Damage By Conservatives to the 3rd Branch of the US Government; Part II of a Three Part Series

Supreme Court & Court Justices

Many US Citizens don’t understand that the 3 branches of US Government are actually referred to by number. As the two houses of Congress are those for representing the American people, they are referred to as the 1st Branch. The President and his administration is the Executive Branch or the 2nd Branch and the Judicial Branch or the Supreme Court is the 3rd Branch. I took on the 1st Branch in Part I of this series; in Part II, I will now take on the 3rd Branch and I will leave the 2nd Branch for the last part.

The Judicial Branch of the Federal Government is also sometime referred to as the “Invisible Branch” as few Americans ever have any direct contact with the 3rd Branch. However, its decisions can have a profound affect on all of us. Whether it is in regard to a woman’s right to choose, changes in our environmental rules or the education of our children, the Federal judges can touch each one of us just as closely as we embrace an individual member of our own family.

Up until the last few decades, the Supreme Court had not been given the close political attention that it is given today. A century ago the Supreme Court was looked at as being virtually devoid of values and somewhat as a mechanical tool that only had the responsibility to be objective, or even neutral at times. Its job was to just review issues or laws to confirm that it followed the strict rules as established by our forefathers within the US Constitution. That definition of a Justice of today’s Supreme Court has changed significantly.

A well respected law professional and researcher of the Chicago Law School, Professor Cass Sunstein, has written in his book: Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America, that there are basically four different philosophies in which current judicial thinking can be categorized. These categories are defined as Majoritarianism, Perfectionism. Minimalism and Fundamentalism. Listed below are the definitions of these philosophies and some ideas of where some those on the court are today.

• Majoritarianism:
This philosophy embraces the concept of following the will of the majority. If the majority of the voters were to support same-sex marriage or affirmative action, the court should not intervene to argue against those ideas. Past Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was of this philosophy. However, even though this philosophy is becoming very popular among lawyers and law professors, there are no majoritarians on the current Supreme Court Bench.

• Perfectionism:
The perfectionist follows the exact text of the Constitution in a way that reflects the justice’s own concept and belief of freedom of speech, presidential powers, etc. Former Chief Justice Earl Warren was a perfectionist about a person’s rights as he interpreted the Constitution. Current Justice, John Paul Stevens is the only possible sitting perfectionist judge.

• Minimalism:
Minimalists could also be called “skeptics” as they do not believe in getting involved unless the issue or law has a very solid background in traditions and practices. They can be liberal or conservative, as previous Justice Felix Frankfurter who was a minimalist from the left and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was one from the right.

• Fundamentalism:
The fundamentalist believes that the Constitution must be interrupted in its “original understanding”. If the Constitution did not originally prohibit an action (i.e.: discrimination due to race, sexual orientation, child labor, etc.) then there is no authority for action by the Supreme Court today. Justice Antonin Scalia is considered an excellent example of a fundamentalist.

Starting with Richard M. Nixon; he understood that as a Supreme Court Justice holds his position for life, it was to all the conservatives’ best interest to make sure the Court’s philosophies were in line with Nixon’s fundamental conservative philosophy. Richard Nixon and his GOP successors have continued working to make sure the make-up of the highest Court in the land is not a balanced Court of both liberals and conservatives but instead is always tilted in the direction of the far right conservatives. They have been very successful with this effort and with one more Republican President, they could set a radical conservative direction of the Court for decades to come.

In order to emphasize this point, political author and previous Nixon White House Counsel, John W. Dean, has written the following about Federal Court Judges: “If you show me an Appellate Judge who says he or she never lets his or her politics or personal beliefs influence their decision making, I will show you a judge who is either a liar or without sufficient intelligence to be on a higher bench (the Supreme Court). Of course, good judges do try to keep their objectivity, but it is naïve to believe that this is completely possible on anything other than the most mundane, inconsequential, or routine judicial business.”

