I created this cool friends network and added you to my friends network. Hit-up now:
http://makejbgirlfr
and like all the best humor (any kind of story, for that matter) it has some truth at the core! I know this will brighten up your Christmas season!
What did Cheney know and when did he burn the evidence?
By DOUG THOMPSON
The mysterious fire in the Old Executive Office Building on the White House grounds sent conspiracy theorists into overdrive Thursday. What, they wondered, went up in smoke in Vice President Dick Cheney's suite of offices in the OEOB?
Hey, we love a good conspiracy theory here at Capitol Hill Blue and we learned long ago that anything is possible from the Bush boys and girls at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue so we're happy to join in the latest guessing game of what did they know and when did they burn it?
Since the fire erupted in Cheney's offices, speculation deepens. Cheney is, after all, the Darth Vader of BushCo, the Black Knight most often accused of being behind all the nefarious actions of what many consider to be the most corrupt Presidential administration in American history.
So what did the fire reduce to ashes just as federal judges, Congress and even Bush's own Attorney General launches probes into the various high crimes and misdemeanors ?
If evidence was destroyed, the most obvious would be any memos relating to that meeting of White House lawyers, Cheney and God-knows-who-
Or maybe, as some have speculated, those White House visitor logs that show just which holy rollers came to Chateau Bush to help the Prez commune with God and seek new justifications for killing people in Iraq.
But this could be just the tip of the ash pile: So much wrongdoing, so little opportunity to burn.
Our own favorite list of what went into the fire:
OK, so I'm faced with a choice here... do I track down these pics of Britney Spears, or do I write my representative in Congress and beg them to preserve the constitution?
Why was my life spared in that car accident so many years ago?
My course of action is clear. FIND THE PICTURES!
December 12, 2007
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The US Supreme Court has taken up the issue whether the executive branch can detain people indefinitely merely by declaring them to be suspected terrorists or illegal enemy combatants. The case is a habeas corpus issue and, therefore, of the utmost importance. Without the protection of habeas corpus, government can lock away anyone on the basis of unsubstantiated charges as the Guantanamo detainees have been for nearly six years.
Reporting on the Court's deliberations about Odah v. US and Boumediene v. Bush, Tom Curry, a national affairs writer for MSNBC, reports that Justice Stephen Breyer suggested to US Solicitor General Paul Clement that the executive branch could indefinitely hold people such as those in Guantanamo prison if Congress were to pass "some special statute involving preventive detention and danger, which has not yet been enacted."
According to Curry, senators Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter regard a preventive detention statute as a possibility worth considering.
Pray that Curry has misunderstood Breyer. A different interpretation of Breyer's remarks is that the justice was telling Bush's solicitor general that in the absence of a preventive detention statute there is no legal basis for holding the detainees.
If there were such a statute, the case before the court would be its constitutionality.
Support for the latter interpretation comes from House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D,NY). Rep. Nadler thinks Breyer was merely "thinking out loud," not "floating an idea" and inviting Congress to pass an unconstitutional statute. Nadler believes that Breyer was telling Clement that as there is not even a preventive detention statute, the executive branch has no basis for holding the Gitmo detainees.
That Feinstein, Specter, Jon Kyl, and other US senators think it is "worth considering" for Congress to overturn habeas corpus, the greatest bulwark against tyranny, indicates how much the US constitutional tradition has been lost.
The importance of the case seems to be completely over the heads of the media, who appear to be looking for a technical solution that permits people accused without evidence to be held forever. The American press apparently believes that the US government can make no mistake or behave improperly and that the detainees, actually comprise, in Senator Kyl's words, "a danger to our troops."
It is a "danger" that the Bush regime has been unable to prove even with torture and secret evidence. Half of the detainees have had to be released. According to news reports, the regime has been able to create cases against only 14 of those remaining. After all the years of illegal detention, harsh treatment, and denial of access to attorneys, the Bush regime has come up with 14 cases, and they are probably fabricated.
Where is the rule of law when hundreds of people can have years stolen from their lives?
It is uncertain how the court will decide the case. Bush's solicitor general has told the justices that they should trust the executive branch to correctly balance "the interests of the prisoners" with the administration's ability to "prosecute the global war on terror."
