WHEN?
Are we going to address the fact that GWB flies AFone all over and over and over this country to events for his personal political benefit and allows no Democrats to attend. Do the Republicans pay for these flight expenses? I don't think so.

From David Sirota:

Why Dems Must Find the Guts to Ask the Big National Sercurity Questions

When I got back from Flathead Lake this Sunday and fired up my computer, a friend had emailed me a piece from the New York Times' Week in Review section that discusses the political/security implications of the horrible terrorist bombing in London (the story is attached at the bottom of this e-mail).

There are two particularly troubling dynamics laid out in the story: First, Democrats seem as yet unwilling to give voice to the very serious concerns these attacks raise about America's current national security policy. Second, Republicans seem willing to brazenly use this awful tragedy in an effort to pump up President Bush's poll numbers. The result will leave America far less safe than we should be.

The story leads off by quoting a blog entry I did about how the attacks call into question President Bush's whole argument that the war in Iraq means that there is a smaller terrorist threat on America's homeland. The blog post also questioned why, in the wake of 9/11, the President opted to spend more than $300 billion on a war in Iraq, while underfunding homeland security?

These are, of course, legitimate and important questions, especially as our country and England move forward in trying to prevent future attacks. Unfortunately, the Times piece says "elected Democrats are unlikely to cite the London bombings to fault the White House" right now on its national security policy, for fear of seeming too political. That is sad, and frightening.

It should be obvious that questions about misguided national security decisions after a tragic attack aren't political at all - they are substantive and absolutely necessary to securing this country and our allies. If, after an attack, there is no opposition party willing to ask very relevant questions about whether our country is making the right security decisions, how can we ever expect any changes in policy that might make us more safe and might prevent future attacks?

This Democratic cowering is coming at the very same time Republicans are doing everything they can to once again politicize national security, just as they did before the 2002 and 2004 elections. As the Times notes, GOP operatives are already out there saying "the bombings will only serve to remind Americans why they returned the president to the White House."

This willingness to exploit a tragedy is being legitimated by the likes of Brit Hume and others on Fox News. The right-wing knows that in the absence of Democrats asking serious substantive questions, they can try to turn the horrible tragedy in London into a brazen political opportunity for President Bush, without so much of a peep of criticism, and without anyone asking the substantive national security questions that these attacks raise.

It is true that the Times piece mentions that Democrats are going to raise questions about the Bush administration's negligent underfunding of transit security here in America - and those questions will be a positive step.

But in light of this attack and the Bush administration's CIA director admitting the Iraq War is helping the terrorists, Democrats need to start fundamentally challenging this administration on its entire national security strategy - not just nipping around the edges, and not retreating in fear as they have recently.

This is important not because of any political ramifications for Democrats, but because it is good policy. An America without an opposition party challenging those in power to re-evaluate a clearly dangerous and failing national security strategy is an America that is not doing its best to secure the homefront. And that should be unacceptable to all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

The recent attacks in London, along with a similar attacks in Madrid exposes a severely undefunded part of security infrastructure. A recent Brookings inststite report pointed to the fact that 42% of a terror attack are on rail systems and buses. Its time Democrats unite to ensure the proper funding is given to agencies like the FHA to ensure our roads, railways, and subways are protected against future attacks. Furthermore, President Bush need to fulfill his commitment ot implement all of the recomendations of the 9/11 commision instead of cutting funding for bothe Homeland Security and the TSA. Democrast in the House and Senate need to push for better management of these agencies... as well as increased funding in order to protect us all.

Here’re a couple articles from FreeLiberal:

A Real Litmus Test for the Supreme Court by Paul Gessing

Justice To The Highest Bidder by Richard A. Cheatham

And here’s one from the Free-market News Network:

Rights and the Supreme Court by Tibor R. Machan

We need someone in the court who won’t expand the use of eminent domain.

We need someone who will rule military conscription as unconstitutional based on the thirteenth amendment.

We need someone who will stand up for States’ rights to legalise marijuana, instead of saying that the Federal anti-marijuana laws (which aren't even constitutional to begin with) trump over California’s laws.

We need people who believe in the Bill of Rights.

Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions. :)

I'm curious about something and maybe some of you can help me. You guys spend a lot of time talking bad about the opposing party, who likewise spends a lot of time talking bad about you. You guys talk about one party or the other being "in power". Could any of you clarify something for me? Do you not understand that both parties are in power? Democrats and Republicans control the country. All of the rest of us have little or no influence.

One party talks about how bad the other is, and frankly, I just don't get it. No party that I am aware of is not rife with hypocrisy. In fact, the very word "politics" suggests coruption, power, and greed in the minds of many many people. You're all bad. Your ideals are wrong and certainly the ways you try to achieve them are wrong, Democrats and Republicans alike.

There is a reason most people in this country don't vote. Did you guys know that was true? Check the numbers. On a federal level and often times on a state level, most people don't vote. Do know what that means? It means that no matter who wins an election, most people didn't vote for them. Do you know why that is? It's not because they are lazy, and it's not because they are apathetic. At least, not the majority of them. I understand that most of you will deny that, but how could you not? To admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system would put you guys out of influence. Most poeple, more often than not, who don't vote straight up refuse to. The reason? Because they have no faith in any of you, Republicans or Democrats. They do not trust you to have their best intrests in mind. They refuse to choose the lesser of two evils. In fact often times, there isn't a lesser evil. You are all awful.

So next time to you start spouting all of your "this is what's best for the country" catch phrases, keep in mind that you don't represent the country. Any of you. You only represent a small percentage of it, and it's getting smaller all the time.

I mean, why would anybody who has any real knowledge of how nations are born and die join a political party? What is wrong with you people?