Richard Nixon was the first candidate to make major use of his potential Supreme Court appointees in his political speeches when running for the US presidency in 1968. For the past 40 years, Presidents Nixon, Reagan and both of the President Bush’s (with the help of the GOP led Congresses) have worked hard to seat “strict conservationists” or “law & order” Judges. Only Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton chose to not use the appointments in this manner in their political campaigns. President Reagan on the other hand, took Nixon’s lead and proceeded to not only use his appointments for setting a highly conservative Supreme Court, he also began placing solid conservative judges throughout the Federal Judiciary Courts both high and low. Presidents Bush I and Bush II continued this process with a vengeance.

Richard Nixon actually began preparing his case for more conservatives on the Supreme Court bench even prior to his 1968 election. He achieved this by working off-line with the Senate Republicans and convincing them to filibuster President Johnson’s choice for Chief Justice (before Johnson left office) of Associate Justice, Abe Fortas. Judge Fortas eventually withdrew his name for nomination and Earl Warren agreed to stay on as Chief Justice for the end of that Supreme Court term which ended in 1969. This allowed President Nixon the opportunity to fill Earl Warren’s Chief Justice position instead of it being filled by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Since this process was begun by Nixon, the promising of nominating the judges with conservative or liberal tendencies is now always included in the campaign rhetoric of both parties. Unfortunately, it is just one more way to emphasize that the politicizing of the Supreme Court is just as much as a part of today’s political campaigns as the current Red and Blue designations given to the 50 US states. Since the Supreme Court awarded the US Presidency to George W. Bush, the Supreme Court can no longer be looked at as the “neutral party” that just decides based on whether a decision or law follows the rules of the Constitution.

The real issue for the future is going to be decided by which party wins the US Presidency in 2008. If another Republican is to win in ’08, that President’s new Supreme Court appointees will make the high Court the most radical judicial conservative Court in US history. As it is today, with that type of Court, presidential powers will not be part of the high Court's requirement for providing a judicial check and balance system. Civil liberties and personal rights will be at the bottom of the Court's priority list. Based on past performances, they will focus on the needs of the religious right, business conservatives and going after overturning Roe vs Wade.

Regardless of your feelings toward the candidates, any of the current Democratic candidates would be acceptable for what is needed to start getting the make-up of the Supreme Court back to a better balance of liberals and conservatives. Think about it.

Damage By Conservatives to All 3 Branches of the US Government: Part I of III Parts

Congress in Session

Since I began as a political feature writer and blogger, I have been taking on the current administration for their various political, and quite often illegal activities. To date, I have been especially focused on the loss of personal freedoms that have stood for decades or in some cases centuries, such as the loss of Habeas Corpus. What has been even more disturbing from this over-riding of the constitution by President Bush and company, is the overall devastation that the neo-cons have been responsible for in all three branches of our government. In many cases, moves by this administration and certain Republican Senators and Representatives, or some of their lobbyists and supporters have caused damages that could now take years or decades to repair, if in fact repair is even possible.

This article will be the first of a three, or possibly a four part series to high-light some of the illegal, or at least unethical activities that have occurred over the past two decades and their subsequent negative results. Many of these actions, which were not just illegal, but were also blatant examples of ignoring the US Constitution and some of the rules of order within the branches that have stood for over 200 years. Please note that I will not be using just the information that I have been able to obtain personally, but I will also quote from the findings of other individuals or organizations such as; Juliet Eilperin – Capital Hill Reporter, Matt Taibbi – Editor Rolling Stone Magazine, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Nation Magazine, Alan Wolfe – Author and Professor of Political Science at Boston College, John W. Dean – Previous Republican White House Counsel and current political author, Thomas Mann – of the Brookings Institute and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute (Mann & Ornstein were also the co-authors of the best seller on the latest Republican Congress entitled: The Broken Branch) David Price – House Representative / North Carolina and many others as will be noted.