In other words, it is Waco all over again. The executive branch runs roughshod over the US Constitution and then demands, "trust us," which means don't take away any of the illegitimate power that the executive branch has claimed and exercised or hold anyone accountable for abusing executive power.
Unfortunately for the future of liberty in America, a number of the Republican justices see the issue as one of the separation of powers. The Republican justices or most of them are, or were, members of the Federalist Society, an organization of Republican lawyers committed to increased power for the executive. These Republican justices will be inclined to decide the case in the interest of executive power.
The Federalist Society is a product of a past time when Republicans were said to have "a lock on the presidency" but could not get their agenda into law because the Democrats had a lock on Congress. Republican frustrations manifested themselves in attempts to heighten the president's powers so that a Republican agenda could prevail over a Democratic Congress. Like generals who fight the last war, the Federalist Society is stuck in its assault on the separation of powers in the interest of "energy in the executive."
Many Federalist Society members join for social reasons and for net-working, as the society provides the pool of attorneys for Republican appointments to the federal bench and for Department of Justice appointees. Many members mistakenly think that the society stands for "original intent," but as their real interest is career-driven, they don't pay much attention to the society's assault on the US Constitution.
Kings exercised the power to throw into dungeons people who offended them or whom they regarded as a threat. Once arrested, a person could be locked up forever without charges or evidence brought before a court. Habeas corpus was an English invention that provides quick release of a person unlawfully held by orders of the executive.
The Bush Regime has made the most determined assault the Anglo-American world has seen on the principle of habeas corpus. The previous assault was by Stuart kings who destroyed their rule by proclaiming the "divine right of kings."
Now Americans are faced with Bush/Cheney and the solicitor general of the US Department of Justice (sic), Paul Clement, proclaiming the divine right of President Bush and his Justice (sic) Department.
We must all pray that there are not enough Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court to uphold a Benthamite ruling of preventive detention.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was the Englishman who renewed the assault on liberty, which centuries of English reforms had created. Bentham believed that tyranny was no longer a problem, because people were empowered by democracy to control the government. He argued that any restraint placed on government's powers would limit the ability of government to do good. To protect citizens from crime, Bentham favored preventive arrest of everyone whose social class, bone structure or other chosen indicator suggested a proclivity toward crime. "The greatest good for the greatest number."
The Bush regime is comprised of modern day Benthamites. Their agenda is to overthrow the civil liberties that make law a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of the state. As anyone can be declared a suspect, the weapons that Bush would use to fight "the global war on terror" would soon be turned on the American people. Without habeas corpus, there is no liberty.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mac Nathan <sundaycz@yahoo.com >
Date: Dec 12, 2007 6:49 AM
Subject: [scorching_hot_female_celebriti es] New Paparazzi Pics of Wild Pop Diva Britney
Spears Showing a Nipple Seethrough and Her Plump Crotch
To: scorching_hot_female_celebriti es@yahoogroups. com
See More Hot Paparazzi Pics of Pop Diva Britney Spears Nipple
Seethrough and Crotch and Other Celebrity Papparazzi Pics at
www.articlezines.com . ENJOY!!!
Join http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/scorching_ hot_female_ celebrities/
for the latest updates of celebrity pics.
--------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
WIFI Hot Spots
Now the whole racist explanation has been set aside, and positional
asphyxia is for everybody.
On Dec 11, 2007 11:42 AM, <rita@rgpproductions.net> wrote:
>
>
> Doctor 'not guilty' for protecting anti-war protester
> Tuesday, December 11, 2007
> By: Dylan Wilkerson
>
>
> Jury finds providing health care is not a crime
> On Dec. 3, an Arbor Michigan jury found Dr. Catherine Wilkerson not guilty
> on both criminal counts she was facing. Dr. Wilkerson was charged with two
> counts of attempted obstruction/interference/assault of a police officer and
> a paramedic for assisting a victim of police brutality at a demonstration.
> It is a victory for protesters and their right to necessary medical
> assistance in the face of police violence.
