I've Changed As Others Have

In the recent past some bloggers have written about their sites being locked after posting anti-Obama or pro-Clinton articles on Blogger.com. It was recently revealed that blogger.com, owned by Google had contributed money to the Obama Presidential campaign, therefore, Google was determined to protect their investment as any good business would do.

So far, I've apparently minded my manners because my blog has not been locked by the Google gestapo, otherwise known as Google/FISA officials. Considering that I'm not a member of the Obama choir though, and don't plan to become one anytime soon, I can already see the storm clouds forming in the distance.

So after reading a number of reviews, and with few expectations, I decided to check into that rival blog that will remain unnamed. The reviews I had read to that point led me to believe blogger.com was much more simple to deal with and by far the best. Now keep in mind I am NOT a blogging guru; I can barely find the publish button at this point. So, when I first went to Blogger.com's rival website I wasn't very hopeful about that being my future home for any serious sounding off articles. Much to my surprise though, the praise I had read about blogger.com was not completely true. I wonder why??

Yes, there are features on that other blog site that I haven't figured out yet but that was also true of blogger.com. I never did figure out all of blogger's features and may not even bother trying to figure them out now.

After a few days of reading and checking ease of features I officially moved my blog to that rival site, under a different name of course. At this point I'm having a ball sounding off concerning issues that the blogger.com gestapo would probably raise an eyebrow at. Those subjects of course involve Obama's flips on issues moderates and liberals were looking to him for leadership on.

So it is not without some serious sadness that I announce my days at Blogger.com are definitely numbered. But just in case someone at Blogger.com scrutinizes this article I want to set out my reasons for moving on.

For seven-and-a-half years we've lived under the very worst White House dictator this country has ever been cursed with. Why? In 2000 there were apparently enough idiots at the polls and in Florida that decided this creature would be a "person I could have a beer with". The mentality it took to come up with that has to this date totally escaped me. During those long seven + years we've had more and more of our Constitutional rights taken away to the point that our Bill Of Rights and Constitution are now in tatters.

Fast forward eight years and here we are faced with another general election that holds no possibility of improvement to life in this United States. BOTH Presidential candidates voted for the latest FISA bill that now gives companies who spy on Americans total immunity. Google and their free blogging website Blogger.com is one of those companies that are now immune from any legal prosecution for spying on me and other Americans, who do nothing more than express an opinion. By the way, that is the First Amendment to that Constitution that no one has to follow now.

I want someone or some company in a position of power to stand up and say enough is enough - WE WILL NOT SPY on law abiding Americans. Is Blogger.com's rival blogging site just such a business?? That is yet to be seen but we know blogger.com is not. So I am moving on in the hopes that Blogger.com's competition shops some backbone.

Good Bye

My Vote Can NOT Be Taken For Granted Again

For about half my adult life I’ve been an Independent with moderate to liberal leanings and so most of the time, like it or not, I have ended up voting for the Democratic Party Candidate in the general elections.

Another thing that influenced my vote in the past was the response, or lack of, I received when writing or calling one of my elected officials. When contacting an elected official from the Republican Party I never, I repeat, NEVER got a response of any kind. On the other hand, when contacting an elected official of the Democratic Party, with a request or message, often I received a form letter in the mail, within a few days, thanking me for contacting their office. The letter was never hand written or even personally signed but it was at least an acknowledgement of the fact that I had contacted the person’s office. I surmised that if my elected officials couldn’t remember I had contacted their office long enough to hit the print button on a computer, then they probably wouldn’t remember any of their campaign promises after winning an election either.

I think those days have just come to a screeching halt!!!!

Someone sent me an email claiming that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, was blocking efforts by the Judiciary Committee to bring contempt charges against Karl Rove. The email I received went on to list all the Democratic Party members of the Judiciary Committee and urged people to let the Committee members know what they thought of Nancy Pelosi’s actions.

I decided I could easily do that and as I reached for the phone and I decided to begin at the bottom and work my way to the top of the list. The bottom name on the list was Representative Keith Ellison and when a female voice answered the phone I told her the reason for my call by saying, “I know Rep. Ellison is on the Judiciary Committee and I hope he will go ahead and press contempt charges against Karl Rove even over the objections of Nancy Pelosi. It is my understanding that Pelosi is blocking this as well as having taken impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney off the table. Democrats need to find out what Karl Rove has over Pelosi and deal with it and then do what is right, which is make this criminal Administration and their advisor's pay for what they’ve done to the American people."