The foundation for what started the GOP's blatant disregard for the Constitution starts with their basic negative attitude toward government in general. The success of the Republicans in this endeavor began seriously with the presidential election of Ronald Reagan. It then went into high gear when the Republicans took over both houses of Congress in the mid 1990’s. This anti-government attitude is still strongly supported by a couple of often repeated quotations from two of President Reagan’s most famous speeches, one which was used in his first inagural speech. They were: ”Government is not the solution to our problem; government IS the problem.” And the one quote that is still played many times every week on various talk radio shows: “The nine most frightening words that I ever heard were: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ “

From the beginning of President Reagan’s first term, he proceeded to use his presidency for dismanteling as many government areas of regulation and oversight as possible. Subsequent to President Reagan’s efforts, the quest for dropping congressional oversight went from doing it through the normal, legal political processes, to what later became the direction from the Republican leadership. That leadership consisted of key House Representatives such as; Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert, and Senators Bill Frist and Ted Stevens. From these individuals came the basic lessons to the Republican Congress on how to expand their agenda while continuing to ignore the US Constitution. The following are some key examples of their questionable or sometimes illegal ways for doing the people's business:

Not Following the Established Rule of Order:

1. Early in 1996, the Republican House came under the new leadership of Newt Gingrich where upon he established the “Tuesday - Thursday” rule for the official working days in the House. No business in the House started until Tuesday and everyone caught their planes or headed home on Thursday afternoons. Therefore, they only worked three days a week while in session. Subsequently, in order to get the work done in three days, much of the floor debate time was severely cut back. (More on this later.)

2. From the beginning, Speaker Gingrich encouraged junior house members to NOT move to or bring their families to Washington DC. This lack of socializing with the other congressmen, regardless of their party affiliation tended to support the "us against them" attitude between the Republicans and the Democrats.

3. Under Speaker Gingrich, House member's trips abroad were severely cut back which kept both parties from getting to know the members of the other party. The Republicans tried to sell this as a “cutting expenses” apporach, which did fool everyone for a while. However, the real long-term goal was for keeping any real partisan efforts between the House members totally at bay which would help them make Washington DC into a “one party Republican town”.

4. Speaker Gingrich then went on to cut back and to help limit any real floor debates by limiting all the lawmakers to a maximum of 2 minute floor speeches. Therefore, the Democrats were never able to offer any true deliberations or contributions. One Democratic Representative was overheard saying; "All you can do in 2 minutes is insult the other guy." This was exactly what the Republican leadership wanted; more separation of the two parties.

5. Gingrich eventually abolished the Seniority System for determining committee leadership. He personally took on the responsibility of appointing committee chairmen, allowing him to also control their agendas. He therefore became a virtual, "Ruler or King of the House of Representatives."

6. Then things started to disinigrate a bit. After Tom DeLay was successful in redistricting Texas to favor Republicans, as the House Majority Leader he then sought to develop redistricting rules within the house in order to encourage Republicans to vote in a one block group, ah la - only one-party controlling the House of Representatives. Fortunately, some of DeLay's mischief finally caught up with him and he was removed from office and was indicted for his illegal efforts in the redistricting and his relationship with convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. He also later wrote in his autobiography that while in office, he encouraged key lobbyists that had contributed to the party to submit drafts to him of any new bills that the lobbyists might want passed in Congress in order to help their business endeavors.

7. For the most part, all Republicans like to boast of their ability to cut budgets, reduce deficits and to be fiscally conservative. At the end of his second term, Bill Clinton had left Predident Bush a $236 Billion budget surplus. However, as of mid 2006, the surplus was gone and the Republican budget deficit had ballooned to >$300 Billion. Rolling Stone’s Editor, Matt Taibbi wrote “In the age of (convicted lobbyist) Jack Abramoff, what happened to the money is a very ugly question to even contemplate.” He went on to say that the Dick Cheney sponsored “Energy Bill” was one of the explanations for the financial debacle. This “pork-barrel” spending bill of Cheney's was crafted with zero input from the Democrats. Per Taibbi: “This wet dream bill of Dick Cheney’s has left grease tracks on every set of extended palms in the US Capitol.”

