A Nation Divided

LPA: As the Chairman of The Liberal Party of America, I would like to take this occasion before the President's State of The Union Address to pose some questions to the American people themselves. We all know what has happened in this country since the terrible events of 9/11, but I don't think that while we talk about security and defeating terrorism, that many Americans have given the thought of real citizenship in this country, anymore than lip service. This might be a very sarcastic thing to say, but I would like my fellow citizen's to see some of the things that have transpired through non-partisan eyes.
First and formost, this has become a divided, hateful nation, with people believing politics over principles. I have watched our elected leaders use the war on terrorism as a political tool to advance their agenda's and all that this behavior has led us into, is a world that is more insecure and perilous than it was at the height of confontation during the cold war. At a time when the nation should have come together, I have seen it pulled apart by those on the extreme right and the extreme left. Most folks in the country have political ideals that lie somewhere in the middle. Yet I see no statesmen emerging to try to pull us together, only power hungry politicians of both parties trying to drive a wedge into common interests that are shared by both parties. This is why The Liberal Party of America was founded in the first place. We are not winning the war on terrorism, we are only letting these terrorists pull us farther apart. We need to go back to what the Constitution framed in it's on unique way, that this country is a country with checks and balances. That no one branch of government should have power over the other branches of government. That we all have certain unalienable rights that cannot and should not be taken away by anyone, not by the President, not by the Congress, and not by the Judiciary.
We can see everyday that the primary argument is not for the welfare of the people of the Unites States of America, but for the welfare of special interests that have slowly but surely sapped the respect that the average citizen has historically had for our elected officials. We have seen our President use his office to push for a right wing agenda that has not been authorized by any laws that have been passed by Congress. When American's ask under what authority the President is acting, we hear shadowy statements such as the Unitary Presidency. Where in the Constitution does it talk about the Unitary Power of The Executive Branch?
The fastest way for our country to fall, is to not rise to the terrorist threat because we are too busy either trying to grab power, or too busy trying to stop others from grabbing power during a national crisis. This administration should be investigated by a special prosecutor and the President should be subject to impeachment if the results of the special prosecutor has found that any laws have been broken.
This is a time when all Americans from every party should stop and think about what it is we want the future to hold for America. We can have a nation divided among its people, and a nation derided by other nations for it's failure to consult and act in consort with our traditional allies, or become a responsible democratic nation that lives up to the one person, one vote principle and works within the framework of a world community to solve the problems that are before us. America can only do this if every citizen votes, if every citizen becomes aware of what is happening nationally, and globally. This is a new era, an era where all nations are interconnected by global economics. This is not a world in which one country can act unilaterally as The United States has been doing since the turn of this century. We have to understand that this country has to start working in the framework of an interconnected world, or be a pahriah that ended it's influence by fighting amoung itself.

Hamas a Surprise?

LPA: This is not an article to gloat, but I knew Hamas was going to win that election, and I never left my living room in Florida. What does that say for our government in Washington? I mean what do we pay them for? Maybe you people forgot, but they DO work FOR us, not the other way around. They coundn't even get this right. I wasn't going to say anything, but when I saw "Condi" Rice tell the NY Times that nobody saw it coming, I almost slapped myself. I mean am I living in a dream world here?
Did nobody see it coming when they found no WMD's in Iraq? Did nobody see it coming when the government found out that foriegn nation's don't like the idea of being occupied by another power no matter how good the intentions are? Did nobody see it coming when a Category 4 (near 5) hit New Orleans and put "The Chocolate City" underwater for weeks? When ARE they going to see something coming. You right wingers forget the biggest one of all. They didn't see it coming when four jets were hijacked out of our own airports and used top kill almost 3,000 people. They also didn't see it coming when almost 2300 soldiers died and almost 17,000 wounded came back from the middle east.
Frankly, for me, the next three years can't go by fast enough (If I make it that long). I can't understand why Americans put up with this nonsense from a government that can't function. If I saw it coming by reading the paper and getting on my computer and reading the foriegn press, then why didn't they? Because they have a terminal case of political blindness. They don't see what is really going on, they see what they believe is going on, what their "advisors" tell them is going on. That has been the way Washinton has operated since "W" got there. Maybe it's time he started to read the newspapers and watch the news instead of relying on advisors that tell him everything he wants to hear.