The woman then asked if I lived in Rep. Ellison's district to which I truthfully answered "No". She then asked if I knew who my Representative was and of course I answered, "Yes, but my Representative in not on the Judiciary Committee and I specifically want to get a message to each and every person on this Judiciary Committee."

The woman then went on to say, "Our office is limited to taking messages from those in Rep Ellison's district only. You can, however communicate this same message to your Representative who can then communicate with Rep. Ellison."

By this time I was fuming so I said, "In other words the Democrats are going to do what they darn well please and any little excuse they can use not to listen to the people of this country is just fine with them. I specifically remember when Rep. Ellison was campaigning for office, him stating a number of times that he would represent all the people. Here is his chance and he has a convenient excuse. Apparently, just as Barack Obama is doing now, Rep. Ellison said what he needed to say about representing all the people in order to get elected. Now that he’s in office he knows he can do as he pleases and all he has to do is claim someone is not in his district. Whether you take down my message about the Judiciary Committee or not, you might want to tell Rep. Ellison that the more get lost type responses like this one, and you may well loose more than just my vote in November. I was willing to suck it up and vote for Mr. Obama in November just to keep John McCain out of office. With a response like this one though, you could pay me a billion dollars and I wouldn't vote for any Democrat on the ticket now."

OMG - I was absolutely fuming!!! I hope this was a one-time, one-person response and that others will at least listen. Right now I am just too angry to find out but hopefully I’ll calm down in the next day or so and at that point I will call more people on the list. In the meantime, maybe I will email all of them and see if the response is a bit more positive.

At this point, my vote in November is most definitely not an assured thing.

Please do contact your Democratic House of Representative Judiciary Committee Members can be found at and let them know your opinion of Nancy Pelosi’s attempted influence.

Please Understand My Apathy

No I’m not trying to get myself in any trouble by using someone else’s acronym. Instead I’m trying to show that while P.U.M.A currently means “Political Unity My A##”, it can also mean different things to different people. Basically it all boils down to many unhappy, unaffiliated, and unconvinced voters who might have a surprise or two in store for both major political parties. We are the “Undecided”, the “Independents”, and the new P.U.M.A’s that both parties should set up and take notice of because they are going to need us in November.

By no means am I a cast-in-stone Democrat but admittedly my political beliefs usually fall just left of the political middle. Meaning, of course, that I’m a liberal to moderate Independent, depending on which party is courting my vote at the moment. I tend to lean toward whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be because, among other issues, as a female I don’t want anyone but me, my doctor, and my god, determining what I can and cannot do with my body. On top of that I’m not at all happy with the war-mongering attitude of the Republican Party either. Nor do I want someone in Washington, DC, who doesn’t even know me, determining who I can love and who I can marry. I don’t tell anyone else what he or she can and cannot do in their personal life so let them stay out of my personal business and everyone else’s.

My first choice of a Presidential Candidate, out of the entire field of Democratic and Republican candidates, was Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico. He’s had foreign affairs experience under the Clinton Administration, he has dealt with state budgets, has experience dealing with illegal aliens and border problems, has a long record on issues that can be traced and examined, and would have made a wonderful President.

Short of Bill Richardson, I was willing to consider any candidate the Democratic Party nominated to carry the party banner even though the candidate may have been far left of what I would have preferred. That was until Howard Dean and the rest of the DNC stepped in and high jacked the entire Democratic Party. They demanded that delegates and super-delegates announce their Presidential Candidate choice before the Convention in Denver. In other words a candidate was again appointed for the people, instead of the people being the ones to do the appointing. This country has been plagued with voting problems and with Presidential Candidates being appointed for us since 2000, so maybe I shouldn’t have expected anything less this time around.

I did expect something different though; I expected a Democratic Party candidate who would lead Democrats and many Independents to the White House as a united force. We expected a candidate who would work to overturn many of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration. What we got was Mr. Flip-Flopper, better known as Barack Obama. Many people are now wondering if he even knows what he’s talking about. As “David Brooks” puts it writing on “The American Mind” web site,“But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes. This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.”

I’m sorry but this is not my idea of a Presidential candidate. Oh, I know I’ll be accused of being racist, tied to the past, a “Hilbot” as was posted on one web site to someone else, or who knows what else the Obama devotees will come up with next. This, however, has nothing to do with race, sex, or any such thing. This has only to do with the qualifications of the person we need to undo the disasters of the Bush Administration.