8. Up to this time, no one had heard that much about “congressional earmarks” until the Republicans took over Congress. An earmark is a pork-barrel spending attachment to a Congressional bill for helping specific members of congress and supporting their special projects. Earmarks have been around the government virtually forever in the US Congress. Unfortunately, the Republicans have made both an art and a major business of their earmarks. In 2006, the number of special project earmarks increased more than double from the 1994 Democratic Congress. The 1994 total of 4,155 Democratic "special projects", had a total dollar amount of $29.11 Billion. This increased in 2006 to 15,832 Republican Congress "special projects" with a total dollar amount of $77.77 Billion.

9. As to doing their jobs in Congress, due to the Republican’s restrictions on being able to have a meaningful debate, the time spent in any debate in 2006 was 97 days, the lowest number of debating hours in sixty years.

10. In bending the rules to exclude any Democrats, the Ways & Means Chairman, Bill Thomas (R-Ca) became so bold as to tell the House Democratic conferees on the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill that "All the debate sessions would be cancelled if any Democrats showed up for the conference".

11. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine wrote: “The Republican controlled Congress set a new set of rules that says that when a Democratic President is in office, there are no matters too stupid or meaningless to be investigated fully – but when George Bush is president, no evidence of corruption or incompetence is shocking enough to warrant congressional attention.” Since the 1950’s, no Democratic Committee Chairman issued a subpoena without either minority consent or a committee vote. In the Clinton years, the Republican Congress dropped that arrangement and issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to the Clinton White House for investigating 2 million pages of government documents regarding “alleged” Democratic misconduct. (No misconduct was ever found.) However, since George W. Bush came into office, not one subpoena was submitted to the White House by the Republican Congress.

12. Congress virtually dropped all oversight during the first six years of the Bush presidency. This included areas from homeland security, the war contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the torture at Abu Ghraib as well as the illegal domestic telephone surveillance. Oversight by the Senate is normally a constitutional role for them in national security. Under the Republicans, it was virtually ignored. This is also one of the key reasons the US is unable to identify what happened to b1illions of US government tax dollars that have gone “unaccounted for” in Iraq and other areas of the Middle East. Representative David Price (D-NC) has stated: “No congressional function has atrophied more under Republican control than the oversight of the executive (branch)."Many legitimate oversight requests by the Democrats have been blocked by the Republicans.” Representatives John Moss (D-Ca) and John Dingell (D-MI) have stated: “The extent to which partisan loyalty and deference to a Republican president have trumped any sense of institutional identity or constitutional responsibility since President Bush took office.”

13. Allan Wolfe of Boston College has written that liberals and conservatives have disagreed with each other for years on not just political systems but over the means to serve those ends. As he said; “However, from a conservative (Republican) point of view, separation of powers is divisive, tolerance a luxury, fairness another word for weakness, and cooperation (between the two parties) unnecessary.”

There are many more areas (such as the pre-emptive War in Iraq, international relations, universal healthcare, and immigration) where the Republican Congress and the President have tried their best to change the governing management of this country. One could say that the Republicans have sincerely tried to make America into what the President's long time friend (and re-writer of history), Karl Rove proclaimed, that America would soon become a "One party country!" One can only imagine the chaos and anarchy that would develop under those unfortunate circumstances. Fortunately, in all the years since US Congress was originally formed, there have been certain standards and rules that have evolved or have been set up that became the agreed way to do the country’s governing business. The concept has always been that "we must all work together in order to get the peoples work accomplished". For this reason, the attiutude of bipartisan cooperation was developed on a "we'll give up a little here and they will do like-wise, when we need some help at a later date". This became the way a true representative government should function and for the most part, it was one of the reasons that the US became the greatest democratic nation on earth. However, after the Republicans took both houses in the mid 90's and especially after George W. Bush took office; the Republican Congress and the President have been trying to govern by saying: "It's my way or the highway!" Hopefully, after January 2009, that attitude will become history. However, as the great Yogi Berra once said "it ain't over till it's over". So let's hope most of America realizes that this latest Republican experiment with our American government is a failure and it's time for us to learn from our mistakes.

