Wednesday, November 14, 2007

"Broadcast media AWOL on body armor story?" by OklahomaVoter receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award



Editor's Note: This piece was selected for my Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award because it so well captured the essence of John Edwards' great mission for and vision of One America.







Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Cross-posted from John Edwards for 2008 Blog


http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/13/125010/13



11/13/2007 at 5:12 PM EST
Yesterday, I read two blog stories that provide the missing pieces to my wondering why body armor was not forthcoming for so long: (http://www.alternet.org/story/66182) and (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-louise -slaughter/a-story-ignored-body-arm_b_71 524.html?load=1&page=3)
The name David H. Brooks belongs in the same category as Ken Lay. His story has the double-crossing drama of Ken Lay's Enron and Gary Winnick's Global Crossing, the fraud of Bernie Ebbers' Worldcom, and the over-the-top spectacle of Dennis Kozlowski's parties paid for by Tyco. Plus, people may have died...our precious troops who are laying their lives on the line in Iraq.
On October 25, 2007, FBI agents arrested David H. Brooks, founder and ex-CEO of Point Blank Solutions, Inc., and its COO Sandra Hatfield. Charges included insider trading, fraud, obstruction of justice, and evading almost $200 million dollars in taxes.

The Oct. 25 indictment alleges Hatfield and Brooks cashed in tens of millions of dollars in stock during the period testers were warning the company about vest failures. It also alleges that Brooks called a Point Blank employee who brought erroneous body armor inventory data to his attention a "[expletive] snake," and threatened to scuttle any further employment opportunities after the whistleblower resigned. (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13 319,154813,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


According to the story in alternet.org, (http://www.alternet.org/story/66182)

Whether U.S. soldiers have been injured or killed as a result of the quality control problems with DHB vests is not known. The Pentagon has not even been forthcoming about whether there's been an investigation. However, according to Jim Magee, a retired Marine colonel and former head of DHB's Point Blank subsidiary, DHB did play a role in delaying the provision of state-of-the-art body armor to the troops. A June 2006 Washington Post story quotes Magee explaining that in the lead-up to the Iraq War, Brooks successfully lobbied for an exclusive contract to make the vests for the body armor now issued to every U.S. soldier in Iraq. Magee claims that DHB's monopoly prevented many troops in Iraq from having proper body armor until nine months after the war began.
A sampling of the charges authorities say Brooks concealed from shareholders and the IRS:
* $7,900 for a facelift for Brooks' wife
* more than $1 million for expenses related to his 100 trotting and breeding horses
* $101,190 for a belt buckle studded with diamonds, rubies and sapphires
* $101,500 for an armored vehicle for his family's use
* more than $1 million for numerous family vacations, including frequent stays at the Bellagio in Las Vegas and various Caribbean and European villas
* $31,802 to transport one of his daughters and her college friends to Halloween parties in Madison, Wisconsin, using a private jet
* hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonus checks drawn on a DHB bank account handed out by Brooks at a company Christmas party to non-DHB personnel, including his horse trainer
* and of course the predictable $10,000 here, $5,000 there for purchases at Luis Vuitton, Gucci, Gianni Versace, and Prada boutiques around the world
What makes Brooks' greed particularly obscene is that the bullet-proof vests that boosted his fortunes in the first place turned out to be not so bulletproof after all. In May 2005, the U.S. Marines recalled more than 5,000 DHB armored vests after they failed ballistics tests for stopping 9 mm bullets. As reported in a previous story for AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/story/38867), the Marine Corps Times revealed that Pentagon officials had dismissed repeated warnings by inspectors about deficiencies in DHB's vests.
In November 2005, the Marines and Army announced a recall of an additional 18,000 DHB vests. But even this news didn't dampen the mood at Brooks' infamous $10 million party a few weeks later. While ostensibly in honor of his 13-year-old daughter, the event was packed with 80s nostalgia acts Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, Tom Petty, the Eagles' Don Henley and Joe Walsh, Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks, and Kenny G. According to the indictment, Brooks billed the company $122,000 for video iPods and digital cameras given as party favors....
A debate continues to rage over whether the type of body armor produced by DHB, called Interceptor, is the most effective. According to a special report by NewsHour [(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/ july-dec07/armor_09-21.html)] in September, some experts argue that a newer technology, called Dragon Skin, is safer (but more expensive). Magee told the NewsHour that given this controversy and all the other problems with DHB, it's "bewildering" to see the company continue to get military contracts, including one in June for another $50 million.


