the Magna Charta in 1215. That pretty much leaves the barn door open. This bill throws out legal and moral restraints as the President deems it necessary and these are fundamental principles of basic decency, as well as law.
I’d like those supporting this evil bill to spare me one affliction: Do not, please, pretend to be shocked by the consequences of this legislation. And do not pretend to be shocked when the world begins comparing us to the Nazis.

THIS CAN’T BE HAPPENING

2006-10-09T09:16:00.000-07:00

THIS CAN’T BE HAPPENING
By Arthur M. Sachs

From the first day when the germ scare began, the Bush administration and the Justice Department insisted, despite no evidence to support them, that the anthrax had been linked to Al-Qaeda. The Bush administration pushed this fallacy early and hard because it fit with their plan to scare the unknowing public in complete submission and to the Republican Party. Their policy to scare its citizens with stories of chemical, biological, and nuclear terrorism weapons, forced the American public to surrender its rights, its common sense and its votes.

The Bush administration was hyping these alleged threats by “international terrorists “to poison us, infect us, or nuke us. We were told to buy sheets of plastic and duct tape to construct “safe rooms” in case of chemical attack.

The Bush Administration gained their way into Iraq with the approval of most of the government by saying they had weapons of mass destructions and they were coming to the United States and blow us all up. We were going to have a nuclear cloud. Now they are saying that Iraq is the center of terrorism. We made it that way. The terrorists from all the countries came into Iraq because now we have set up Iraq as a training ground for all of the terrorists throughout the world. Most of these people are religious fanatics and did not want to bother anybody to begin with. These fanatical groups are coming together to form an army because they now have a common enemy – the United States. These fanatics will use their fundamental religion to instill fear into their people that we are the aggressors and we are the ones that are going to kill them, and they will, in turn, will try to kill us. This is setting up the standard Catch 22 scenario. In turn, the Bush Administration also used the fear tactics with fear of death and destruction upon the United Sates as a means to influence the American people to believing that only GOD can save them. This scare tactic drives the religious right to the churches for their safety net. Both the Al Quada and the Bush Administration are fighting the same fanatical war of lies.

The improper use of fear can induce certain reactions that people will intend to follow even though they are untrue. Fear can illicit feeling of panic and arousal just by the mere mention of certain key fear factors.

I feel the Bush administration will use this fear tactic again and again to take us to another invasion of 1 or 2 countries. Iran looks to be first on the list and Syria is second on the list. If the Administration can start something in either of these countries before the 2006 election, the spin will be that Bush is doing this to protect us from invasion from these countries and promote liberty and freedom in the world, but actually it will be to maintain power and keep control of the government. The right wing spin is a very powerful mind control tool. For example, about a month ago Iran was only thought to be a major concern in the minds of 10% of the population. Now because of the spin, 40% of the people believe that Iran has nuclear capability and a way to deliver weapons which are both absolutely false. Actually Iran is several years away from developing a nuclear weapon as well as a means of delivering it to the United States. Israel feels that Iran is a lot closer but the delivery will only have to be a few hundred or so miles.

It has become increasingly clear that the Bush administration has been playing the same cynical and manipulative game that led us to the occupation in Iraq. There were neither WMD nor any way to deliver any of these weapons, yet the US government knew this and still beat the drums of war. We have been lead by a cynical bunch of profiteers running our country, wreaking death and havoc abroad and attacking the foundation of democratic country at home.

The latest from the President seems to be that basically the FISA law, passed in 1978, is outdated. Perhaps he feels the Constitution is too "old," as well. This administration reacts to any questions about spying on American citizens by saying that those of us who stand up for our rights and freedoms are somehow living in a "pre-September 11th, 2001 world." The President can't just bypass two branches of government, and obey only those laws he wants to obey. It gets to the core of what we as a country are all about. We all agree that we must defeat the terrorists who threaten the safety and security of our families and loved ones. Why does this President feel we must sacrifice our freedoms to fight terrorism? This is a gut check moment for members of Congress. Do we sacrifice our liberty? Do we bow to those who try to use security issues for political gain? Do we stand and applaud when the President places himself above the law? Or, do we say enough?

The GOP needs to keep us fearful as we know that the wiretapping was illegal. We are not buying the administration’s excuses. The administration has tried to continue all of their failed and corrupted policies by constantly reminding the nation of September 11th and by constantly telling the American people that they should live in fear. That well is drying up. Every American remembers the horror of September 11th, and every American respects that memory, but it cannot be the basis for all of our future decisions.
Karl Rove, the President’s advisor, showed the GOP election message that ''All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card." Rove suggested Republicans can prevail in 2006 by showing Democrats had undermined terrorism-fighting efforts by questioning President Bush's authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.