The Worst “Lesser Of Two Evils” Presidential Campaign

I’ve voted in a few Presidential campaigns, volunteered on the campaigns of a few candidates, so it’s not as if this is my first Presidential campaign experience. I’ve seen issues and candidates that gave me hope for this country, and also saw things that gave me pause for the collective mentality of my fellow Americans. Rarely have I seen a Presidential race like this one though and hope I don’t ever see a similar one.

We started out with a number of mediocre to good candidates on the Democratic as well as the Republican side that couldn’t get enough votes to continue running or didn’t have the enormous amounts of money to continue a modern day campaign. There were some candidates in the early running that may have stuck to their word a little better than these two are doing. I didn’t agree with the politics of some of these candidates but, in my humble opinion, they would have certainly out shined the two major candidates that we are left with.

If my only choices for Presidential candidates had been from the far right it would have been a toss up between Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, with Tom Tancredo topping the list. Ron Paul claimed he’d deal with the financial mess this country is in, starting with the repeal of the Income Tax among other things. Almost as conservative was Tom Tancredo who vowed to do something about the 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country. He talked the talk and walked the walk by writing to the Mexican President, "In your speech yesterday to the California State legislature, you lectured the American people on how to improve our immigration policies. Why did you not propose that we model our policies on Mexico’s own policies toward illegal entry across your own southern border? Mexico expends enormous resources to prevent Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans from entering the country illegally, but you castigate the United States for wanting secure borders. Mr. President, in my neighborhood that is called hypocrisy."

Then there was Mike Huckabee, the Govornor of Arkansas who opposes abortion, same sex marriage, civil unions, and homosexuals in the military. Mitt Romney, a member of the Mormon church began as pro-choice but after a change of heart became pro-life and claimed, I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative.

Moving over toward the left we had candidates who would have naturally ruled from the middle. Joe Biden Senator from Delaware He has long supported the Bush administration's war effort and appropriations to pay for it, but has argued repeatedly that more soldiers are needed, the war should be internationalized, and the Bush administration should "level with the American people" about the cost and length of the conflict. From the entire field of Presidential candidates my favorite by far would have been Bill Richardson Governor of New Mexico Under President Bill Clinton served as US Ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 to 1998 when he was appointed US Secretary of Energy. With his extensive foreign affairs experience he would have been much more capable of restoring this country’s standing in the world.

Moving to the far left was Dennis Kucinich a member of the House of Representatives from Ohio. He opposed the invasion of Iraq, advocated US withdrawal from the NAFTA because, in his view “…it causes the loss of more American jobs than it creates”. Criticized during his 2004 campaign for changing his stance on the issue of abortion he explained, "I've always worked to make abortions less necessary, through sex education and birth control. But the direction that Congress has taken, increasingly, is to make it impossible for women to be able to have an abortion if they need to protect their health. So when I saw the direction taken, it finally came to the point where I understood that women will not be truly free unless they have the right to choose.” Next is Ralph Nader, American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, perennial candidate for President of the United States and spoiler of the 200 election by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes. In fact, all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes.

The only candidate who did not drop out of the Presidential race of their own volition, but in many people’s opinion, including mine, was knifed in the back by Howard Dean and misogamy attacks the DNC did not vigorously condemn was Hillary Clinton. The former first Lady between 1993-2001, and current Senator from New York, is a member of The Senate Armed Services Committee. She believes believe gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans, supports Roe v. Wade claiming, “Throughout my career, I have fought to ensure that every woman has the right to make the most personal of life decisions with her family and her doctor.” Had she become President she promised to close the gun show loophole and lift the current ban on funding for embryonic stem research. Hillary Clinton set out her top three priorities as President by stating, “When I am President, my top three priorities will be providing quality, affordable health care to all Americans, ending the war in Iraq, and strengthening the middle class.

So here we are left with two Presidential Candidates that will leave voters with a “lesser of two evils” type decision to make on November 4, 2008. A decision that I will find very difficult to make considering the choices I’m left with.

There is the Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama who in 1996 four competitor petitions invalidated and emerged as the only candidate in an Illinios race. Shortly after his 2005 election to the U.S. Senate, Obama he delivered a well-received address arguing “faith should have a greater role in public discourse." Didn’t this country’s Founding Fathers build something into The Constitution addressing faith and religion in government, based on their experiences in England? So why is Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate, advocating a conservative approach to social programs?

