PDA

View Full Version : We Won't Take it Anymore



Mtnjim
11-09-2007, 09:59 AM
Address by

Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson on October 27, 2007



Salt Lake City, Utah --

Today, as we come together

once again in this great city, we raise our voices in unison to say to President Bush, to Vice President Cheney,

to other members of the Bush Administration (past and present), to a majority of Congress, including Utah's entire

congressional delegation, and to much of the mainstream media: "You have failed us miserably and we won't take it

any more."

"While we had every reason to expect far more of you, you have been pompous, greedy, cruel, and

incompetent as you have led this great nation to a moral, military, and national security abyss."

"You have

breached trust with the American people in the most egregious ways. You have utterly failed in the performance of

your jobs. You have undermined our Constitution, permitted the violation of the most fundamental treaty

obligations, and betrayed the rule of law."

"You have engaged in, or permitted, heinous human rights abuses of

the sort never before countenanced in our nation's history as a matter of official policy. You have sent American

men and women to kill and be killed on the basis of lies, on the basis of shifting justifications, without

competent leadership, and without even a coherent plan for this monumental blunder."

"We are here to tell you:

We won't take it any more!"

"You have acted in direct contravention of values that we, as Americans who love

our country, hold dear. You have deceived us in the most cynical, outrageous ways. You have undermined, or allowed

the undermining of, our constitutional system of checks and balances among the three presumed co-equal branches of

government. You have helped lead our nation to the brink of fascism, of a dictatorship contemptuous of our

nation's treaty obligations, federal statutory law, our Constitution, and the rule of law."

"Because of you,

and because of your jingoistic false 'patriotism,' our world is far more dangerous, our nation is far more

despised, and the threat of terrorism is far greater than ever before.

It has been absolutely astounding how

you have committed the most horrendous acts, causing such needless tragedy in the lives of millions of people, yet

you wear your so-called religion on your sleeves, asserting your God-is-on-my-side nonsense - when what you have

done flies in the face of any religious or humanitarian tradition. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling - and

disgraceful. What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand? What part of the "Golden rule" do you not

understand? What part of "be honest," "be responsible," and "be accountable" don't you understand? What part of

"Blessed are the peacekeepers" do you not understand?

Because of you, hundreds of thousands of people have been

killed, many thousands of people have suffered horrendous lifetime injuries, and millions have been run off from

their homes. For the sake of our nation, for the sake of our children, and for the sake of our brothers and

sisters around the world, we are morally compelled to say, as loudly as we can, 'We won't take it any more!' "



"As United States agents kidnap, disappear, and torture human beings around the world, you justify, you

deceive, and you cover up. We find what you have done to men, women and children, and to the good name and

reputation of the United States, so appalling, so unconscionable, and so outrageous as to compel us to call upon

you to step aside and allow other men and women who are competent, true to our nation's values, and with high

moral principles to stand in your places - for the good of our nation, for the good of our children, and for the

good of our world."

In the case of the President and Vice President, this means impeachment and removal from

office, without any further delay from a complacent, complicit Congress, the Democratic majority of which cares

more about political gain in 2008 than it does about the vindication of our Constitution, the rule of law, and

democratic accountability.

It means the election of people as President and Vice President who, unlike most of

the presidential candidates from both major parties, have not aided and abetted in the perpetration of the illegal,

tragic, devastating invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it means the election of people as President and Vice

President who will commit to return our nation to the moral and strategic imperative of refraining from torturing

human beings.

In the case of the majority of Congress, it means electing people who are diligent enough to

learn the facts, including reading available National Intelligence Estimates, before voting to go to war. It means

electing to Congress men and women who will jealously guard Congress's sole prerogative to declare war. It means

electing to Congress men and women who will not submit like vapid lap dogs to presidential requests for blank

checks to engage in so-called preemptive wars, for legislation permitting warrantless wiretapping of

communications involving US citizens, and for dangerous, irresponsible, saber-rattling legislation like the recent

Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

We must avoid the trap of focusing the blame solely upon President Bush and

Vice-President Cheney. This is not just about a few people who have wronged our country - and the world. They were

enabled by members of both parties in Congress, they were enabled by the pathetic mainstream news media, and,

ultimately, they have been enabled by the American people - 40% of whom are so ill-informed they still think Iraq

was behind the 9/11 attacks - a people who know and care more about baseball statistics and which drunken starlets

are wearing underwear than they know and care about the atrocities being committed every single day in our name by

a government for which we need to take responsibility.