When you stand on the sidelines in the battle between good and evil, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

ARTHUR M SACHS

EDUCATING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

2006-10-04T11:21:00.000-07:00

The Educating of the American People
By Arthur M Sachs
Contrary to popular belief we the citizens of the United States own and operate the government. The 3 branches of government, legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch are owned and work for the people of the United States. To be afraid to speak out in a true democracy is ludicrous contrary to the basic definition of freedom. The Bush administration has disrupted the complete operation of over 200 years of established government policies. The administration are really only bus drivers, get the people from one place to the other without and influence upon the population. Any other type of government that is run by an individual of group of individuals is a Fascist state or Communistic State. Defined Fascism is:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
George Orwell wrote that people who neither read nor ask questions would ultimately lose all desire to question "Big Brother." What is so frightening as we descend into the new world order fascism is not that we no longer read -- it's that we no longer can read.
Researchers estimate as many as 30 million Americans -- many of them college graduates -- cannot read. They're unable to comprehend news stories or even instructions. Remember it took only 50 million people to elect the president
If it's not on television, it isn't happening. Even then, we can't be sure of what is true until the paid TV "analyst" or pundit with the biggest stash of "Newspeak" talking points wins the debate. When there's no one left to tell the people the truth, Orwell said, "The people will believe what the media tells them they believe."
Those groups who have different ideas than the president try to tell the people the truth about what the Bush administration is doing to this country.
Scores of books have been written pointing out that Bush has arrogantly placed himself above the law and outside the constraints of the U.S. Constitution. He has bestowed upon himself a god-like superiority to decide who deserves to live or die. And Bush kills with malevolent, inhuman brutishness. Authors sound the alarm that what happened in 1933 in Hitler's Germany and in Orwell's 1984 is descending upon us today because we are losing the will to combat it. The vigilance required to preserve our freedoms is impossible when we're whipped into submission by terror and convinced to give up freedoms we are entitled to in the Constitution of the United States.
Ignorance serves as blinders to vision and hope. It makes us susceptible to the most fantastic lies that inevitably lead to self-deception. It makes us look like fools in the eyes of the rest of the world. It allows us to live in denial; to ignore reality. It fosters fear even as it shuns understanding. The truly ignorant are made to believe the most fantastic lies. They are led astray to feverishly work against not only their own interests, but also against the interest of the Commonwealth of which they are a part.
The decline of America could not have happened had the way not been prepared by producing an ignorant public. Understand that in this context ignorance does not infer a lack of intelligence. It infers a pathological unwillingness to confront the evidence and thus the inability to come to rational decisions based upon verifiable facts. Ignorance allows the grossest injustice to flourish with indifference. It allows the roots of fascism to grow deep into the bedrock of society. It happened in Nazi Germany in the prelude to World War Two, and it is happening now in America. This kind of ignorance produces a faith in corrupt leadership that is not only blind; it is deaf and dumb. Only the ignorant can be so easily misled by the disingenuous leadership of empire.
The criminal cabal that is running the country could have little power over an informed and active citizenry. They would be forced to invent new methods of control, perhaps more coercive than the ones now in vogue.
George. Bush says he has several groups that he is afraid of, starting with terrorists, al-Quada, Osema Ben Laden, insurgence in Iraq. Along with these scary groups George is also afraid of, lately, columnist Helen Thomas, Communists, Democrats, left wingers, and of course Liberals. But George W. Bush has, although he won’t admit it, over looked the worst group he has to fear and that is the Educated American Public, for once they are educated and understand all the harm Bush has done to our country, they will charge and convict him or crimes against God, the state, and humanity. War crimes, treason, murder, accessory to murder, torture.
All White House references to the National Security Agency's eavesdropping now call it a "terrorist surveillance program." That sounds far less objectionable than the media's blanket term, "domestic spying program." After all, it's hard to support domestic spying, but who wants to oppose "terrorist surveillance"? Maybe we could suspend the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches by launching a "criminal surveillance program." In a pole conducted it has been shown that the average person considers these 2 different programs or the only program is the terrorist surveillance program not understanding the it means spying on ordinary citizens.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which created courts that act quickly and secretly to approve such requests for wiretaps, remains a sensible law. It strikes the proper balance between the need for judicial oversight and the requirements of national security — and helps to ensure that the government does not trample on individual liberty. These courts are extremely accommodating to government requests, which sometimes needn't be supported until after the wiretapping has taken place.