In any case, according to the New York Times...(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/busine ss/22vests.html)

The rapid growth in military spending has fattened the wallets of C.E.O.'s running major defense contractors, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, a left-leaning research group in Washington. The group, which labeled Mr. Brooks a "body armor profiteer" in a report it prepared last summer, noted that the average compensation for C.E.O.'s at 34 leading military contractors tripled from 2001 to 2004, to $3.9 million. That meant that C.E.O.'s pay packages were 23 times larger than generals' salaries and 160 times the size of an average soldier's pay.


Yes, corrupt people choose money over country and lives. Corrupt people in the arms business also have strong incentives to encourage politicians to own their stock and start wars. Corrupt broadcast news media will be AWOL if their CEOs/owners are politically biased. Such stories also explain how Blackwater and other private security forces might be better equipped than America's armed forces. There's not just two Americas, there's also two militaries.

"John Edwards can win because he is a FIGHTER" by coots wins Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award









Editor's Note: This writer received my Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award because he captured the fighting advocacy of John Edwards so well. John Edwards has been fighting all his life for you and me!

Cross-posted from John Edwards for 2008 Blog

Since 1988 one common fact that contributed to all the Democratic defeats in the presidential elections is that our candidates were slow to respond to attacks from the Republican attack machine.

In 1988 Dukakis was very slow to respond to the "Willie Horton ads" and we lost the election. In the 1990's Bill Clinton won two elections because he did responded quickly and forcefully to the Republican attacks. In the 2000 electon, Al Gore did respond to the attacks and we all know Gore really won that election, it was stolen from him. In the election of 2004 John Kerry was very slow to respond to the "Swift Boat ads". Kerry himself should have responded quickly and forcefully to those attacks. Those ads were a direct attack on Kerry's honesty and integrity. Kerry lost a close election.

John Edwards has proven that he is a fighter and is willing to respond quickly and forcefully to the Republican attack machine; combine with his positions on the issues and his poll numbers against all possible Republican Nominees showing Edwards would win. Edwards would be our best hope to win in 2008. Our Country and the Democratic Party needs a candidate that is willing to fight and give the Republican Hell. Like Harry Truman before him Edwards just tells the truth and the Republicans think it is Hell. I am for John Edwards.

Don Vila receives another Karita Hummer's SilverPen Award for "Katherine S. Newman nails it in "The Nation""






DonVila receives another Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Co-Posted from John Edwards for 2008 blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/13/134426/43

Ms. Newman,the dean of social science at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and Malcolm Wiener Professor of Urban Studies at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard authored a powerful essay in support of John Edwards and what he wants to do.

Here are a few excerpts:

"The race for the Democratic nomination is still that: a real race. For my money, there is no other candidate who will work as hard as Edwards for the nation's low-income families, the working poor, struggling students and the 47 million Americans who desperately need health insurance. Organized labor sees him the same way, which is why he has garnered this seal of approval (the SEIU endorsements) and the boots on the ground that it represents--even in the face of the Clinton juggernaut. They know that Edwards is the candidate who can actually win the general election, the one who is thinking about people like them."

"I first met Edwards at a gathering at the University of North Carolina's Center on Poverty, Work, and Opportunity. Hurricane Katrina had devastated the Gulf Coast only a few months before and exposed the "two Americas" of which Edwards had spoken throughout the 2004 campaign. He called the country's experts together--across party lines--to debate the causes, consequences and remedies for poverty in an era of unprecedented wage inequality. For two days we discussed what should be done to enhance the mobility of the working poor, how we should deal with the competition from low-wage countries like China and what the trends in out-of-wedlock births mean for single mothers below the poverty line.