As loyal Americans, without regard to political

partisanship -- as veterans, as teachers, as religious leaders, as working men and women, as students, as

professionals, as businesspeople, as public servants, as retirees, as people of all ages, races, ethnic origins,

sexual orientations, and faiths -- we are here to say to the Bush administration, to the majority of Congress, and

to the mainstream media: "You have violated your solemn responsibilities. You have undermined our democracy, spat

upon our Constitution, and engaged in outrageous, despicable acts. You have brought our nation to a point of

immorality, inhumanity, and illegality of immense, tragic, unprecedented proportions."

"But we will live up to

our responsibilities as citizens, as brothers and sisters of those who have suffered as a result of the imperial

bullying of the United States government, and as moral actors who must take a stand: And we will, and must, mean it

when we say 'We won't take it any more.'"

If we want principled, courageous elected officials, we need to be

principled, courageous, and tenacious ourselves. History has demonstrated that our elected officials are not the

leaders - the leadership has to come from us. If we don't insist, if we don't persist, then we are not living up

to our responsibilities as citizens in a democracy - and our responsibilities as moral human beings. If we remain

silent, we signal to Congress and the Bush administration - and to candidates running for office - and to the

world - that we support the status quo.

Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and never

letting down can we say we are doing our part.

Our government, on the basis of a campaign we now know was

entirely fraudulent, attacked and militarily occupied a nation that posed no danger to the United States. Our

government, acting in our name, has caused immense, unjustified death and destruction.

It all started five

years ago, yet where have we, the American people, been? At this point, we are responsible. We get together once

in a while at demonstrations and complain about Bush and Cheney, about Congress, and about the pathetic news media.

We point fingers and yell a lot. Then most people politely go away until another demonstration a few months later.



How many people can honestly say they have spent as much time learning about and opposing the outrages of the

Bush administration as they have spent watching sports or mindless television programs during the past five years?

Escapist, time-sapping sports and insipid entertainment have indeed become the opiate of the masses.

Why is

this country so sound asleep? Why do we abide what is happening to our nation, to our Constitution, to the cause of

peace and international law and order? Why are we not doing all in our power to put an end to this madness?

We

should be in the streets regularly and students should be raising hell on our campuses. We should be making it

clear in every way possible that apologies or convoluted, disingenuous explanations just don't cut it when

presidential candidates and so many others voted to authorize George Bush and his neo-con buddies to send American

men and women to attack and occupy Iraq.

Let's awaken, and wake up the country by committing here and now to

do all each of us can to take our nation back. Let them hear us across the country, as we ask others to join us:

"We won't take it any more!"

I implore you: Draw a line. Figure out exactly where your own moral breaking

point is. How much will you put up with before you say "No more" and mean it?

I have drawn my line as a matter

of simple personal morality: I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has voted to fund the atrocities in

Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who will not commit to remove all US troops, as soon as

possible, from Iraq. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has supported legislation that takes us one

step closer to attacking Iran. I cannot, and will not, support any candidate who has not fought to stop the

kidnapping, disappearances, and torture being carried on in our name.

If we expect our nation's elected

officials to take us seriously, let us send a powerful message they cannot misunderstand. Let them know we really

do have our moral breaking point. Let them know we have drawn a bright line. Let them know they cannot take our

support for granted - that, regardless of their party and regardless of other political considerations, they will

not have our support if they cannot provide, and have not provided, principled leadership.

The people of this

nation may have been far too quiet for five years, but let us pledge that we won't let it go on one more day -

that we will do all we can to put an end to the illegalities, the moral degradation, and the disintegration of our

nation's reputation in the world.

Let us be unified in drawing the line - in declaring that we do have a

moral breaking point. Let us insist, together, in supporting our troops and in gratitude for the freedoms for which

our veterans gave so much, that we bring our troops home from Iraq, that we return our government to a

constitutional democracy, and that we commit to honoring the fundamental principles of human rights.

