We insist that international elections be monitored and approved by the UN. Yet we do not allow the United Nations to monitor our elections. I wonder why? Give these videos a look and there is more commentary at the end.

One to make you laugh

And one to make you cry

If you want more there are plenty of other stories such as this Princeton voting machine video. Princeton University demonstrates how our current voting machines can be hacked with a virus that can spread from machine to machine and skew votes and destroy itself at the end covering its trail completely. I have read articles of people completing this hack in less then 60 seconds.

Given the results in our last two elections and the information coming to light, Do you think elections will be fair? Do you have doubts? But most importantly, answer this question. Why do we not address these issues? Why not allow the voting machines to be scrutinized and fixed. Why not let the UN monitor our elections?

Emphasizing that members of The United States Congress have taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ... and that I [they] will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I [they] am about to enter: So help me God,"

Noting with with grave concern that President G.W. Bush, although innocent until proven guilty, has caused suspicion of high crimes and misdemeanors enough to warrant an impeachment trial for the following reasons:

1. Violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by authorizing wiretaps on US citizens with out a warrant;1
2. He "knowingly distorted intelligence reports or ignored contrary information in constructing his case for the war [against Iraq]";2
3. President Bush directly leaked classified information from the National Intelligence Estimate without going through the proper declassification channels3. In addition, the outing of Valerie Plame's CIA identity was almost certainly known to Bush and a serious investigation is warranted;4
4. Eight attorneys general were removed from office for political reasons. Without an investigation it is unknown what direct role Bush had in the firings. However, in regards to this issue, he is at least guilty of perjury and lying to the American public since his story has changed numerous times;5
5. In accordance with the Presidential Records Act all emails by the President and his staff must be saved. The White House has admitted that over 5 million emails are unaccounted for including emails requested by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald during his investigation of the White House's role in the outing of Valerie Plame;6
6. Neglecting his paramount responsibility of providing for our citizens. Bush's gross incompetence in responding to the disaster caused by the Hurricane Katrina amounts to an impeachable offense;7
7. For general abuse of powers, expanding executive power and misuse of presidential signing statements;

While further reminding that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares Senate ratified treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land." and citing that:8

1. Any war not initiated out of self-defense or sanctioned by the UN is considered a war of aggression and is in violation of the UN Charter;9
2. The use of Extraordinary Rendition, unlawful combatant status, and mistreatment of detainees are all in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions;10

Further noting the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi has publicly declared,

1. An Impeachment trial is "off the table.";11
2. Has steadfastly blocked impeachment hearings;12

Recognizing that Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.",

Stressing that the language does not allow for the choice or option of impeachment but assigns the duty of impeachment "shall be removed",

High Five Friday solemnly declares that is the is duty of the United States House of Representatives to immediately begin the Impeachment Trial of Nancy Pelosi for the crime of violating her oath by purposely blocking the impeachment trial of G.W Bush.

Concerning (This CNN Article)

Dear Massachusetts Attorney General and Boston Assistant Attorney General John Grossman,

Three weeks ago while walking to work I noticed a light bright like sign hung on a street sign in downtown Portland. To me it was obviously some sort of prank/joke. I laughed and enjoy the fact that people do silly things.

Now these light panels have made their way to Boston. A Bostonian saw an odd panel on a street post and reported it to the authorities. That is just fine. However, it is pitifull that those authorities turned what was obviously a prank into a national bomb scare. This national campaign of threating and using fear is atrocious. Now Boston is charging these people with hanging a bomblike like devise to create public panic. It seems clear that Boston authorities are embarrassed that they watch too much 24 and want to push the attention onto someone else. Next time you hang your yard sale sign with shiny duck tap you better hope it doesn't look too much like C4.

It is flat wrong that these guys are being charged with this crime. I don't know how people come up with "what a bomb looks like" or intent to create public panic but that certainly was not the case here. This is a waste of taxpayer time and money and a mockery of our justice system. For shame on the Boston Authorities and for shame on the Boston Attorney General's Office.

Dismayed,

Jed Herzog

In addition to posting this to HighFiveFriday I have written this to the Massachusetts Attorney General's general email address. I could not find an address more specific to the Boston Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General John Grossman who is prosecuting the case. If you find any of these addresses let me know. I will be glad to send my letter to them. I also encourage you to write and voice your opinion. The general address is ago@ago.state.ma.us.

CNN Article

My respose to the NY Times

 

NY Times,

In the face of the political criticism being directed at the NY Times I wanted to take a moment to send you some praise. The audacity of the Bush administration in faulting the NY Times for breaking the story on the secret bank records program is unprecedented. We live in an era characterized by increasing executive power, the erosion of civil liberties, and numerous secret and possibly illegal spying, imprisonment, and torture programs; all this under the guise of national security and the tools of fear. If we did not have a free press willing to publish stories such as this we may have no hope for an informed public to choose a representative government. A nation will never be secure when its citizens’ perspective and rights are obstructed by deceit, and when other contemporary nations feel voiceless, unequal, and threatened. By running this story you have taken a much greater step towards National Security than any of the secretive wartime policies of this administration. Please continue the cause of the American people.