In Part II of this series, I will take on what damage the Republicans and specifically the President have done to the US Judicial Branch and what we can do as individuals to prevent it from becoming even more critical

Conservative or Liberal: More Than a Personal Choice?

Could you have been born as one or the other?

For years we have been hearing the different definitions of a conservative versus a liberal. We have all heard that conservatives believe more in the individual, smaller government, diffused local government, risk avoidance, less taxes, no entitlement programs (such as Social Security or Medicare), less government spending and open markets without regulations.

Liberals on the other hand, believe in group politics, require more government involvement in our lives, take some risks w/ new programs, like entitlement programs, support strong local government, they tend to be more sociable and sentimental and also want open markets with some oversight and regulation.

Needless to say, neither of the two major political parties can say that they have been acting in line with their supposed platforms. The current Republican Party regularly has out-spent the Democrats and the Democrats have not been practicing coordinated “Group Politics” for some years.

That being the case, over the past few years there have been a number of blind studies trying to determine just why people become either conservative or liberal. Could it be more than just a personal choice?

One study at UC Berkeley, using large groups of up to 500 college students, and each proclaiming themselves to be either “very liberal” or another group as “very conservative”. The study required instant responses to a program of letter recognition before a computer monitor. From these studies, there were very different response scores when comparing the declared conservative group to the liberal group.

There was also a mental research study published in the December 2006 issue of Science News that broke-down their study results to layman terms, and the results were very similar to the UC Berkeley study.

Here are some of the basic results of these studies:

Two Different Views on Justice:

The conservative view of a justice policy has at its root in the notion that all people are inherently bad, and that therefore, we need to protect society. The researchers went on to say that this might explain why Republican President Bush has demonstrated such a single-minded commitment to the War and Occupation of Iraq.

The liberals on the other hand view that a justice policy has its root in the notion that crime is overwhelmingly a product of environmental influences (i.e.: poverty, lack of education, racism, etc.) and that rehabilitation is possible. The researchers also surmised that this could explain why when liberal Senator John Kerry ran for President in 2004, he changed his mind about the Iraq conflict.

From the technical side of the research, the electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings of the study’s subjects found that the liberals had twice the activity in the deep region of the anterior cingulated cortex. This area of the brain is known to act as a “mental brake” by recognizing “no-go” situations. In other words, this area of the brain says: “Maybe I’d better rethink this instead of just staying the course.” This also supports the comments of conservatives when they say; “Liberals spend too much thinking and not enough time acting.”

The researchers went on to say that it appears that liberals vs conservatives, could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas. The studies showed that conservatives are much more dogmatic and are usually opposed to change. This is also totally consistent with long-time conservative views of taking less risks and for “staying the course”.

Berkeley researcher, Dr. Frank Sulloway has stated: “There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science.” Dr. Sulloway has written extensively about the history of science and he has focused his studies on the behavioral differences between American conservatives and liberals.

So based on these studies, if they are correct, you just may be a liberal or a conservative whether you want to be one or not!

America Is Better Than This.....

"Enhanced Interrogation"

In a recent response to one of my articles, I received the kind of comment hat has become so common from the ultra-conservative side of the equation. This individual said, “You’re not the centrist you claim, you’re nothing but a pure lefty that just says he’s in the middle. The President’s secret wiretapping of Americans, the suspension of Habeas-Corpus and allowing the CIA to use “enhanced interrogations” (water-boarding) has really saved your ass. You just won’t admit it.”