Most politicians would have given their obligatory keynote address and retired to the comfort of their leather chairs. Edwards stayed the whole time, ran virtually all of the sessions, asked intelligent questions, probed for more practical answers and stuck around to talk with the presenters about how to cull from their academic research workable ideas that could form the basis of a campaign that has as its centerpiece the eradication of poverty in this wealthy nation."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/newman

This is a gorgeous endorsement from someone who is an expert on issues The Campaign To Change America is all about.
She closes: "There is every reason to expect that the Democrats will end up with solid majorities in the House and Senate in 2008. We need a President who will grab this brass ring. We should not squander the opportunity on tepid, middle-of-the-road, blow-with-the-wind candidates who will be too busy trying to paint themselves as tough on crime or hard-nosed on Iran to seize a chance that may not come again in our lifetime."

Some days are good, others better.

Don Wheeler
South Bend, IN

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Naderites: There's a new man in town for Safety through Smart, Fair Trade









We need Smart, Fair Trade for good jobs, kids and the environment, as advocated by John Edwards.


Cross-posted from Daily Kos

by KaritaHummer [Subscribe] [Edit Diary]
Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 04:03:09 PM PST

Greens and Naderites: you can't find a stronger candidate to stand up to the special interests and corporate lobbyists who have put their companies' bottom line above the health and safety of America than John Edwards.

We must go for the Smart Trade policies of John Edwards, for jobs, safety, and fairness.

Today John Edwards spoke eloquently about the need to prevent toxic toys, food and medicine from entering this country, and as usual, he doesn't offer platitudes but a detailed plan for how to ensure only safe foods, medicines and toys enter this Country, starting with a call for the resignation of Nancy Nord, as acting chair of Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.

Greens and Naderites: you can't find a stronger candidate to stand up to the special interests and corporate lobbyists who have put their companies' bottom line above the health and safety of America than John Edwards. We must go for the Smart Trade policies of John Edwards, for jobs, safety, and fairness. Today John Edwards spoke eloquently about the need to prevent toxic toys, food and medicine from entering this country, and as usual, he doesn't offer platitudes but a detailed plan for how to ensure only safe foods, medicines and toys enter this Country, starting with a call for the resignation of Nancy Nord, as acting chair of Consumer Product Safety Commission.

John Edwards stated:

"But American families shouldn't have to wait until 2009 - they deserve to know right now that their government is doing everything possible to keep them safe. That's why today I sent a letter to President Bush demanding the resignation of Nancy Nord, the acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who has accepted travel expenses from the toy industry and opposes congressional efforts to strengthen the CPSC and protect Americans families from dangerous imported toys." John Edwards, Edwards Unveils Detailed Proposals To Stop Imports Of Dangerous Foods, Toys And Medicines, Nov 7, 2007 9:53 AM

John Edwards goes on to describe how lobbyists who protect companies that put their profits above safety must be stopped, how lead of any amount must be banned in toys, how country of origin labels must be placed on foods, and how FDA must spot check safety of companies in other countries who export products to us.

http://www.johnedwards.com/...

Now that's Smart Trade!

For more information on John Edwards' policy of smart trade, please go to:

http://johnedwards.com/...
Body

John Edwards stated:
"But American families shouldn't have to wait until 2009 - they deserve to know right now that their government is doing everything possible to keep them safe. That's why today I sent a letter to President Bush demanding the resignation of Nancy Nord, the acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who has accepted travel expenses from the toy industry and opposes congressional efforts to strengthen the CPSC and protect Americans families from dangerous imported toys." John Edwards, Edwards Unveils Detailed Proposals To Stop Imports Of Dangerous Foods, Toys And Medicines, Nov 7, 2007 9:53 AM
John Edwards goes on to describe how lobbyists who protect companies that put their profits above safety must be stopped, how lead of any amount must be banned in toys, how country of origin labels must be placed on foods, and how FDA must spot check safety of companies in other countries who export products to us. http://www.johnedwards.com/nh/20071107-import-safety/ Now that's Smart Trade! For more information on John Edwards' policy of smart trade, please go to: http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071027-peru-trade/

URL:
http://
Label:
Image

Poll

Would you pay more for your products for safety?
Yes
88% 15 votes
No
11% 2 votes

| 17 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Smart Trade, Fair Trade, Toxic Imports, John Edwards and Smart Trade (all tags) :: Add/Edit Tags to this Diary :: Previous Tag Versions :: Previous Story Revisions