Arthur M Sachs

THE AMERICAN TALIBAN

2006-10-01T09:14:00.000-07:00

WHO ARE THE AMERICAN TALIBAN
By Arthur M. Sachs

The unfortunate thing about organized religion—all religions—is the fundamentalists within it who won’t be satisfied until all people accept their way of life and worship; and they are willing to go to violent extremes to achieve that goal. In Afghanistan they are called Taliban, in America they are called Religious Right. My religious views are where I think they should be—personal.

My failure to see anything Christian or righteous regarding Bush, Falwell and the “religious right” is because I feel those characteristics require a bit more than just lip service. Recently the “good” Rev. Falwell proclaimed “we should just keep bombing them all in the name of the Lord.” That will solve everything won’t it? This is the kind of thinking that has invaded way too many of America’s pulpits
The Arab and Muslims nations see the television reports on the “fundamentalist take-over” here in the U.S. after this last “election”. They hear the hateful, pompous and arrogant words of blow-hards like Jerry Falwell and others who are just like him.

Those that are a part of this radical movement, that have the audacity to call themselves “Christians,” state over and over again that they are in no way like the Taliban or al-Queda because they are not as vicious or as brutal. There are upwards of 100,000 dead Iraqi’s that would beg to differ; Falwell and his followers feel they died in the name of Christianity and believe God supports invasions and torture, just as long as it’s done in “His name.”
Followers of the movement are the likes as Tom DeLay DeLay (among others) stating, “We will now be about the business of creating a Bible based government. Jihad has been declared in America by them. They have planted the seeds. We will become like our Arab counterparts who have been at Holy War with each other for centuries.
The “scourge” they are out to do away with is anyone and everyone that stands in open disagreement with what they, that make up this revolutionary movement, want to impose upon us, the nation and the rest of the world

On May 10,1933, there occurred in Berlin a scene which had no been witnessed in the Western World since the Middle Ages. At about midnight, under the direction of Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler’s Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany, thousands of students at the University of Berlin set over 20,000 books on fire. Similar scenes took place al over Germany and the infamous book burning had begun. In America people like Lynn Cheney causing the “burning” of 300,000 history texts through the Department of Education because she didn’t think there was enough emphasis on our “religious heritage.” This is the start of book burning in America.

Department of Education in Texas having Health textbooks rewritten to include only “abstinence” as the only form of birth control. This is the same path the Hitler started in May 10, 1937 when he stated that “ take the youth and give its own education and its own upbringing. The German schools from the first grade through the universities were hastily written and the curricula changed to match Mein Kampf. To further add fuel to the destruction of Democracy we must recall in George Orwell’s 1984 where Big Brother began the rewriting of history to suit Big Brother needs.

: “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933.

Does that sound familiar to anyone? God is always being “used” by those that desire to control the citizens of their nations and to “move” them in the desired direction—it has never worked and is doomed to failure here in America and at what cost.
Arthur M Sachs

SCARED YET, WELL,YOU MAY BE SOON

2006-09-30T12:22:00.000-07:00

Scared yet? Well, you may be soon.
Arthur M Sachs

Scared yet? Well, you may be soon. What we almost certainly will see in aftermath of the alleged plot to blow up several planes en route to the U.S. is a thunderous response from President Bush and other Republican leaders. With the midterm elections less than three months away, they will attempt to scare Americans into re-electing Republicans or risk facing instant annihilation at the hands of an evil and murderous enemy. Choose us and live. Choose Democrats and die. It’s your call. Nice way to end the summer, isn't it? Scaring the public has worked so well for so long that you can't blame President Bush, except when you consider that it's immoral and unpatriotic. Now, even if you're a great admirer of President Bush, do you really think Democrats or any free-thinking adult in this country believes that "there is no threat to the United States of America" from terrorists?It's a patently absurd statement. But, with just a short time allotted for his speech, President Bush chose to try to scare the public into believing that Democrats, if in charge, would fight terrorists with love beads instead of guns.

The British airplane plot may be real, involve a dozen planes, may have been stopped near the brink, but the way it's being played discredits its seriousness and further discredits the "war on terror." The aim isn't to protect against terrorism but to insure terrorism's permanent threat. By inventing its magnitude is to cast any skepticism about the strategy as something faintly treasonous such as wishing people harm, as sympathy with terrorism. The Bush administration has cast the danger in such ways as to box itself into a position incapable of declaring such a victory. The administration itself would have to disband, having hinged its entire outlook on such a war. The Bush administration, like children dangling prize ribbons, have paraded themselves before cameras to claim some of the credit for the nab and use the story once again to prance instead of lead.

Michael Chertoff flew into action announcing our first ever national RED ALERT and babbling incoherently that it was ‘Suggestive of an al-Qaida plot’ despite there being no such linkage from the Brits who did the actual police work.