A Matter of Principle

LPA:I watched CBS Nightly News tonight, and I was a bit puzzled about what I was hearing. I listened to a report that Hamas, the Palestinian terror network, was running against Fatah, the other Palestinian terror network, that is now a political party, in the Palistinian elections. I remember growing up and hearing about Fatah (I believe the newspeople called it Al-Fatah) back in the day. I remember how the Isreali People had to live under the constant threats of Yassar Arafat and the Fatah movement and the knowledge that any day the Isreali State might cease to exist.
Now I hear that we have just given two million dollars to this very same organization to try to make sure that the election is not swept by Hamas. Bob Shieffer even told me that if Hamas wins, that the US will pull all it's foriegn aid from the infant Palestinian State. That is a hard one for me to swallow.
First of all, aren't we fighting for Democracy a few hundred miles away in Iraq? Secondly, aren't we fighting for the new Iraqi government to support inclusion? That is, the inclusion of the Sunni's along with the Shia and the Kurds? Now isn't that what Democracy is all about? Why are we paying a former terrorist organization two million dollars of American taxpayer money, to help it win over another terrorist organization that istrying to include itself in the political process, when just hundreds of miles away, we are trying to promote what we are trying to prevent in Palestine? Now do you understand why the Arab world and Television stations like Al Jezerah get confused with American political agendas? Am I crazy, or does there seem to be something wrong with the scenario that I just laid out for you?
If we are to support Democracy, we don't just support Democracy when our guy wins. That is the Neo-Con version of Democracy. We support Democracy, irregardless who wins. George Bush has a "best buddy" in Russia that is playing Neo-Con Democracy. King George seems to think that it is OK. As long as the side that we are betting on is winning, than democracy is OK. If the side that we don't want to win, looks like it might win, then doing things that don't turn out to be nessessarily democratic is OK. That is the right wing Republican way of doing things. This is the way that they operate.
We, as American, must ask the President... No, DEMAND THAT THE PRESIDENT supports our democratic ideas as spelled out in our constitution, or resign from office. This is a situation that we, as a country cannot endure. The very image of The United States is at stake. We are a country that was built on the principles of democracy and the rule of law. When we disregrard these principles continuosly, we become something other than the country that our founding fathers wanted us to become. We become a dictorial empire. I do not believe that the people of the United States want to be part of a Dictatorial Empire.
This is just another example of the mismanagement of our government by the far right. The American Liberal Party calls for an investigation into this abuse of foriegn policy. As much as I might side with our Isreali friends, and detest Hamas as an organization, you can't have one set of rules for this situation, and another set of rules for just about the same situation a few hundred miles away with different players. We either promote Democracy or we don't. If we can't promote Democracy in Palestine, we shouldn't try to promote it in Iraq. This is an issue of princple and also a moral issue, and the Bush administration is failing on both counts.