>
> The phony charges stemmed from an incident on Nov. 30, 2006 at the Michigan
> League in Ann Arbor where several
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Catherine Wilkerson protesters where arrested for heckling Raymond
> Tanter. Tanter is a former national security advisor for Ronald Reagan and
> current Georgetown University faculty member who was speaking at the
> University of Michigan campus at an event organized by the American Movement
> for Israel, a right-wing Zionist organization.
>
> Tanter was there to discuss "regime change" in Iran. He not only advocates
> taking military action, but also using tactical nuclear weapons and depleted
> uranium against Iran.
>
> Several protesters were dragged from the event and arrested for heckling
> Tanter. One protester, Blane Coleman, was taken down forcefully by
> University of Michigan Department of Public Safety officers Mark West and
> Janet Conners. They pinned Mr. Coleman face down and held him to the floor,
> while handcuffing him behind his back. Coleman complained that he could not
> breathe and then he collapsed unconscious.
>
> Dr. Wilkerson identified herself as a physician and asked permission to
> examine Coleman. She was allowed to examine him as the group waited for
> Huron Valley Ambulance medics to arrive. Dr. Wilkerson was concerned that
> Coleman was at risk for a condition called positional asphyxia. Positional
> asphyxia occurs when people are handcuffed with their hands behind their
> back as weight is pressed on them, causing them to be unable to draw a full
> breath. Positional asphyxia has caused several recorded deaths.
> Upon HVA arrival, Dr. Wilkerson relinquished Coleman's care to HVA medics,
> but was forced to intervene a second time when one of the medics, Dean
> Lloyd, began using a series of ammonia inhalants on Coleman. Lloyd cupped
> his hands over Coleman's mouth and asked "You don't like that do you?" as
> Coleman retched and spit from the noxious fumes.
>
> At Dr. Wilkerson's trial, both officer Conners and Lloyd testified that they
> believed that Coleman was faking his medical emergency.
>
> Dr. Wilkerson denounced the behavior of the medics when the incident
> occurred: "Ammonia inhalants have no medical efficacy," she said. An Ann
> Arbor Police officer on the scene, Kevin Warner, removed Dr. Wilkerson
> forcefully, using a painful restraint technique on her arm and throwing her
> face-first into a wall. She was held for some time and then released.
> Dr. Wilkerson was never arrested at the scene. She was not charged with a
> crime until nearly two months later, one week after she filed a citizen
> complaint against Warner with the Ann Arbor Police.
> The trial was an obvious attempt to silence public criticism of police and
> paramedic behavior at the protest. Another woman, Dr. Kathryn Babayan, a
> University of Michigan history professor, testified that she was also
> charged with similar crimes after she filed a complaint against police due
> to the incident.
>
> The prosecutor in the case, Margaret Connors—who is making a bid to become a
> judge—attempted to prejudice the jury against Dr. Wilkerson throughout the
> proceedings by referencing her political views as evidence of her guilt.
> During her cross-examination of Dr. Wilkerson, Connors asked questions like,
> "Is it true that you list Ho Chi Min as one of your 'heroes' on your myspace
> page?" and "Did you say that you needed 'international solidarity' during
> your interview on KUCI radio?"
>
> These attempts appeared petty and irrelevant to court room observers. They
> did not have the intended affect on the jury.
> Despite a parade of police and paramedic witnesses called by the
> prosecution, Connors was unable to demonstrate any evidence that Dr.
> Wilkerson ever did anything during the incident other than verbally
> criticize police and paramedics for their treatment of Coleman.
>
> When asked pointedly during cross-examination, officer West testified that
> "verbally interfering with an arrest and criticizing police is not a crime."
> Another prosecution witness, Jeff Green, a University of Michigan student
> and building manager of the Michigan League who witnessed the event,
> testified that Coleman's treatment by DPS officers seemed "overly harsh."
>
> Several HVA medics testified that ammonia inhalants are no longer carried on
> HVA ambulances or used by HVA medics as a result of the incident.
> The defense presented several eye witnesses who testified on Dr. Wilkerson's
> behalf. Despite Connors attempts to discredit them as political fanatics,
> their testimony lent further credence to Dr. Wilkerson's account of the
> incident.
>
> The defense also called Dr. Bledsoe to the stand, one of the nation's
> leading experts on emergency medicine and paramedic training. Dr. Bledsoe
> testified that ammonia inhalants are potentially dangerous and have no real
> medical application.