Airports went into full panic mode. Any sane society would have used far more discretion in putting the news out but the Administration just threw the bloody chunks into the feeding pit just prior to dusk and with any luck the entire weekend of news would be insured. The renewed push for the latest re-launch of 9/11 fear tactics, would completely blow away any serious coverage of the civil war in Iraq, the conflict between Israel, Palestine and Hezbollah, the growing hissing sound coming from the housing bubble and the smackdown of DLC kingpin Joe Lieberman by the increasingly aggressive bloggers. Flights were canceled, airports were jammed with stranded travelers and all liquids and gels were confiscated from passengers.

And of course Bush himself used the bully pulpit set up on the tarmac of a Green Bay airport to say: "The American people need to know we live in a dangerous world, but our government will do everything we can to protect our people from those dangers."
The War on Terror is a farce, a sham, a fraud and a mockery. It is nothing more than a red, white and blue cloak which conceals fascism, tyranny and the elimination of the civil liberties of Americans all using fear and nationalism as a tool. Author, scholar and distinguished gentleman Gore Vidal put it best during a recent interview: “This is an eternal war against terrorism. It’s like a war against dandruff. There’s no such thing as a war against terrorism. It’s idiotic. These are slogans. These are lies. It’s advertising, which is the only art form that we ever invented and developed.”

Karl Rove, the President’s advisor, showed the GOP election message that ''All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card." Rove suggested Republicans can prevail in 2006 by showing Democrats had undermined terrorism-fighting efforts by questioning President Bush's authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.

I feel the Bush administration will use this fear tactic again and again to take us to another invasion of 1 or 2 countries. Iran looks to be first on the list and Syria is second on the list. If the Administration can start something in either of these countries before the 2006 election, the spin will be that Bush is doing this to protect us from invasion from these countries and promote liberty and freedom in the world, but actually it will be to maintain power and keep control of the government. I personally feel that the Bush Administration provoked Israel to expel Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon but the war got out of hand and now they want Israel to back down before the war gets completely out of their control. If he had any idea of the history of the Middle East, he would not have tried to manipulate these countries because there is just too much animosity between Israel and the Arabs.

The Bush Administration gained their way into Iraq with the approval of most of the Legislative government by saying Iraq had weapons of mass destructions and they were coming to the United States and blow us all up. We were going to have a nuclear cloud. Now they are saying that Iraq is the center of terrorism. WE MADE IT THAT WAY! The terrorists from all the countries came into Iraq because now we have set up Iraq as a training ground for all of the terrorists throughout the world. These fanatical groups are coming together to form an army because they now have a common enemy – the United States. They will use their fundamental religion to instill fear into their people that we are the aggressors and we are the ones that are going to kill them, and they will, in turn, will try to kill us. This is setting up the standard Catch 22 scenario. In turn, the Bush Administration also used the fear tactics with fear of death and destruction upon the United Sates as a means to influence the American people to believing that only GOD can save them. This scare tactic drives the religious right to the churches for their safety net. Both the Al Quada and the Bush Administration are fighting the same fanatical war of liesInstead of facing down fear, instead of defying it, instead of putting it in its contemptuous place (fear being terrorism's rankest instrument), we are made to accommodate it and submit to it every chance the government gets to ram it down our collective throats. We are asked, in other words, to be complicit with terrorism's ultimate aim, without terrorists having to bother to do so much as light a fuse.

But like it or not, it's the Bush administration that is most responsible for keeping us safe from terrorists right now. It's also our job to keep an eye on the Bush administration.Don't ever forget that, no matter how scared you get.

Who Make the Laws

2006-09-30T12:15:00.000-07:00

WHO SIGNS THE LAWS, CAN’T MAKE THE LAWS!
by Arthur M. Sachs

The Legislative Branch passes laws for the citizens of the United States to follow. When a Bill is passed by the Senate and House, it goes to the President for his signature. It is up to the President to to sign the Bill. If he does not like the Bill or deems its unconstitutional, he can veto it. If he feels it is unconstitutional, he can send it to the Supreme Court to check its validity. Once the Bill has been signed by the President, it becomes part of the law of the land must be followed by all of its citizens. President Bush has been attaching Signing Statements to laws that he signs. Some of these statements say the Executive Branch does not have to follow some of the portions of the law if the President feels incumbered. Traditionally, a President vetoes a Bill with which he disagrees. President Bush vetoed his first Bill after more than 5 years in office which expanded stem-cell research. He hasn't needed to reach for his veto pen, because of these Signing Statements. The American Bar Association Task Force has stated that Signing Statements should not be a substitute for a Presidential veto.