Oppose Alito's Confirmation

LPA:It will probably come as no surprise that some of the people in the Liberal Party of America oppose the nomination of Judge Alito to be confirmed to sit on The Supreme Court. I respect Judge Alito, and feel that he has worked hard to get as far as he has, coming from an average middle class family. Although I admire the man and I feel that he is a testement to hard work and tenacity, his opinions as an appleate Judge of The Third Federal Court in Pa. have shown him to be overly zealous in upholding the rights of the majority over the minority. In too many cases, Judge Alito has shown an intolerance toward legitimate complaints of the average working Americans against the bigotry and intolerant attitudes of those with money and affluence. In almost all cases of racial bigotry, Judge Alito has ruled against the plaintiff.
His decisions on the Appellate court are not the only thing that are disturbing about Judge Alito's record. Besides his lack of sympathy or empathy for the little guy, he also sides with people that argue that the executive branch has lost too much power over the years. I have read articles in too many places of his need to defend this "Unitary Executive Theory" and that is a clear invitation to usher in a dictatorship of the executive branch. That in itself does not sit well with my idea of government.
I believe that Judge Alito would be a deciding vote for the far right in every case that came before the court. I believe that the way that the Supreme Court is at this moment, that the addition of Samuel Alito would be a rubber stamp for the far right to challenge any and all liberal measures thjat the court has upheld over the past few decades, including a woman's right to choose on abortion. We as Liberals must let our Seantors know that we oppose the nomination of this Judge to The Supreme Court. A phone call, or an e-mail to all the liberal leaning Senators of both parties is clearly in every Liberal's self interest in a fair Supreme Court.

Gore Returns

LPA:Al Gore delivered a speech yesterday, that could have been taken from the pages of our website, or our blog. He reminded Americans that this President, does not have the authority to circumvent the very court that was established to give him the authority that he needed to authorize the NSA wiretaps on American citizens. He did not have to resort to beaking the law by not informing them. What Mr Gore had to say was no different than what we have been writing about since the New York Times exposed this betrayal of the trust that Americans put in their president. What was important to me, was the way he delivered the speech. Gone was the old Al Gore who could put you to sleep wiithin the first 2 minutes of uttering the first word, and in his place was a dynamic speaker, who had the courage, to stand up to the Washington Neo-Con gang, and tell it like it is in a forceful common sense way.
We applaud the speech that Mr. Gore delivered yesterday, and we will continue to watch the things he says, and does in the future. I'm sure that his presidency being stolen from him by political criminals with no scruples radicalized him, but maybe that was just what he needed to become the Al Gore that we see today. Somebody with a clear vision of what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution, and wrote the seperation of powers by the three branches of government into law. He spoke eloqently yesterday about that very subject, and here is where I give credit where credit is due. From my own perspective, I believe that Al Gore is coming into his own, as a man, and as a politician, and maybe someday a President that we can trust to bring back the principles that were set forth by the men who wrote our constitution. Let us wait and see what the future brings.