>
> Additionally, Dr. William Wilkerson, the defendant's husband and a court
> recognized emergency medicine and paramedic expert, testified that ammonia
> inhalants are just plain bad medicine. He said that HVA did not follow their
> on-scene patient-doctor protocols with Dr. Wilkerson.
> There also was considerable political support for Dr. Wilkerson's case. More
> than 4,000 people signed an ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End
> Racism) national petition demanding that all charges be dropped.
>
> The trial was more than a victory for Dr. Wilkerson; it was a victory for
> free-speech and the rights of protesters. If Dr. Wilkerson had been
> convicted, it would have established a precedent criminalizing protesters
> who complain or criticize police behavior during unlawful arrests.
>
> --
> Emmanuel Lopez
> Love is all there is
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:CanYoAssDigIt-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:CanYoAssDigIt-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Probably much sadder for his family and friends than for Ishtar fans, I can't even remember the character of the U.S. Consul, so it's hard for me to miss him. I will have to watch Ishtar again soon (as soon as I can talk my wife into it, we are in the middle of a Mr. Moto run) so I can properly mourn his passing.
RIP: Reel Important People -- December 10, 2007
Cinematical - Santa Monica,CA,USA
Kramer, The Devil's Advocate, Ishtar, New York Stories and Quiz Show. He died November 27 in Englewood, New Jersey. (Perrysburg.com) David Morris ...
See all stories on this topic
Just popped up on my browser: "Britney Spears threatens to shame Paris Hilton by releasing a tape of her making out with a female friend." I ask you, are we people from the US not the most stupid, most shallow, most decadent people in the universe?
If people were warning about the rise of Judao-fascism and praising Hitler for how he handled them, everybody would see it for what it is, yet when they talk this way about Muslims, very few people in the US see anything wrong with it.
Islam has been on the short end of the stick from the West, the West have been the aggressors, colonizing and exploiting, putting in "royalty" when they've had elections (like in Iran in the 1950s)... this retarded asswipe suggests that Saudi Arabia is one of the most easily reformable of the Middle Eastern states. Why? Because it's House of Saud princes you always see laying fat wet kisses on the cheek of our House of Bush prince.
In fact, Saudi Arabia is one of the worst of the countries, and it may blow, and who could blame them? It's a hellhole. That is why the US is occupying Iraq - so they can have a base there when the "lose" Saudi Arabia. As I said, it would take too much time to try to refute everything he says, you can craft a lie in a second, it takes time to build an argument based on facts.
I'm acting as if this thing is real, it could just be another made-up thing from some other retard who lives in his parents basement and gets everything he "knows" from Faux news and video games. Because he doesn't present as knowing much about anything that's happening in the real world.
The great majority of the world sees the Christo-fascist Bush administration to be a bigger threat than Al Quada, and they are seeing things clearly. Being in the United States is like being in the bottom of a well, with occasional scraps of propaganda being tossed down by Rupert Murdoch and Carl Rove. People in the US should get out more, they would see that there are some amazing and wonderful things happen, and with some perspective they could see that their country is sliding into the dark ages. Maybe they'd be inspired to try to do something about it.
It is not surprising that before he was selected (by the supreme court) to be Resident of the United States, Dubya had never been out of the country. He is a man of the people - the ignorant and xenophobic people. If you are going to run in 2008, you should try getting out more. Go to Denmark, Ireland, Australia... you will see amazing things. Shoot, go to Canada. Even though they are virtually a colony of the US, supplying raw materials to the States, virtually donated to the empire by a right wing administration, they still have a free press... and it's worthwhile to get real news once in a while.
It doesn't bother me if you post this stuff to any of my lists or pages. Look, I've posted it myself. But troubles me is that you'd bother to forward it to anybody at all. And apparently, using Bobbie's advice, you are now BCCing it so that I won't have the opportunity to share the facts with the other recipients.