Well here’s what I will admit.
With the President’s and VP’s public approval rating continuing to reside in the toilet and now seeing two more indictments of White House administrative personnel, I continue to wonder how long the Republicans are going to be able to keep up the rhetoric for frightening the American public. It’s starting to feel more like how it must have felt during the 1950’s when McCarthyism was at its highest point. If there is so much concern by the administration for the public’s safety, why are the ports still open, the borders still sieves for illegal immigrants while we are sending Billions of dollars down that “toilet” via Iraq and Afghanistan? All those dollars, (and most of them being borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia), showing no political progress in Iraq, and our US Generals are now saying with regard to Afghanistan: “It’s not looking like we are still headed in the right direction here.”

On top of all of this is how our current leaders continue going against years of American tradition for the treatment of prisoners of war and insurgent detainees. For over 200 years, the world has been able to count on how Americans would treat those detained in war time circumstances. The US has lost so much as a country in both reputation and regard under this administration. In the past, an American would not normally quote a Russian, but Russian novelist, Fyodor Dostoyevsky was correct when he said; “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”

The Bush Administration has tried, but has failed, to maintain two parallel but opposed states of mind about atrocities and human rights. To the outside, they have tried to show one of US benevolence. But the real one is the “end-justifies-the-means” brutality sponsored by US counterinsurgency specialists. Today these “specialists”, usually contracted by the state department, carry out their actions even with the national press sometimes being present. Initially, the public was able to sustain its faith in a “just” America. However, in reality today, they see it demonstrated that US security and economic interests are being so called “protected” by using methods previously recognized as unlawful.

Here are some points-of-view on the subject from individuals that you might recognize:

”Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto their death. But every one of us -- every single one of us -- knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them.” - John McCain, Republican US Senator

”The debate here isn't only how to protect the country. It's how to protect our values.” -Wesley Clark, US Military General, Retired

“If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America -- even those designated as 'unlawful enemy combatants.' If you make this exception the whole Constitution crumbles.” - Alberto J. Mora, former Navy General Counsel

“Torture doesn’t work 95% of the time. Why should we attempt an interrogation method that has shown only a 5% success rate?” - Anonymous – former CIA Official

”Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.”-Friedrich Nietzche

Some people feel that because of 911, we have the right to do whatever we want to do for striking back. Lowering ourselves to the terrorist’s level is not the way. As John McCain said “we are different, we are better than that”. America has been the benchmark for how a country’s fairness can succeed, but since the installation of the recent Bush Administration, we have lost that position. We are now just the “biggest bully on the block with the biggest stick.” And regarding Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps Iran, one should remember that no outside country in history has ever been successful in conquering or occupying a Middle Eastern country or region. They all fail and eventually they leave.

(The USSR leaving Afghanistan being the latest example.)

We really are better than that.

One Man's View of 2007 and the Coming 2008

New Years Eve, Times Square, New York City


As a weekly feature writer on the Internet, I receive a lot of responses to my columns and opinions. As one would also expect, some responses come with a bit of praise and some are not very nice, to say the least. I did receive one this week that said; “Well smart-ass, based on your expert opinion, what does your crystal ball see in it for us poor ignorant bastards in 2008?” Being that the question was not directed at any particular subject such as; with regard to the occupation of Iraq? the overall economy? the ’08 election? the increasing oil prices?........or all of it together? I was really not sure how he was expecting me to respond. However, as we are now at the end of a very difficult year, I am going to assume that the comment was in regard to all these areas.
And with that in mind, here’s my view on 2007 and what to expect in 2008. And I’m afraid it's not real pretty.

Recession: Yes or No?
Here is one area that the Bush Administration can take total responsibility for, starting with the debacle of the War and Occupation of Iraq. The conflict in Iraq also started the US dollar’s on-going decline in the international money market. That, combined with Greenspan’s allowing the Federal Reserve’s over supply of US dollars, means that a recession will be difficult to avoid in 2008. Some individuals feel that the dollar’s lower value just makes US goods and exports look that much better for the economy. That may be true for the short term, but since the US is no longer the manufacturing giant it once was, other than the latest aircraft or weapons and military hardware, just what other US manufactured exports are going to look so “good” today? I believe that with the dollar’s continued devaluation, it will be very difficult for the Fed to lower the interest rate much lower than it is today. Even if the Fed does make a big move on the interest rate, it will devalue the dollar that much more and that will cause even higher increases in the price of oil.

