An Open Letter to VP Joe Biden on Gun Control

Honorable Vice President Biden,

Now that you have been appointed to create a new gun policy, I have a few suggestions.

1) As long as we have an imperial President who can carry out extrajudicial assassinations from a "kill list," then the culture of violence in America will grow worse.

2) As long as the NDAA allows our imperial President to detain whomever he wants indefinitely without habeas corpus or due process of law, then the President will lead the culture of violence with injustice.

3) Why do corporate "persons" get due process of law under the 14th Amendment, but NDAA detainees don't? Yet corporations are killing more American citizens every year than any terrorist has ever done by polluting our air, soil, water, and food supply while many of the NDAA detainees never killed anyone, and none to the magnitude of corporate culpability.

4) In Australia, they passed a ban on ownership, importation, manufacture, and sales of assault weapons and had a mandatory buy-back program. I think this is a good idea except for the fact that the citizens of the USA no longer trust our government to represent us for the best interest of the Common Good. Therefore, if weapons are to be removed from citizens, then the police should be equally disarmed. The 2nd Amendment was written to prevent a repeat of imperial power like King George had in Great Britain at the time, and allow a free and sovereign people to insure that we continue to have a government that represents us.

5) Senator Feinstein's assault weapon ban doesn't address the weapons that are currently in circulation and also includes 900 exceptions. Her proposed legislation is a Red Herring to toss a bone to the American People but retain a brisk market in lethal weapons. Senator Feinstein is a war hawk and corporate sellout; I don't trust anything she does.

6) We had a more prosperous economy when taxes were high and manufacturers were prohibited from moving their factories overseas. Now that corporate "persons" have the liberty to create jobs overseas using workers easy to exploit and governments easy to bribe, the middle class in America has shrunk while the disparity in wealth between the 1% and the 99% has increased upward. Tax cuts have robbed municipalities of the money they need to effectively serve the American People. And have robbed our children's futures by underfunding public schools. Budget cuts have shrunk public education; where will cash-strapped schools find the money to hire armed guards?  Even the Sheriff had to cut his staff!  

7) And finally, private armed militias like Academi nee Xe nee Blackwater, should be prohibited from having bases on American soil.   And are we going to buy back their assault weapons? 

Now that the American people have been robbed, toxified, and public property is exploited for private profit at the expense of the People, we may need our guns when the corporations come to enslave us. Which side are you on, Joe?

Clinton vs. Obama

I would love to see a woman president. But not Clinton. She is the second most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Diane Feinstein is first; she has replaced Joe Lieberman as the swing vote. Neither Clinton nor Feinstein make good Democratic leaders. If we want to end the endless wars, get the big corporations out of bed with the politicians, withdraw from Iraq, restore our civil rights, rebuild our infrastructure, and bring in an era of Peace and growing prosperity, while balancing the budget, Clinton is not the candidate. She sold-out to the big corporations long ago.

In 2001, Madeleine Albright's name appeared on the PNAC website as a signer. By late 2003, all those signatures had been removed. Some people say that Madeleine Albright was as ruthless as Henry Kissinger. Yet, there she was standing right next to Clinton in Iowa in 2008. Bush came in with the old guard; so will Clinton. The destruction of Democracy will continue unhindered if Clinton wins the White House in 2008.

I believe Obama has sold-out to the big corporations also. The media seems to measure the candidates by the amount of money they raise rather than by their platforms. Anyone who wants peace and democracy won't even be included in the debates.

In 2004, we had a choice of one rich white male graduate of Yale member of Skull and Bones in favor of the Iraq war, or another rich white male graduate of Yale member of Skull and Bones in favor of the Iraq war. Where was the choice?

Now the media portrays the choice between a black man, a woman, a Mormon, a Baptist preacher, or Nostradamus. Yet the Constitution states that there be no religious test for president. Should there be a racial test or a gender test for president? Are we voting for a religious leader or a president? What are their platforms? The media doesn't exactly answer that.

Change? George Bush brought about a lot of change. In fact, George Bush brought so much change, we would like to reverse a lot of his changes in order to rescue Democracy. "Change" is a very flimsy platform.

Those who have clear platforms, like Kucinich, Ravel, and Paul, are excluded from the debate. I guess change means to keep trouble-makers who talk about real issues away from the leading candidates in order not to embarrass them. Any candidate worth their pluck would have boycotted the debates in which the more forthright candidates were excluded. They should have said it was anti-Democratic to exclude some candidates, and they should have refused to talk. But, in fact, the "change" touters were GLAD not to have Kucinich, Ravel and Paul on the stage with them. The leading contenders are all cowards.

Once again, the corporate media are choosing our presidential candidates for us. And we are letting them do so. I am so sick of talk about black man, woman, preacher, Mormon, corporate campaign contributions, etc. It is only a cut above the latest front-page slut gossip. Maybe Britney should run for president; no one would expect a platform from her.