In defense

of our country, in defense of our Constitution, in defense of our shared values as Americans - and as moral human

beings - we declare today that we will fight in every way possible to stop the insanity, stop the continued

military occupation of Iraq, and stop the moral depravity reflected by the kidnapping, disappearing, and torture

of people around the world.

idesign
11-09-2007, 06:16 PM
I was hoping to read something

reasoned and intelligent, not boilerplate. Glad I don't have his "shared values", what bunk. I don't even know

where to start in laying this kind of rhetoric to shambles. It would be nice if he actually said something to

respond to rather than just the usual politico-speak.

The country is not "sound asleep", it is finally getting

past the stranglehold of the very same "mainstream media" that he denigrates, forgetting that it was that same media

which allowed the advance, unfiltered and unchallenged, of the very same agenda that he espouses.

Sorry Jim, I

respect your views, but this guy, whoever he is, is just another player.

Alex157
01-05-2008, 12:29 PM
I wonder if it was possible

would Bush be elected for the third time...

belgareth
01-05-2008, 02:54 PM
I wonder

if it was possible would Bush be elected for the third time...
No, it isn't possible. It's illegal.

Alex157
01-05-2008, 03:10 PM
yes, sure. But IF it was

possible? I have heard that Rusevelt was elected three times in a row or I am wrong?

belgareth
01-05-2008, 05:24 PM
The law was changed after that.

But you are right. If I was Bush, I wouldn't run for another term, even if allowed. As a matter of fact, I

wouldn't have run in the first place. What kind of lunatic would want such a miserable job?

Rbt
01-05-2008, 05:54 PM
But you can get your picture on a

stamp after you're dead! Wouldn't that be cool?

:LOL:

Bruce
01-05-2008, 06:01 PM
Last time I heard, Bush's "approval

rating" was very low. I can't imagine him being reelected "if" he were allowed by law. The question is rather

whether any Republican could get elected now.

idesign
01-05-2008, 06:12 PM
The approval rating of the

current Democrat controlled Congress is even lower than Bush's. Its a wonder anyone gets re-elected.

Those who

want the job should not be allowed. Politicians should be drafted from among those who do not want the job,and are

proven to be successful in the private sector, where results matter. They will only be allowed out if they do the

job, ie, lower taxes, smaller gov't, and less regulation and intervention.

Rbt
01-05-2008, 06:45 PM
yes, sure. But

IF it was possible? I have heard that Rusevelt was elected three times in a row or I am wrong?

There was

an ad button/pin done up by the opposition (maybe not "official") at the time that read:

"No man is good three

times."

It was for the 1940 campaign. Roosevelt-Wallace vs Willkie-McNary. Roosevelt won the 1944 campaign

(Roosevelt-Truman vs Dewey-Bricker) but he died in office.


And yes, before Roosevelt I believe is was

possible for someone to be elected more than twice in a row. This was the event that created the new laws about

it.

idesign
01-05-2008, 06:50 PM
There was an

ad button/pin done up by the opposition (maybe not "official") at the time that read:

"No man is good three

times."

It was for the 1940 campaign. Roosevelt-Wallace vs Willkie-McNary. Roosevelt won the 1944 campaign

(Roosevelt-Truman vs Dewey-Bricker) but he died in office.


And yes, before Roosevelt I believe is was

possible for someone to be elected more than twice in a row. This was the event that created the new laws about

it.

And not too long before that there was an attempt by FDR to increase the size of the Supreme Court so

he could stack it in his favor. It failed, and became known as the "Switch in Time to Save Nine".

Its funny how

little memory (or education) there is concerning politics. There is a current "controversy" about the firing of

several US Attorneys by the Bush administration. What is not mentioned in the press is that one of the first things

Clinton did when assuming office was to fire EVERY US Attorney in the country and appoint his own. How political

was that?

Alex157
01-06-2008, 01:39 AM
The job is a bit nervous, but

there are some light sides in it too...

"No man is good three times."

Oh, it means that a woman can be

elected three times on end. What about Hillary for a strart?

belgareth
01-06-2008, 05:44 AM
The

approval rating of the current Democrat controlled Congress is even lower than Bush's. Its a wonder anyone gets

re-elected.