And the Occupation in Iraq?
Actually there are too many “if’s” to consider, depending on what the House and Senate do about further financing of the occupation and what the President decides to do about Iran before he leaves office. One would hope the House gets up the nerve to stop the river of US dollars for continuing the occupation. Also, that the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) Report will now take the prospect of an imminent attack on Iran off the table. But with Bush / Cheney and company, anything is possible over the last months of this administration. They may decide to go out with a “big bang” and leave the subsequent mess with the next President. Only time will tell.
I must also add that I am hoping that both Pesident Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will be required to finally take responsibility for their unlawful actions to date. This should happen either before or after they both leave their respective offices.

What about the Oil?
The majority of world-wide oil purchases today are made with US dollars. Unfortunately, the devalued dollar has helped cause the price of crude oil to continue rising. Many countries are considering changing to the higher valued Euro as the currency of choice for their oil purchases. In 2000, Saddam in Iraq received the OK from OPEC to sell their oil for Euros. Iran has also requested to sell their oil for Euros. Other countries are looking at other very inventive, non-US dollar “bartering” for selling their oil supplies. As an example, Venezuela has stated a desire to sell their oil in exchange for the latest machinery and cattle. Whatever the case, it is appearing that the US dollar, once the most stable currency in the world and the currency that all other countries were measured against, may be coming to an end. Increases in oil demand from China and the continuing conflict in the Middle East have also increased oil speculation. This situation and fears of further military activity in the region have tended to continue inflating crude oil pricing. As long as the US remains on a military footing in the region, I believe this negative effect on the US economy will continue

The Sub-Prime Mortgage Fiasco?
Probably the single biggest potential for a 2008 recession in the US is the sub-prime mortgage scandal. Those families that took the bait and went for the no-or- low-down-payment / low interest “adjustable rate mortgages” (ARM) are now unable to handle the rising interest rates and they are losing their homes. With a surplus of homes on the market, housing prices have plummeted and whatever equity that an ARM owner may have accrued has disappeared. One economic forecaster now refers to the approaching new year as the “Year of the Auction” for all the foreclosures expected in 2008. This is just one more example of the continued expansion of the gap between the wealthy and what was previously known as the “middle class”. New home owners are continuing to lose their investment and their homes, while the wealthy are then able to acquire that valuable real estate at just a portion of its real value. As they say, “The rich get richer and the poor”……….oh well, you know how it goes.

Secondary Effect of Sub-Prime Issues
Those financial organizations that have been forced to “write down” the debt losses from the mortgage mess have now put on the brakes. They are sitting-out on the large inventories of foreclosed homes while still observing additional lower housing prices. They have fewer buyers due to new credit restrictions and they now pay higher insurance costs.
On top of all this, the construction industry is showing withdrawal symptoms as their workers are starting to be laid-off and their suppliers are going out of business. The economy, though still appearing strong, is starting to show the signs of workers losing their jobs and beginning to stop any real spending. Home furnishing sales have begun to suffer and local governments are beginning to see lower property and sales tax revenues.

Is there any Good News?
A slow down in the economy could actually cool off the price of oil and possibly some other commodities. As more and more people continue to understand how incompetent and dangerous the current administration is and has been (and the oversight that is needed to fix it) a bit of optimism may begin to reappear. However, consumer confidence must first return to the country in order for the economy to begin showing any positive signs.

When the rest of the world starts to trust America again and when there is a return to a more honest US Federal government, perhaps we will see our country getting back to being the envy of the world. Just don’t hold your breath; it won’t happen for a while. But hang in there as I’m fairly optimistic that we can get through this mess…..I think…..I hope….I pray.