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

"LAST HOPE FOR FREEDOM & JUSTICE" by Cowboylove recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award

LAST HOPE FOR FREEDOM & JUSTICE

Crossposted from John Edwards for 2008 Blog

by Cowboylove in Arguments & Analyses
11/05/2007 at 1:15 PM EST

John Edwards is not running to return power to the Democratic Party, but to return power to the people. He has a real agenda to bring back economic equity in this country - so that billionaire hedge fund managers no longer pay half the tax rate of public school teachers, for example.

John Edwards understands that when a few giant global corporations shape our foreign and domestic policies, when they cause elected government leaders to ignore the people and focus solely on policies that increase corporate profits and influence, we run the risk of becoming a fascist country. Democracy cannot survive in a country that allows or encourages great disparity in wealth, where justice is bought and sold, and where quality education and health care are reserved for the privileged.

John Edwards has been called a radical liberal, but supporting and defending the constitution and the people is not liberal or conservative - it's AMERICAN.

Neocon Fascists control many members of both parties. John Edwards offers perhaps the last hope of real change, of a return to real patriotic values. America's strength comes from each citizen's freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. That's the shining light on the hill that makes us great, not economic or military might.

Article by jamess, receives KH Silver Pen Award





Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Cross-posted from John Edwards for 2008 Blog

John Edwards will stand up for the Constitution!


by jamess


With the nomination of Michael Mukasey for attorney general, to replace the Alberto Gonzales, being in the News lately, the issue of Constitutional Rights has once again moved to the front burner of American Politics. Senator Christopher Dodd, much to his credit has been an out-spoken defender of Constitutional Rights:

much of the focus has been on Mukasey's non-answer to if he considers waterboarding torture and thus unconstitutional
...
"No, I was the first senator among the presidential candidates to say no," said Dodd in response to a question if he would support Mukasey's nomination.

Way to go Senator Dodd! We need more Senators fighting to protect and the Constitution, like you have! You have my respect Sir.


Since my Candidate of choice is John Edwards however, this made me wonder, "What does Edwards think about Protecting the Constitution?"

To see what I found out, read on please ...

(BTW, I think an Edwards/Dodd Ticket would be an excellent combination to restore a broken America, too)

Here's the 10,000-foot "Executive Summary" of "What John Edwards thinks about the Constitution", and its important role in our American Heritage:

Protecting The Constitution And Respecting Our Freedoms


America must do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but securing a lasting victory will take moral as well as military strength.

President Bush's failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world.

We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home.

If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.

(1) Say No to Torture

- Edwards will protect our troops and our values by upholding the Geneva Conventions

- He will issue an executive order setting clear guidelines for interrogations and prohibiting torture.

- He will also ban the shameful practice of outsourcing torture to other countries through "extraordinary rendition."

(2) Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo

- Edwards will shut down Guantanamo and

- work to resolve the status of the detainees, hundreds of whom have been held for years without being charged.

- He will also restore the writ of habeas corpus to reinstate judicial review of detention, rather than allow unchecked executive power.

(3) Protect Americans' Privacy and Freedom

- Our government should protect the privacy, communications, and personal records of Americans--not spy on them without court supervision as the Bush Administration has done.

- Edwards will end the warrantless wiretapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails and the data-mining of Americans' communications and personal records,

- restoring judicial review to surveillance of American citizens.

- He will fix the Patriot Act by restoring important safeguards to the provisions most susceptible to abuse:

the "sneak-and-peek" delayed-notice searches,
National Security Letters, and
the business and library records provisions.

- He will also end racial profiling by law enforcement.

(4) Defend the Constitution

- Edwards will end the practice of issuing presidential "signing statements" that claim the administration can ignore the law.

- He will respect the proper roles of the Congress and the courts.

- He will not shroud the actions of the White House in secrecy.

- He will not abuse the executive privilege to hide information from Congress and the courts.