Thomas Sowell, an African American, of The Hoover Institution stated in April 29, 2008, article, “There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. At the end of that same article Mr. Sowell seemed to specifically address this election’s first time voters by writing, “Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it. Addressing Rev. Wright’s controversial words Thomas Sowell also said, Spin number one is that Jeremiah Wright's words were "taken out of context." Like most people who use this escape hatch, those who say this do not explain what the words mean when taken in context. In just what context does "God damn America" mean something different?

Spin number two is that Barack Obama says he didn't hear the particular things that Jeremiah Wright said that are now causing so much comment. It wasn't just an isolated remark. Nor were the enthusiastic responses of the churchgoers something which suggests that this anti-American attitude was news to them or something that they didn't agree with. If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church. In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break! You can't be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views. Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that. We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image.”

The Republican Party candidate is John McCain senior Senator from Arizona who served as a pilot in the U.S. Navy in the Vietnam War and was a prisoner of war from 1967 to 1973. He was involved in the “Keating Five scandal” and was one of only six Republican senators to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment after a Massachusetts court affirmed gay unions, he took the position that states could decide their own marriage laws without federal help. John McCain a conservative before he was a liberal before he became a conservative again. In the early 1990s, McCain caught the reform bug and became the Senate's foremost advocate of campaign finance reform, as well as an outspoken opponent of corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending. The one thing that pretty much clinched my opposition of John McCain was the infamous hug given to George Bush negatively commented on John McCain’s military record.

One issue few in this Presidential race seem to focus on is the fact that McCain receives a tax free disability pension that is related to his military service and raises some obvious questions about John McCain’s fitness. It’s reported that John McCain hikes in the Grand Canyon which begs the question, “If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked. Some of John McCain’s war related injuries are reported to be a shattered knee and both arms being broken when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967. In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders. Paul Galanti, another former POW in the group claimed, “McCain’s injuries were serious enough to qualify him for disability, it would not affect his performance as president.” Galanti went on to say, “I don’t know of any physical requirements to be commander in chief”, and “He would have a nice car to drive around in and a nice airplane to fly in.”

Wow, what choices we have before us this November. There is the Democratic Party candidate who flip-flops on issues and throws people under the bus as soon as they no longer serve his purposes. Then we have a Republican Party candidate whose military record leaves questions concerning his physical and psychological health. Unfortunately, there is not a “qualifications list” that the American voter can use as a basis for determining the best person to be the next President of the United States, but there certainly should be. Maybe it would help prevent the situation people like myself find ourselves in where a “toss of the coin” might determine our vote.

The Democratic and Republican Conventions

Can the yet uncompleted plans for the Democratic and Republican conventions help the American voter determined ideological differences between the parties??

Many Americans believe the Democratic and Republican parties have very different priorities and objectives that focus on completely different segments of society. For instance, the Democratic Party message has often been geared toward the middle-class blue-collar working person with a family to raise and a mortgage to pay. It’s said the Democratic Party has often favored unions that helped protect workers rights and working conditions on the job. The Democratic Party is also seen as the party less interested in money and more interested in civil rights protections for minority segments of our society.

On the other hand, many believe the Republican Party message seems directed toward the bigger business and multi-million dollar corporations. The Republican Party has often claimed it is small as well as large businesses that make our standard of living possible. Many republicans believe that such things as tax breaks for investors and corporations will encourage more business and thereby give more American their slice of the “American Pie”. For these and other reasons the Republican Party is, therefore, seen as being more interested in big money and less interested in the middle class worker.

It would appear that preparations for the political conventions back up these the assumptions many Americans have of the two major parties. So far the Denver, Colorado, based Democratic Party Convention committee has “struggled to top $25 million” and so it is about $15 million short of the $40.6 million that is needed. As the article goes on to point out part of the reason for this shortfall is, “We’ve got to deal with the fact that there is belt-tightening all across corporate America,” Mr. Lopez said. “They are reducing spending, and that has had a big impact. We are no different than others trying to raise money in this environment. Everyone is facing it.” So the Democratic Party seems to be short on money but is definitely not hurting for convention volunteers. It seems, “As many as 25,000” have registered to volunteer during the August Convention. The article goes on to inform people that “As a result of the large volunteer base, some early decisions have been made: Most volunteers will be assigned to work a maximum of four hours during the convention.” It seems that for average Americans money may not be readily available but giving of their time is something they can and are willing to do.