Easy and powerful as lies are, the truth doesn't have any fear of them, am I right? As John Milton, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience above all liberties. . . . And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"
Oh, WELL !!!!At least you don't have to woRRyabout my posting it on your pages.Weeeeeeeeee(WE). i do LIKE THE PART ABOUT JANE FONDA SHOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL.GUESS WHAT/I CAN't SEE THROUGH IT EITHER.OH WELL.HELL.Rick REED RxR for President 2008Rick REED RxR Rash Riot Radio - 31 SongsRick REED RxR Comedy Club Ha Ha He He HO HO HO !!!!
Then again, he was smart enough to get out before she turned him into a coat!
By SEAN PENN
It's been an odd week. For me, a particularly odd week. But that's another story. So, wait a minute. Iran DOESN'T have nuclear weapon capability??
Didn't Senator Clinton just vote in essence to give President Bush the power to bomb Iran? If he had done it last week, would that have made her right? I mean, if she knew then what she knows now? Or am I getting that backward? Golly, I'm confused.
And what about President Bush? This week, Vladimir Putin, the man Mr. Bush said he "Looked into the eyes of and found to be very straightforward and trustworthy.
Meanwhile, our President's great enemy in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, that "totalitarian,
Odd week, you know? Really.
What happened to Chavez's "strong-arming?
How is it that this "Commie bastard" with 80% of his citizens having elected him in the first place was unable to prevail? Could it be that we've been lied to about him? I mean, Pat Robertson's not a liar, is he? His god wouldn't let that happen, would he? And god-forbid, our god would let the right-wing pundits, left-wing corporates, or our own administration send us a bill of goods!?
Is it possible, I mean I know it's silly, but is it just a little bit possible that President Chavez is in fact a defender of his people's Constitution? That, that's how his referendum could fail? And that that's why he accepted it with such grace? A constitution which I have read several times. Quite a beautiful document, not dissimilar to our own. You might give it a read. Oh, I forgot – he's a "drug runner."
Let me share something with you. Late one night in Caracas, I met with a couple of fellas, mercenaries I think you call them. Goddamit, I keep doing that. I mean "contractors.
But I was talking about the Constitution. Most importantly, our own. And what an odd week it has been. Our culture is engrained with a tradition that blurs the line between what is right, what is just and what is constitutional, with what is a scam. That tradition is the cult of personality. What can TV sell, what kind of crap will we buy. And at what point are we buying and selling our rights, our pride, our flag, our children, and succumbing to meaningless slogans that are ultimately pure titles for un-Americanism. How do we know what's American and what is not? Because John Wayne tells us so? Because Sean Penn tells us so? Susan Sarandon? Bill O'Reilly? Michael Moore? Senator Bull? Or Senator Shit? Ann "my bowel expenditure" Coulter? No. It's our Constitution. We don't use it just to win. We depend on it because it's the only "us" worth being. And because it's our children's inheritance from our shared forefathers and the traditions that really do speak best of our country.
So, here's the question. We got Iowa coming up, we got New Hampshire right on its ass. Do we sell it for electability? If Hitler were the only candidate, would voting for him be most American? Jump on a plane with me. Okay, we're over the Middle East now…Let's land. Take a deep breath.
Imagine the bodies, burned and mutilated, the concussive sounds of gunfire and explosives defining the last horrifying moments of the dying and the dead. Imagine the millions of refugees fleeing through the deserts of Iraq, the babies crying, and the stench of death in the air. Yuck. Let's get back on the plane and head home.
Now, imagine American servicemen dead or broken, returning from a broken military to a silent casket or a broken veteran's administration, to broken lives and broken businesses, broken wives, unspoken husbands, and devastated children. And what for? What have we gained?
Al-Qaida recruitment is up. Terrorism is up. Quality of life is down in our country and around the world. While the rich continue to get richer and the poor, poorer and more numerous. And on the verge of recession, we are witnessing the dramatic disassembling of the middle class amidst a flood of foreclosures and unpayable debts. To Osama Bin Laden's infinite delight, we have become a country of principle breakers rather than principle bearers.
We are torturers and we too often, imprison only the weak. When our own administration chooses its bewilderingly un-American agenda (For the entitled people? By the entitled people?) over the Constitution in defining American values, principles, and law, Bin Laden laughs at the weakened sheep that we and our representatives have become.