My gratitude

Jed

 

When I feel strongly about an issue it always feels right to let those involved know. You should do the same. Feel free to post your letters to the NY Times, President Bush or Rep. Peter King

Here is the synopsis of a news story that ran in the Boston Globe. 

A owner of a building that has a billboard on top of it, placed an advertisement that said “Little Brother Is Watching You”.  It showed nothing but President Bush’s eyes.

It advertised the website littlebrotheriswatching.com which questions the legality of President Bush’s domestic wiretapping program.  After pressure from the state government (controlled by republicans) the Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board ruled that this billboard was in zoning violation and had to be removed. 

What an outright restriction of freedom of speech.  I understand that supporters will claim that this is a zoning violation issue but The facts are that:

• It is clearly acknowledged in the Boston Globe that this billboard was removed only after pressure from the state government.
• According to my research this “Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board” consists of three members (1 Director, 2 members).  Two of these three members including the director are governor appointees.  This effectively allows a partisan body to control what public messages are allowed.

If you read High Five Friday you have an idea that I have opposed many of the decisions and directions that the US government has taken in the last 5 years.  Even though I am amazed that the government would make the choices it has, I am way more shocked that Americans are allowing/encouraging so many of our civil liberties to be eroded away.  I am personally outraged and deaply troubled.   Since I doubt the Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Agency reads High Five Friday, I decided to write a letter to the Director.  I encourage you to do the same. 

This is his contact information:

William J. Bickley, Jr.
Executive Director
Massachusetts Highway Department
c/o Outdoor Advertising Division
Ten Park Plaza, Room 7362
Boston, MA 02116-3973
Tel: (617)973-7867
Fax: (617)973-8404
william.bickley@mhd.state.ma.us

This is the letter I send on Friday March 31st via email.  I have not received a response yet.

Dear Mr. William Bickley,

I was deeply disturbed that your board has ordered the removal of a billboard that promotes a web site questioning the legality of President Bush’s wiretapping policies. Regardless of political affiliation or one’s position on the wiretap’s legality, it is clear that this is solely a freedom of speech issue. You have allowed the authority of the Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Agency to hinder free speech because of pressure for a partisan political administration (as reported by the Boston Globe “the state government -- the Republican state government, it»s worth noting -- wants the billboard down.”) This is not freedom, freedom of speech or the “American way”. In fact, one can easily draw parallels between this action and other similar historical acts or current policies in less democratic countries. If the US government is allowed to remove and restrict public messages because they differ from it’s agenda then the United State’s state of affairs is quite disturbing. I urge you to recognize your power and resist those who attempt to sway your influence only to further their cause at the sacrifice of America’s freedom.

According to your agencies website, the Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Board is comprised of three members. Is it these three members that make decisions such as the removal of this billboard?

Concerned,

Jed Herzog

I am going to start High Five Friday’s revitalization by discussing Iraq. Although I have promised myself not to let HFF become a dump for anti-Bush rhetoric, I find it a difficult subject to avoid since today’s current political situation deeply disturbs me and consumes a lot of my thought.

One week ago today was the 3rd Anniversary of the beginning of the US military action against Iraq. To mark it I joined 10,000 other Portlanders and attended a March for Peace. I have to admit it exceeded my expectation and turned out to be a sensational time. To see that so many other people were also concerned about our current foreign policies was uplifting. The march was entirely peaceful and the message and feel was supportive and positive. We can make a change by coming together and letting our representatives know how we feel both now and at the polls. No one took to anger which is hard with such a heated topic.

I only saw a few people disagreeing with the marchers, and their premise was that we were disrespecting the troops by protesting the war. I don’t understand why disagreeing with the War in Iraq is disrespectful or unsupportive of the troops.

I wanted to mention my feelings on this march and encourage everyone to also take part in any similar opportunities. Not only does participation send a positive message but it also can be therapeutic for oneself.

View Pictures of the march here.

Sidenote: Jed’s Best Protest Sign Award went to: "Nice War, Ass Brain"

So instead of ranting about the Iraq war I want this post to be a question. I continually hear from all politicians about "Winning the War in Iraq". What does that mean?

Is "Winning the War in Iraq" achieved when there is stability equal to:
+ 0 chance of an insurgent attack
- 1 chance of a civil war
+ 1 stable democratic government?

If that is "Winning the War", does anyone believe the equation is solvable though military operations and occupation?