- And he will not interfere with the professional judgment of attorneys at the Justice Department

- or impose a partisan agenda on their interpretation of the nation's laws and Constitution.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/civil-libe rties/index.html
----


OK that's all well, and good, important points, all. BUT I was expecting something a little more substantial. Afterall Edwards IS an accomplished Lawyer!

So I dug deeper. And indeed, it turns out John Edwards, the Lawyer, DOES indeed have a keen understanding of the hidden undercurrents at work in Judicial system. Edwards is well aware of something called the "Constitution in Exile" movement, has been at work since 1995. At its core, it is a Conservative agenda to roll back the New Deal, ushered in by FDR, and return America back to the good ole days of Gilded Age.

This was news to me! So hold on for a short exploration what this "Constitution in Exile" Movement might mean to our American way of life:


First, the NSCLC: National Senior Citizens Law Center asks the rather pointed Question:

Is the New Deal Under Attack?


[regarding] conservative attempts to restore a "Constitution-in-Exile"

The term was first coined in 1995 by Federal Appeals Court Judge, Douglas Ginsburg to describe a conservative reading of the Constitution banished in the years after the Court reversed course in the 1930s and began upholding New Deal legislation.
...
The ACS blog discusses ... Jeffrey Rosen's pre-election warning that, instead of revisiting Roe v. Wade, a second Bush administration is more likely to focus on judges who will reinvigorate doctrines that "were largely abandoned in the 1930s to allow the federal government broad discretion to regulate health, safety, the environment, and the workplace."



Next, for some more background on "Constitution in Exile" movement, here is the in-depth investigation conducted by a New York Times, which raises some very disturbing prospects:

New York Times

The Unregulated Offensive

By JEFFREY ROSEN -- April 17, 2005

But as Thomas's presence on the court suggests, it is perhaps just as likely that the next justice -- or chief justice -- will be sympathetic to the less well-known but increasingly active conservative judicial movement that Epstein represents. It is sometimes known as the Constitution in Exile movement, after a phrase introduced in 1995 by Douglas Ginsburg, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
...
By "Constitution in Exile," Ginsburg meant to identify legal doctrines that established firm limitations on state and federal power before the New Deal. Unlike many originalists, most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.
...
Critics of the movement note, with some anxiety, that it has no shortage of targets. Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago ... who describes himself as a moderate, recently explained to me, success, as the movement defines it, would mean that "many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and possibly the National Labor Relations Board would be unconstitutional. It would mean that the Social Security Act would not only be under political but also constitutional stress.
...
Some applications of the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act would be struck down as beyond Congress's commerce power." In what Sunstein described as the "extreme nightmare scenario," the right of individuals to freedom of contract would be so vigorously interpreted that minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws would also be jeopardized.

... to achieve its goals, the movement ultimately needs not just one or two but four more Supreme Court justices sympathetic to its cause, as well as a larger transformation in the overall political and legal culture. "I think what is really needed here is a fundamental intellectual assault on the entire New Deal edifice," he says. "We want to withdraw judicial support for the entire modern welfare state. I'd retire and play golf if I could get there."

Incredible! If the GOP Doesn't like the Laws -- they just find (or appoint) Judges to strike them down, with the goal to ultimately return us back to the Economic Dark Ages! Talk about Obstructionists! Talk about agendas of Activist Judges!

If America allows our current Right-leaning Pro-Corporate Supreme Court to continue to "tilt right", with "Business as Usual" Leaders, we may just find out the hard way, that our 2-tiered Economic Society is much more dangerous than most people realize! (The 2-tiers: "The super-rich and everybody else!" as Edwards often says)


During this research, I was very encouraged however, to find out John Edwards is quite concerned about this "Constitution in Exile" movement too, as it was the dominant theme of his address to the American Constitution Society (ACS):

John Edwards:
How do those who demand judicial restraint celebrate the Rehnquist Court, which has struck down Acts of Congress at an unprecedented rate; nearly three dozen since 1995? The lesson is clear: judicial restraint is nice, but it shouldn't get in the way of policy results you want.

None of this should be a surprise.

Much of it was planned out by the Meese Justice Department -- the memos are available on the Internet for everyone to see. Their blueprint for transforming judicial decision-making written twenty years ago has been incredibly successful.