Some of our Presidents have attached a Signing Statements to these signed Bills. Historically their main use is for rhetorical or political proclamations. A signing statement is a written proclamation issued by the Executive Branch that accompanies the signing of a law passed by the Legislative Branch.

There is an ongoing controversy concerning the Executive use of Signing Statements by our current U.S. President, George W. Bush. The Signing Statement process first lets the law go on the books, and then permits the president to assert his right to ignore provisions that conflict with his powers of office. Some of them include torture bans, scientific reporting, foreign policy, job specs for appointees which drew signing statements from President Bush that disregarded Congressional intentions.

In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described such use of Signing Statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” When the President signs a Bill into law and says he is not going to enforce parts of that Bill that he deems unconstitutional, it is in effect an absolute veto, because the Congress has no power to override him."

According to The Washington Post, panel members wrote: "The President's constitutional duty is to enforce laws he has signed into being unless and until they are held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court or a subordinate tribunal. The Constitution is not what the President says it is."

George W. Bush's use of Signing Statements is controversial, both for the number of times employed, an estimated at over 750 constitutional challenges, and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the Statements.

The panel said the issue has deep historical roots, noting that Parliament had condemned King James II for non-enforcement of certain laws in the 17th century. The panel quoted the English Bill of Rights: “The pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.”

On July 24, 2006, the American Bar Association's Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine issued a report condemning some uses of Signing Statements. The task force report and recommendations will be presented to the delegates, for approval, at their August 2006 meeting. The report stated in part that these Signing Statements were contrary to our consititutional system of separation of powers. The Legislative Branch is to create laws. The President is suppose to sign the Bill into law. It’s up to the Judicial Branch or Supreme Court to interpret the laws. He is not supposed to interpret the law or decide not to enforce the law. His job is to sign or veto and send it back to the Legislative Branch for any needed changes. The Legislature can over-ride the President’s veto if it has enough votes.

We MUST restore the checks and balances to counter the one-party state we now live in. The President cannot have power over all three branches of government. If this balance is unchecked, the President becomes a King or Dictator, which we have to guard against, no matter which party is in power.

I am a proud Liberal

2006-09-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

I AM A PROUD LIBERAL
By Arthur M. Sachs

In the past 6 years there have been several different interruptions of what is a Liberal. I am a Liberal and proud to be one. I hope in the next few paragraphs to explain to you why I chose to be a Liberal and hope to disavow any misconceptions of the stereotyped illusion.

There is a reason that the word “Liberal” reminds us of words like, liberty and liberate. To be liberal, is to give freely. We exemplify the best of what this country has to offer and are responsible of what history must choose to embrace as the basis for what truly defines us as Americans. Even those who claim the label Conservative, are most likely not interested in stopping progress, yet they have disdain for a political movement that, as its core, is about moving us forward and instead embrace an ideology that is all about stagnation. Traditional, as far as the definition of a Conservative goes, means unchanging. Should we have held on to the tradition of denying woman the right to vote or earn equal wages? Should we have kept the tradition of segregation going? Traditional, when it comes to America, means being true to our founding principles. To be Conservative, the opposite of Liberal, is to be cautious, moderate, controlled, guarded, unimaginative, undaring, timid and opposed to change. That doesn’t sound like America.

As a Liberal I am a man for faith, and through experience and ability to reason I want to promote a transparent form of government that will protect the rights of all citizens. A Liberal sets up a state of mind, not a creed or a fixed set of platforms. My motto is to promote my fellow man to justice, freedom and equality for all. I want to accomplish this by proclaiming that Liberalism is an ideology, a philosophical view that holds that all liberty is a continual primary political value based on the protection of my rights as stated in the Constitution and its amendments.

I must state the goals of Liberals as they pertain to the functions of government in the 21st century. The world is a conglomeration of different ideologies all struggling to mold a world where each of their concepts can stand up and be counted as an individual gentility. My affirmation is to look ahead to the future and care about all people not just my own kind. I will speak up for liberty and the rights of all and promote health, housing, schools and jobs.

I believe that human dignity is a source of national purpose, human liberty a source of national action, human heart a source of national compassion, and finally human mind a source of invention and ideas. I strongly believe in anti-discrimination and civil service examination. I believe that progressive taxation with proper representation is mandatory, and integrity and virtue should hold our media in check, both news and commentary, and again making it the cornerstone of American Society.

I, as a liberal, am advanced, enlightened, free, rational, reasonable, tolerant, big hearted and generous. These are all synonyms for a liberal and all a perfect description for what America stands for. We are a liberal country; its time we start acting like is again.

Artie