Is the US Intelligence Correct This Time?

The Tower of Iran


For the last four years, most Americans and the US intelligence community have been asking the question: “How could we have gone so wrong that we would go to war on totally useless intelligence information regarding Iraq’s WMD’s?" And now today, why should we believe what was published this week that Iran actually did halt its nuclear weapon efforts in 2003? Unfortunately, the answer to the first question has now become fairly clear even though our current President and Vice President continue their war-mongering drum beat for also attacking Iran.

The answer to the “How could we?” issue is a combination of lack of information sharing between US security agencies, dependence on too few intelligence inputs, being highly selective on what to believe and multiple agencies (some from our friends outside the US), all using the same flawed intelligence sources. The most significant blunder however, was the exclusive use by US intelligence agencies and those in Great Britain and Germany of the inputs from a single Iraqi defector in 1999. This individual, code named “Curveball” defected and took asylum in Germany and was interrogated once a week for over 18 months. Curveball, (real name: Rafid Ahmed) was an Iraqi chemical engineer that, during interrogation, said he had worked on chemical and biological weapons for Saddam over the previous 4 years. He even told a false story of an accident around tanks of a nerve gas where he had worked that killed 12 Iraqi engineers and technicians. Curveball would not talk to any American intelligence personnel, so information from Curveball had to come 2nd hand from German interrogators to both the US and Great Britain agency personnel.

During this time in the US, the CIA, NSA and the FBI were also not talking to each other. Therefore, there was no sharing of their separate intelligence information, yet they separately did all received the same inputs from the Germans and the Brits. In addition, the Bush Administration wanted so strongly to go after Saddam, the intelligence information was “cherry picked” from the various incoming intelligence reports to support the cause for invading Iraq. Much of what the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell had presented to the UN, just prior to the invasion, was supported by Curveball’s interrogations.

So, why should we believe what was said this week?
Needless to say, this failure of all of the agencies to provide accurate intelligence has made a definite impression within the US intelligence communities. Today, all the US agencies are charged with information sharing on associated programs. After the totally wrong information as reported in the 2002 report, the decision to submit the 2007 report (which had been requested by members of Congress) that countered the latest 2005 assessment was not taken lightly. This is especially true since their ultimate bosses, President Bush and his right-hand VP, Dick Cheney are continuing to make speeches about starting a possible World War III with Iran and that Iran is still continuing to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. With this in mind, last September General Michael Hayden, Director CIA and Deputy Director, Stephen Kappes, met with all the US agency’s Iranian analysts to take a hard look at their conclusions on Iran’s nuclear program since 2005. The result of the meeting was the new 2007 National Intelligence Assessment which is a compiled consensus of all 16 US spy agencies. They still feel that Iran’s uranium enrichment program could provide Iran with enough raw materials to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of the next decade. However, the report now disavows that Iran has an active secret arms program to transform the raw material into a nuclear weapon. Per today’s New York Times; “The new (intelligence) estimate declares with “high Confidence” that the (Iran) military-run program was shut down in 2003, and it concludes with “moderate confidence” that the (Iranian weapons) program remains frozen.” The 2007 report now presents a very different tone from that currently offered by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

This new assessment report now more closely follows that of the International Atomic Energy Agency Report. Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has now called for more enhanced diplomatic efforts toward Tehran and the current Democratic Presidential Candidates have all supported Senator Reid’s request.

The President and his cabinet were not presented with the final draft of the revised intelligence assessment until last Wednesday. As expected, the administration “expressed skepticism” about the reports conclusions. They went on to say that they “doubted that the US intelligence agencies had a firm grip on the Iranian government’s intentions”.

In other words, as with the attack on Iraq, if the latest report from all 16 US intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn’t agree with what the president wants it to say, it must be wrong and therefore, discredited.

And once again this proves that; this last year of the Bush Administration is going to be a long, frustrating and painful year.