The Republican Party seems to have approached the planning of their party convention with very different priorities. Republicans have had no problems convincing the party loyal to open their check books to the tune of $31 million to cover the costs of their convention that will be held in St. Paul, Minnesota, in September. So paying the bills at the republican convention will apparently not be an issue. What does seem to be an issue for republicans though is convincing people to volunteer to work as airport greeters, direction givers and other essential posts. The article goes on to point out that republicans have only “…recruited 4,000 of the 10,000 volunteers they need for a fully staffed convention. The differences in the major political party philosophy seems apparent in the statement, "We focused on raising the money first and getting the volunteers second and that's a good thing," Rybak said. It’s apparent that one major party initially concentrated on people and their volunteer efforts in accomplishing a common goal. Now, that same party must play catch up in reaching their financial goal with the same level of success. The other major party began by concentrating on raising the money they needed. That party must now try to convince people to volunteer in rolling out the red carpet for an effort not many seem to have a passion for. Could these different approaches to the same goal of a political party convention tell the American voter something they should be aware about these two parties?? If there is a lesson in all of this let’s hope the American voter realizes the object of that lesson before November?? Our collective future depends of Americans being informed voters.

Obama and Hillary in Unity

Anyone who objectively watched Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share the stage in Unity, New Hampshire, were no doubt struck by a couple of things that seemed out of place with the “we’re fast friends” speeches.

If I had listened to both speeches in Unity, New Hampshire, without watching it at the same time I would have been convinced that the Democratic Party was well on the way to being united under the leadership of a candidate who respected and truly welcomed his opponent’s supporters. Most of Barack Obama’s words certainly gave the impression of a united and respectful front. The problem with this angelic scene is that words are one thing but body language is quite another matter. Barack Obama’s body language by no means marched the unity atmosphere of togetherness.

Barack Obama showed his disrespect for his companion in a couple of ways. First, Barack Obama did not wear a buttoned suit jacket or sport coat. There is a time and place for casual dress but when you are trying to win over a previous opponent’s supporters that is probably not a good time for anything but your best business attire. Obama could have easily unbuttoned his suit coat when Hillary Clinton’s speech was over, which would have communicated a desire for less formal dress. To not wear a suit jacket for the entire performance simply did not back up his words of unity with the actions those words needed.

Women have been the subject of condescending comments by men for all too many years and so they jump out at us when we hear yet another one. Barack Obama made this tragic and probably unconscious mistake today when he was supposedly praising Hillary Clinton. At one point in his speech Obama said in reference to Clinton’s accomplishments, “She proved women can do anything the boys can do and do it better, and do it in heels. I still don’t know how she does it in heels”

Please allow me to pick those two sentences apart from a woman’s point of view. In the first sentence Barack Obama mentioned, “…women can do anything the boys can do…”. Men often consciously or subconsciously try to diminish a female’s accomplishments by comparing a grown woman’s endeavors to a “boy’s” accomplishments. Why couldn’t Barack Obama have said something like, “Hillary Clinton proved women can do anything men can do?” The second very condescending comment Barack Obama made was when he said, “…and do it in heels”. From a woman’s point of view, that gives the impression that Barack Obama thinks women’s heels somehow adversely affects their mental capabilities. Hmmmmmmm!! Now that I think about this, there is that little issue of men wearing a long piece of cloth wrapped around their necks and knotted tightly in the front. Could it be those ties have an adverse affect on men’s abilities to think critically and clearly?? That issue is for a completely different blog though. The last thing that Barack Obama said that was extremely condescending was, “I don’t know how she does it in heels.” Hillary Clinton chuckled at the right moment so as not to draw attention to the fact that Obama had just committed a major faux pa. From a woman’s point of view, what do our heels, pantsuits, dresses, or any other type of attire have to do with a woman’s ability to think and perform as good or better than any man??

If Barack Obama wants to win over Hillary Clinton supporters he might want to think about hiring an etiquette coach before giving another speech that references or addresses women. At this point I “just say no deal".

What We Didn’t Learn from History

This is no doubt going to age me but I remember the 60’s quite well. When some people think of the 60’s right away they are mentally carried away to the “Love In’s”, the “Flower Child”, pot smoking young people, and of course “Woodstock”. Oh, but there was so much more to the 60’s than just tie-dye, “free love”, and out of control young people.