Those who want the job should not be allowed. Politicians should be drafted from among those who do

not want the job,and are proven to be successful in the private sector, where results matter. They will only be

allowed out if they do the job, ie, lower taxes, smaller gov't, and less regulation and intervention.
In

general I agree with you except that the representatives of the people should be drawn from the population as a

whole. Eliminate those with serious criminal backgrounds and obvious mental issues then use a simple lottery to

select the president, vice president, the congress and senate. That way, we would have people in office who truly

represented us, people who know what it is like to pay $3 for a gallon of gas while trying to save a few dollars

towards sending their kids to college and still putting food on the table and keeping the lights on. Its hard to

imagine doing any worse than what we have now.

One of the biggest problems with our current government is that

it is run by a pack of elitists who have never had to scrape for a living. They are out of touch with the people

they supposedly represent. The founders of this country, I believe, never intended it to be run by career

politicians. I think most the intent was to return government to the people, allowing the power to remain in the

hands it rightfully belongs.

While I think the media has already weighed in on the side of the democrats, I

think this election is going to be another one where we are offered a list of who to vote against rather than who we

are going to vote for. The overall field of potential candidates is dismal at best. Once the mud all settles and

each party has selected their 'Most likely to be electable' candidate, it is going to come down to a choice of who

has the fewest negative points. So far, I can't see anybody with potential to actually win who would be worth

voting for. There are a good number that I already am ready to vote against, though not one has earned my voting for

them. Most scare the crap out of me.

That said, in my opinion, the two biggest flaws in the current system are

voter apathy and party politics and they are related issues. So many people are saying "Why bother when we are going

to get screwed no matter what we do?". They believe that the only real choices are to vote for either the democratic

or the republican candidate regardless of other, possibly more qualified, potential candidates. Unless a candidate

has managed to get the nomination from one of the two major parties, no matter how good he or she may be, they have

no chance of being elected so many people vote for the lessor of evils and its back to business as usual. The

general public and the nation as a whole loses, as usual, while the power games continue unabated. In my opinion,

this is a recipe for disaster that can go one of several ways if allowed to continue, but none of the possible

outcomes are good ones.

I'd like one day to see a campaign and election that is fair and balanced, allowing

every potential candidate an equal opportunity to be elected. One possible solution would be complete campaign

finance reform. Completely eliminate all donations and only allow candidates to use funds from a pool that each has

equal access too. Once a person has some number of demonstratable supporters (maybe based on petitions?) they have

the exact same number of dollars to campaign with as every other candidate. Then, make each and every candidate

liable for campaign finance fraud and slander of opponents. Break campaign finance law, get your funds revoked and

your tail end tossed in jail for the balance of the election. Anybody within your campaign makes a false statement

about another candidate and you lose your funds. It would solve many problems. It would, of course, create a few

more but would take a lot of the dirty tactics and outright fraud out of politics once a few of them had to sit out

the campaign while watching it on the bigscreen TV in the dayroom of a federal prison.

idesign
01-08-2008, 05:03 PM
I was being a little facetious,

but your reply is very thoughtful and mostly accurate I think.

Agree about the two-party system we've become,

its created just what you said about having no real choices. Even when a viable third candidate emerges, it tends

to throw votes to one of the others, as is Clinton's win when Perot ran.

Voter apathy derives from this exact

point, and it will not change until there is a real choice.

I don't really care if its an "elitist" or a

farmboy, as long as they listen to and implement what is really known as the interests of the populace. Read, lower

taxes, less gov't spending, less intrusion of the gov't into private lives.

It seems to me that social

issues, aka social engineering, is driving to much of politics.

Alex157
01-09-2008, 01:52 AM
I think that unfortunately only

the two-party system is stable.

belgareth
01-09-2008, 05:19 AM
Why should we care if the party

system is stable? Esecially when that system is becoming less and less for the people and is steadily stealing more

and more of our rights while digging deeper into pockets that cannot afford it?

Do you realize that between all

the taxes, fees, assessments and so on, the government takes MORE THAN 50% of our earnings? Both parties are

guilty of causing this. Both parties are also guilty of the outright theft of our retirement funds because they are

incapable of balancing a budget. So long as we have this 'stable' two party system without outside influence we

will continue to see the government grow and consume ever increasing amounts of money for the sole purpose of self

propagation. The two party system is creating massive instability in our nation and eventually must collapse of its

own sheer weight.

