Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: techguerrilla who wrote (90946)	12/5/2006 3:08:39 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362466

Second Post 'O The Day. :•)

To: techguerrilla who wrote (90946)	12/5/2006 5:17:55 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362466

Congress Must Insist Bush Isn't above Law by Jesse Jackson Should President Bush be impeached? The very idea seems extreme, if not loony. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has explicitly ruled impeachment off the Democratic majority's agenda. But activists and legal scholars are organizing to pressure Democrats to begin impeachment hearings. And the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, has issued two remarkable studies on abuses of presidential authority, raising the question of impeachable offenses. The Gingrich Congress' attempt to railroad President Clinton out of office gave impeachment a bad press. It is scorned as irresponsible, vindictive, partisan spitball politics. Rather than addressing the challenges the nation faces, impeachment, many pundits argue, wastes months on harsh, divisive wrangling. And of course, in 1998, the public punished Republicans -- ultimately leading to the toppling of Gingrich himself. But in the current circumstances, the question isn't merely rhetorical or partisan. While in office, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted an extraordinary array of extra-constitutional powers. Bush argues that he has the right to declare war on his own. He claims he can designate any American an "enemy combatant." For those under that suspicion, he claims the right to wiretap them without warrants, arrest them without charges, detain them without lawyers, torture them without judicial review and hold them until the war ends. He also says that neither Congress nor the public has any right to review his decisions, or to gain access to the papers that he chooses to keep secret. Because Bush himself says the war on terror will last for decades, the scope of this assertion is staggering. Bush and his men drove us into the war of choice in Iraq, distorting intelligence to gain public support and undermining our credibility across the world. His policies led directly to the disgraces of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. His assertions have trampled the rights of American citizens, as well as those from other countries. Lack of accountability squandered billions in taxpayer dollars on waste, fraud and abuse of major contractors in Iraq. The list goes on. Bush's remarkable assertions would make the president an elected king. That is not what the founders intended. They wrote the Constitution to create a system of checks and balances to limit presidential power. They gave Congress the right to declare war, arguing that "no one man" should ever have that power in a republic. They passed the Bill of Rights to guarantee rights to the people. How do we hold presidents accountable when they trample these limits? Presidents cannot be indicted. They are immune from civil lawsuits on the basis of their official actions. The only recourse in the Constitution is impeachment. The Democratic Congress has a duty to the Constitution to investigate Bush's claims to be above the law. Conyers may well put off any consideration of impeachment -- but he has a duty to convene serious hearings on the scope of the president's claims, the abuses to the Constitution and to citizens resulting from those claims, and the remedies to them. Whether we're Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, we all should support defending our Constitution. We need a careful consideration of whether the Constitution can or should be changed in the light of the threats we now face. If it is to be changed, then surely it should be changed by amendment, not by the unilateral acts of a president. If changes are not needed, then Bush's claims must be clearly rejected. What if the president and his administration refuse to cooperate with Congress in this inquiry? What if they deny access to all documents, refuse to testify and issue "signing statements" stating that the president will not abide by the laws that Congress passes? Then the Constitution offers only two options: Vote the president out of office, and Bush is due to depart in 2009. Or impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors. In my view, it should not come to that -- but Congress must act to defend the Constitution before America turns completely into an elected dictatorship. © Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group Published on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 by the Chicago Sun-Times

To: techguerrilla who wrote (90946)	12/11/2006 1:49:06 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362466

Barack Star: Following Obama through New Hampshire slate.com <<...It's easy to see why New Hampshire Democrats were in a frenzy over Obama. He is a winning presence in a room. He is stylish in his uniform of white shirt, no tie and dark blazer, and he carries himself with the weightless self-possession Men's magazines achieve only by employing a team of stylists and wardrobe artists. Even his left handed signature is elegant—a 'B' and an 'O' connected by confident slashes. If he really were a rock star, he'd have that signature etched into the side of his private plane. "I didn't know about the charisma factor," said Jessica Hayes leaving Portsmouth. "Now I know. I'm in love." But coolness doesn't get you elected, and coolness wasn't what had the New Hampshire audiences even more excited after they heard him speak (In Portsmouth, people waited in line for over an hour to have him sign a copy of his latest book). They were in love with Obama's message, a call to political renewal and rebirth that eschews toxic Washington partisan politics which he calls "24-hour, slash-and-burn, negative ad, bickering, small-minded politics." Audiences reacted with one word appraisals like they were reviewing a movie: inspirational, uplifting, moving. He is a one person antidote to a country where more than 60 percent of respondents tell pollsters they think the country is headed in the wrong direction and for Democrats, he is the alternative to Hillary Clinton they've been praying for. Obama has said he would announce early in the New Year if he's running. He's been meeting with key advisers to talk about staff and fundraising and discussing the enormous commitment with his wife. Asked in a press conference whether his wife is enthusiastic about a presidential campaign, he said he would keep private discussions private, but added, "She is the smartest, toughest, funniest best friend that I could ever hope for, and she's always had my back. Whatever decision we make, we'll make together." (This will not lose him the women's vote). Newsweek reports that she is already on board. It looked like Obama was already running (The swarm of media following him made it look like he'd already been elected). After the book signing, aides collected names and contact information of those in attendance in order to contact them later. At a local coffee shop Obama touched as many passers by as he could, being careful in most instances to find out if they were residents or just visiting so that he could focus his attention on those who might one day vote for him in a primary. He also displayed skill at the finer political points: He talked to children about his young daughters, used his wife to make fun of himself and paid careful attention to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd...>>