High crimes and misdemeanors? How about full-blown treason for the outing our own CIA operatives? How about full-blown treason for those who support this administration through media propaganda?
While I'm not a proponent of the Death Penalty, existing law provides that the likes of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice, if found guilty, could have hoods thrown over their heads, their hands bound, facing a 12-man rifle corps executing death by firing squad. And our cowardly democratically dominated House and Senate can barely find one voice willing to propose so much as an impeachment. That one voice of a true American. That one voice of Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
This is not going to be a sound bite. Not if I can help it. I'm torn. I'm torn between the conventional wisdom of what we all keep being told is electibility and the idealism that perhaps alone can live up to the challenges of our generation. Of the democrats running for President, only Congressman Dennis Kucinich's candidacy is backed by a voting record of moral courage and a history of service to our country that has fully earned our support and our gratitude. And when I say support, I am not speaking to democrats alone, but rather to every American who would take the time on behalf of their children, our planet, and our soldiers to educate themselves on the Kucinich platform.
In the recent debate among Democrats in Las Vegas, the candidates, one after the other, placed security ahead of human rights. Benjamin Franklin once said "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Then, there was good ole Patrick Henry. Remember him? "Give me liberty, or give me death." These were the real tough bastards. The real John Wayne's.
These are the traditions we should be serving. I found the debate infuriating, nearly an argument for fascism with few exceptions, key among them Dennis Kucinich. Of course as a strategic politician, Mrs. Clinton pulled out her set of Ginzu knives and dominated once again on "centrist" political strategy. In fending off attacks upon she, the front runner, she reminded the audience and her fellow candidates, "We are all Democrats."
Wolf Blitzer asked each candidate if they would support the other should they themselves not be the nominee. One after another, the answer, yes. One exception: Dennis Kucinich, who with the minimal time allotted him, once again rose up beyond the sound bite and put principal ahead of party; argued policy rather than politeness. He has been the dominant voice of integrity on issues of trade, labor, education, environment, health, civil liberties, and the one endlessly determined voice of peace.
But is he too short? Does his haircut not appeal? Is he not loyal enough to a cowardly democratic platform? Does he not appeal to the cult of personality? And what if the answer is yes? What if Dennis Kucinich, the most deserving and noble of candidates, the most experienced in issues of policy and the least willing to play into the politics of personal power? What if we can't elect a man simply on the basis of the best ideas, the most courage, and the most selfless service? What does it say about our country when we can't rally the voices of the common good to support a man, like our troops, who would die for us, who would die for our constitution? Who, as mayor of Cleveland at the age of 31 stood up against contracts on his life. Three separate assassins whose intent was to kill him as he stood up for his constituency there.
Nonetheless, he carries on. He continues to serve.
I've been a supporter of Dennis Kucinich for several years. And I've been torn lately. I've been torn by the allure of "electability.
Dennis Kucinich offers us a very singular opportunity as we share this minute of time on earth. We, the people. It is for us to determine what is electable. And here's how simple it is: If we, those of us who truly believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, all of us, vote for Dennis Kucinich, he will be elected. Could we call him electable then? If so, America will stand taller than ever.
Let's remind our friends in the social circles of New York and the highbrow winner-friendly and monied major cities that support Mrs. Clinton, that this is not Bill Clinton. For all the misgivings I have about our former President, he raised up friends and opposition alike, his great gift as a motivator of interest and activism, of self-education and participation was, on its own merits, a unique gift. But don't underestimate personal agendas, those that initiated NAFTA, betrayed Haitian refugees and gay rights in the military within a minute of his own election. Don't underestimate that part of him when he gives his wife the face of his talent. Don't underestimate the damage her poisonous ambition can do to this country. We can't wait for the benefit of hindsight to service the benefit of Mrs. Clinton's career.
Let's raise up men and women of vision, of integrity, of belief in our principles. How exciting would that be to do? How good would that be for television? What if we turned this game around? Imagine watching on television, our country raising up a leader because he represents our Constitution.
Yes, good things can be good TV.
So, let's give the Constitution another read, shall we? And then decide who its greatest defender would be. I suggest that Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike will find that they know what's really right in their hearts and minds.
Sean Penn's latest film is Into the Wild.