Sound alarmist? Many of the citizens of the Soviet Union thought so too. Follow it to a

logical conclusion.

Alex157
01-09-2008, 08:46 AM
Why should we care if the party system is stable?




The two party

system is creating massive instability in our nation and eventually must collapse of its own sheer weight.



Well, I think that it means

that you just don’t find the two-party system the stable one :)







Esecially when that

system is becoming less and less for the people and is steadily stealing more and more of our rights while digging

deeper into pockets that cannot afford it?
Do you realize that between all the taxes, fees, assessments and so on,

the government takes MORE THAN 50% of our earnings?




Where is a guarantee that

another system will take less?





Sound alarmist?

Many of the citizens of the Soviet Union thought so too. Follow it to a

logical conclusion.




The Soviet Union was a special case. In the Soviet

Union you might to know about the Caribbean crisis twenty years later. When the German army stayed at its borders

ready for an attack at June 21, nobody thought about it because the newspapers wrote about something else. Americans

are able to suggest some substitution for the two-party system openly…

belgareth
01-09-2008, 09:17 AM
Well, I think that it means that you just don’t find the two-party system the

stable one :)

You were the one who said it was stable. :) Stability is a relative thing.

Is it stable today? How about yesterday and what about tomorrow? How about when we toss in a few variables?

Personally, following the trends we see I do not believe the system can support its own weight over a long period.

It becomes less stable with time.







Where is a

guarantee that another system will take less?
Who offered you a guarantee? I didn't.

However, the system is broken and is getting worse. Are you suggesting that because you do not have a fully reliable

solution we should accept our flawed one? As a matter of record, newer governments tend to be less intrusive and

cheaper to operate. There are a number of reasons for that.






The Soviet Union was a special case. In the Soviet Union you might to know about the Caribbean crisis twenty

years later. When the German army stayed at its borders ready for an attack at June 21, nobody thought about it

because the newspapers wrote about something else. Americans are able to suggest some substitution for the two-party

system openly…

It isn't such a special case. Our system is becoming more intrusive and

oppressive all the time. Think 'Politically Correct" Again, follow the trends out in a logical fashion and you see

us reaching more or less the same state of affairs. The critical factor is several conditions. One is the ever

increasing size of the government, which is a parisite on the economic engine. Sooner or later the engine can no

longer pull the load of the weight placed on it and dies. As more and more people are awarded greater entitlements

and fewer people are less productive you see less vigor in the economy. Recession becomes a state of being rather

than a normal variation in the economy. Functionally it acts like a positive feedback loop in an amplified circuit,

gaining in amplitude with each iteration.

Another related factor is confidence. As the reduced number of true

producers are forced to shoulder a great portion of the burden while the 'disenfranchised masses' vote themselves

bread and circuses the producers become less and less productive. Read up a little on the apathetic attitudes many

people had towards their work in the USSR prior to the eventual collapse. They simply quit trying because they could

never get ahead. There are many notable differences but there are many important similarities.

Alex157
01-09-2008, 11:11 AM
You were the one who said it was stable.






Yes, sure it was me and I continue to say it until I am shown the better

option. :) The choice is between a more left party and a more right one. As soon as there is a third party it just

increases chances of the one which represents its flank alone.





Stability is a

relative thing. Is it stable today? How about yesterday and what about tomorrow? How about when we toss in a few

variables? Personally, following the trends we see I do not believe the system can support its own weight over a

long period. It becomes less stable with time.


Well, America

is at war. Maybe Mr. Bush should be thanked for it, maybe not, but who, for example, interned Japanese during WWII?

Was it democratic?





Who offered you a guarantee? I didn't. However, the system is

broken and is getting worse. Are you suggesting that because you do not have a fully reliable solution we should

accept our flawed one? As a matter of record, newer governments tend to be less intrusive and cheaper to operate.

There are a number of reasons for

that.



I am not in a position to suggest anything for the US :). It was not me

who created the two-party system too. :)





It isn't such a

special case. Our system is becoming more intrusive and oppressive all the time.






Again, it is a war. When the enemies of the US get the bomb it will be

much worse.






Read up a little on

the apathetic attitudes many people had towards their work in the USSR prior to the eventual collapse.






No, I don’t want to read anything about the USSR :). I am quite fed up

with it as it is :). Now it is not much better, though.