On the other hand, if the pieces of the equation for "Winning the War in Iraq" are actually less definable values (i.e. more vague), then I say we’ve created the exact expression of our current state of affairs. Hence let’s end our occupation of Iraq now.

WHAT! High Five Friday is still alive???? That’s right, I am back and all though this will be a shorter post, I promise many more and much more frequent.

So what brought the motivation for my first rant in months? How about this:

"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down."

Again I say WHAT!

That’s right this is the article that I woke to this morning

Now who said that? A drunk a the bar, a KKK grandmaster at a rally, Rush Limbaugh? Nope, It was our former Secretary of Education!

His defense "I was putting forward a hypothetical proposition. Put that forward. Examined it. And then said about it that it's morally reprehensible. To recommend abortion of an entire group of people in order to lower your crime rate is morally reprehensible. But this is what happens when you argue that the ends can justify the means," he told CNN.

Well Mister Bennett I put forward the notion that we abort every baby and watch the crime rate go to zero.

I hope democrats and republicans alike run this guy out on a poll. And this guy was head of education…

Many have called me a "Bush Basher" or at least accused my commentary on High Five Friday dot com of being very anti-Bush. I am not pushing any anti-Bush agenda rather stating things as I see them. To prove this let me take Bush’s side in the following rant (at least for a little while).

I watched President Bush’s prime time address last night on Social Security reform. This is a policy matter that I agree with the President on, I think.

I agree with him because it is obvious the S.S. program is broken. I have no doubt it is going broke and the sooner we deal with the problem the better. As President Bush said last night each year we wait to fix the problem it become billons more expensive to fix. Not to mention it becomes harder for people to make the sacrifices that will be needed. I applaud President Bush for pushing this issue. It is not popular and I imagine politically damaging but it has to been done. At the least President Bush’s ideas will start a discussion on Capital Hill about S.S. reform.

However, I said I agree with the President I think because he never told me once how he wants to fix this problem. He talks about the option to pay into personalized investment accounts. He explains why these accounts are good for the people and I agree. But how does paying money into personalized accounts make the S.S. program more solvent? I want to know the details. I have little doubt that the actual reform package that President Bush is pushing does outline steps to fix the S.S. program. Those details however were omitted from his hour-long address last night. Is it because he is hiding the details? Is it because his speechwriters think that these details would make for a boring speech? Or is it because Washington has little faith that the American public could comprehend such details?

President Bush also talked about a new energy policy for the United States. Again a policy that I agree we need. But how can you propose a long-term energy policy geared towards fixing today’s problems and not mention one single alternative energy initiative? He talked about moving away from fossil fuel dependency and then turned around and his entire policy is focused on coal and natural gas. The only thing he mentioned that was not fossil fuels was nuclear energy. Should the US’s long-term energy policy not look to enhance and utilize safe and renewable alternative sources? Why is there not mention of incentives for hybrid or alternative fuel cars? Science today is finding efficient ways to enhance Solar, Hydro, and Hydrogen energy production. Yet Bush’s energy plans best suggestion is to drill in Alaska and build more natural gas receiving ports. Who is this guy and his administration? Oil tycoons? Oh yeah …. They are.

Congress is being urged to renew the Patriot Act in the name of protecting us from terrorism. Allow me to quote:

"Now is not the time for us to be engaging in unilateral disarmament" on the legal weapons now available for fighting terrorism, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said. He said that some of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act have proven invaluable in fighting terrorism".

Meanwhile, A leader of the Boy Scouts of America has been indicted on charges of possessing child pornography. Now please, please don’t get me wrong. I think this guy is a sick mofo. I would rather see arrests of the people creating the pornography (they are the ones truly hurting these children), but I am glad that people like this dude are accountable under the law and are being caught. However, a detail of his arrest that many may not known is that Smith was arrested not by the Police, FBI, SBI etc. Officials within the Homeland Security Department arrested him.

The President and Congress of the United States are telling us citizens that "a future terrorist attack is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when". Whenever shortcomings in the US’s security against terrorism are found, a lack of funding and resources is always the first excused cited. We the people allowed the government to create the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of combating terrorism.

Were we being lied to? Why is Homeland Security diverting their resources away from stopping the next inevitable terrorist attack? Why couldn’t the FBI, SBI, Police or any of the other previously established law enforcement agencies have handled this case?

Apparently, Homeland Security can expand their power without question or accountability, all in the name of terror prevention.

Now the bigger question: Should we, because we are told to be afraid, give up the personal rights and freedoms that the Patriot Act asks us to? Where are the checks and balances of these new laws? Where are the checks and balances on the actions of our terror-focused government? Why does the typical American not care that the government is attempting to take away these rights?

I do not plan on writing about the personal rights and freedoms that the Patriot Act violates and denies. I feel many have discussed that subject, very thoroughly. If you are unfamiliar I strongly urge you to visit HERE.