Look at what's happening to the First Amendment.

In case after case, conservatives invoke the First Amendment to protect powerful economic interests. They seek to invalidate laws that would lessen the influence of money in politics or expand the diversity of voices heard on media.

In so-called commercial speech cases, they have suggested that the government's power to protect consumers is strictly limited.
...

Time and time again, they have opposed judicial and legislative attempts to facilitate access to justice of poor, marginalized, and disenfranchised individuals.

Standing doctrine is a shadow of what it once was -- ordinary people have a much more difficult time getting into court to challenge government action.
...

Finally, there is the so-called "Constitution in Exile" movement, recently chronicled in the New York Times.

As you know, it argues that the Court took a wrong turn seventy years ago when it recognized broad congressional power to address our country's economic challenges.

This movement seeks to return to an era in which the federal government has only limited power to address issues such as workers rights, discrimination, and pollution.

It would be nice if we could think of this movement as an intellectual exercise divorced from the real world -- sort of like the flat earth society.

But, the current Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act on one version of this theory.

And conservative activists are promoting more challenges to federal statutes on this basis.

Of course, attempts to use the Constitution to prevent the federal government from helping ordinary people are not new.

During the Lochner era, conservative courts routinely struck down progressive legislation in the name of constitutional law.

Then as now, many conservatives claimed that striking down such laws was dictated by the law, not their own political preferences.

Then as now we were told that even if the beneficiaries of the Court's actions were inevitably the entrenched and the powerful, this was simply a coincidence.

Here, history is very much on our side. Lochner could not withstand the pressure of the New Deal and industrialization. The Constitution in Exile is just as badly suited to the demands of the new global economy. Neither vision is true to a Constitution built for generations.

You and ACS have an important role to play in the fight to prevent the courts from turning back to the Lochner era.

ACS' Constitution in the 21st Century project can supply the intellectual firepower that we need to win this battle.



It just might take a skilled Lawyer to beat this regressive right-wing judicial agenda, at their own game?

How's that old saying go -- "you got to fight Fire with Fire!"

John Edwards seems to have the "fiery insights" that it will take to STAND UP TO this "right-wing judicial movement", steadily at work for over a decade now, who's intent is none other than "to roll back all of the progressive gains" that have happened this last century!

Last time I checked, the Constitution protected three co-equal Branches of Government, NOT just one (or two) that just "steam roll" that other Legislative Branch. With Edwards at the helm, given his strong statements against "Executive Signing Statements", I feel confident he will respect and restore these 3 Branches back to their co-equal roles, and our system of "Checks and Balances" will finally be restored too.






In closing, here are a few spirited clips of John Edwards arguing that

"the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are heart and soul of our Government."

John Edwards on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgq-Itw8D es
----

AND John Edwards goes on to argue that

"we need a 'Transparent Government'. Because this Government DOESN'T BELONG to the President of the United States -- It BELONGS TO YOU! And you should KNOW what's happening in YOUR Government!"

John Edwards: On Transparency in Government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJZrR_xHd T8
----

In my opinion John Edwards will treat the Constitution with the Respect it deserves! I would hope you would consider him as a serious choice in the upcoming Elections.

Edwards is fighting to Take our Country Back, and to return it, finally, to WE the People!

We The People


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHkWfIAy HE
----

In America, WE the People, STILL DO have a Choice!

Thank Goodness!


Learn more about John Edwards:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Meet JohnEdwards
----
http://johnedwards.com/issues/
----

Thank you for your time.

Saturday, November 3, 2007

Why We Fight for the Constitution by rjluczakII receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award






Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award

Why We Fight for the Constitution

user icon in Diaries Feed of rjluczakII's Diary
11/01/2007 at 1:32 PM EST

We fight for democracy and the constitution with our words, arguments, and voices; and our nation's service members fight with their lives; not merely because of the freedoms it provides and protects for ourselves- but because of the freedoms it provides and protects for those we love. Because we want freedom for those we love.

Keep fighting for the issues and campaign of John Edwards. The election of a new President such as Senator Edwards will bring a restoration of the Constitution and bring a better level of freedom back to the ordinary citizens of the United States- to those we love