I especially remember how acceptable it was to speak out against the US Government. Oh, it did not happen overnight by any means because for all too long there was an endless line of “Kiss-Ups” in society. The media was in no hurry to stick its neck out and so questioning “the fuzz” or demanding answers from “The Man” was just not in vogue. In fact the media at the time was pro-government for the most part and didn’t want to be seen as a “fink”. Sound familiar?? Anyone who opposed the government on anything was seen as a “hippie” or Anti-American. Of course the word “hippie” was to be used as a cuss word to the point that parent’s cringed if they had a “hippie”, a socially aware young person, or “flower-child” in their family.

As time went on and more abuses by the Nixon and Johnson Administrations became better known, dissent became increasingly more acceptable. This dissent wasn’t an overnight sensation, as “Watergate” will always stand testament to. The issue of dissent started out as barely a whimper and eventually grew into a young person’s deafening roar. Eventually there were demonstrations almost every day and usually involved the ongoing Vietnam War or the latest example of government abuse. In fact, when the information leading up to Watergate finally came out Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and especially The Washington Post received death threats and were continuously vilified in hopes of keeping them quiet. So it wasn’t easy, and plenty of people ended up in jail for daring to question the government, but persistence paid off and everyone became more comfortable with the issue of questioning everything. In other words, it was only through hard work and persistence that 60’s young people found their voice and were willing to use it for whatever cause they associated themselves with.

Fast forward 40 years and we discover our society did not learn very much from history. Our government has run amok and “We The People” has allowed it to happen with barely a whimper in protest. So what steps did we a take and what decisions were made that Americans overlooked or ignored that now makes Senator J, William Fulbright’s warning, "Our government will soon become what it is already a long way toward becoming, an elective dictatorship" appear to be a reality?

What changed so much in 40 years that today squashes protests from everyone but a very small minority? The answer actually involves a number of issues and opportunities that went unnoticed by everyone but a few. First; there is PNAC Project for the New American that convinced an aging 60’s generation, who were now busy raising families, there was behind the scenes activity they had no control over. Americans may not have liked everything about PNAC but rebuilding America’s military certainly seemed like a good idea. So the majority decided to take the good with the bad and keep quiet. Second; came September 11, 2001 when America was attacked and as in the past Americans put their differences behind them and banded together as one.

The world was willing to come to our aid and also join us in an attempt to battle terrorism with those famous words 'Today we are all Americans' - NATO allies pledge support. For just a moment in time we had the chance to unite the entire world in the common goal of irradiating terrorism and George Bush’s words of “You are either with us or against us”seemed promising. It was not to be though because America did not stand up and demand that Bush and Cheney choose the path best for future generations and us. Instead, the chance of a lifetime was thrown to the trash heap of history and America went down another path.

For the last seven and a half years we’ve had an administration headed by Vice-President Cheney who learned very well from history. Richard Cheney took lessons in the Nixon and Ford administrations as well as secretary of defense under the first President Bush. He learned well to push the bounders of “executive privilege” especially when dealing with a stubborn Congress. We’ve seen many examples over the past seven and a half years of Cheney’s ability to learn well and apply those lessons from the 1960’s that Arthur Schlesinger called the “imperial presidency” In fact, with a title of Vice-President, Dick Cheney asserted he is part of the Legislative Branch and not part of the Executive Branch and so not required to cooperate with the National Archives office to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.

It’s obvious that this Administration will get away with breaking the law and thanks to Nancy Pelosie will not have to worry about meeting Nixon’s fate. Had the residents of California seen the issues and candidates a little differently “…challenger promises Bush impeachment” life might be much different today. Even Ralph Nader: "Impeach Bush & Cheney!" who took campaign money from the Republicans in 2000 claimed that Bush and Cheney should be impeached.

We used to have laws that even the President and Vice-President had to abide by. That is not to say past administrations have not broken the law and gotten away with it. Far from it, every administration for the last 200+ years have broken the law in one way or another but through the years there have not been many impeachment proceedings. Meaning of course that Americans are a very forgiving people, a people who after voting expect someone else to attend to the details, or we are a very ignorant lazy people who don’t care. Hopefully, America will wake up soon. In the end though history will be the judge of what kind of a society America is and I fear that final determination will not be a kind one.