Join Our Party

LPA:It's over two weeks into 2006. So far the political world hasn't changed much from 2005. The thing that gets my attention, is how the coverage of the Abramoff Scandel was big news one day, and miniscule news the next. There is a reson for that of course, just as there is an underlying reason for most things that happen in the world. Sometimes, we just don't know what the reasons are. This time however, we do know why the Abramoff story has headed towards the rear of today's "news". It's because BOTH major political parties (In case you come from another country, or planet, that means the Republicans and Democrats) are involved up to their collective necks. We want the American people to know and understand that this is not a partisan issue. The Democrats will try to look blameless, but BOTH political parties grabbed that money as fast as they could deposit the checks.
Is THIS what you want to belong too? Do you want to campaign for people that consistantly put their own interests above the American People's interests? This has been going on for decades now in America. Have you seen very many "average" guys run for political office? Last year I lived on the eastern coast of Florida and I saw the "coronation" of Kendrick Meeks as his mother's replacement in congress. I didn't see any of my neighbors running for that spot. I never hear of anyone I know running for anything. Everytime I see a politician, 99 times out of 100, they are well connected, both in business, and in politics.
There was an exception, I have to admit. Bill Clinton wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was an American success story. He worked his way up from being dirt poor, to the highest office in the land. Maybe that's why the Republicans hated him so much. He was the most investigated President that ever held office, Clinton was so busy dodging claims of corruption that I can't believe he found the time to run this nation. The other thing about those investigations that the taxpayers paid millions for, was that they didn't find a thing thgat he did wrong, except that mistake with his intern. Could you imagine what he could have accomplished if he didn't spend so much time fighting to keep his job? That was the Republican machine working for the citizen's. That is business as usual in Washington. We have become so used to that kind of "business as usual" that we really didn't see anything wrong with it. That why I'm writing this article. Folks, there is something wrong with it. There is something wrong with our whole political system. If you can't see it, then start a subscription to some news magizines, read the papers, and quit spending so much time in Wal-Mart.
This nation is facing a grave national crisis. It's a crisis of conscience. Most people have stopped participating in government. There are two reasons for that. The first one is because they feel that it's too time consuming and that they probably wouldn't make a difference, the second is that they don't know how to get involved. I would like to believe that the primary reason is the second reason that I just mentioned. If you feel like you are one of the people in the second category, I've got just the thing to get you going.
Join our party.
Join our party.
Join our party.
We are not "Big Shots" that won't listen to what you have to say. We are ordinary Americans like yourselves that have had it with "business as usual" in Washington. We are sick and tired of being sick and tired. We want to change the way our country is being run. The days of the big, impersonal political machine running the goverment are numbered. We stand with the people and are with the people because we are the people. We are not red or blue, Democrat or Republican. We are for common sense, working for the common good. We have not ever, nor will we ever, take a dime from any lobbyist or PAC or corporation. Can any other political party say that? Don't you wish that campaign finance reform was really campaign finance reform, instead of mixed up laws that nobody can understand except the lawyers? (And most of them can't figure it out). That was intentional. It's like President Bush calling the repeal of most environmental legislation "The Fresh Air Act". What is this, a big joke on the people of the United States? Look, I'm not making this stuff up.
Join out party.
Join our party.
Join our party.
If you do, it won't be business as usual in Washington. If you do, you will scare the hell out of the Republicans and the Democrats. If you do, you will save yourselves from the machine politicians that could care less about the average American like you and I. If you do, we could get the world to look at us as a legitimate government that represents the will of the American people instead of a superpower, imperialistic state that they are afraid of.
Join our party.
Join our party.
Join our party.
Do it for your family. Do it for yourself. Do it for your Country.

A Constitutional Crisis Like No Other

LPA:The initials of this party were shown in orange. We also are printing this aricle in bold letters. The reason for this is because we too, are going to a threat-level scenario, the same way that Homeland Security does. We feel that our democratic system of government is at an "elevated" threat level. This is important enough to also bring it to your attention in bold letters. This is our message to all American Citizens;

What Are "Unitary Powers" That The Executive Branch of Government Refers To?

I have been following the Senate hearings on the confirmation of Judge Alito, as have many Americans. I am sure that many Americans, like myself, have wondered, or openly asked, because of the number of times that the phrase popped up; just what are these "Unitary Powers" that they mention? Besides that phrase, what are "signing statements" and doesn't every President say a few words before a bill is signed into law? I decided, before I wrote anything positive or negative about the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, to check further into these two terms. What I found out was very disturbing, if not frightening. I would also ask you to read an article that I wrote just yesterday on "Liberalpro" . (http://liberalpro.blogspot.com ) entitled "Time is Getting Short Mr. Bush" and at that time I knew less than what I know now about this "Unitary Executive Power" that I refered to in the article. I called it a "theory" in yesterday's article. How naive I was just one day ago.
I am going to quote an article from FindLaw's commentary:

What Does the Administration Mean When It Refers to the "Unitary Executive"?

Dr. Kelley notes that the unitary executive doctrine arose as the result of the twin circumstances of Vietnam and Watergate. Kelley asserts that "the faith and trust placed into the presidency was broken as a result of the lies of Vietnam and Watergate," which resulted in a congressional assault on presidential prerogatives.

For example, consider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which Bush evaded when authorizing the NSA to tap without warrants -- even those issued by the FISA court. FISA was enacted after the fall of Nixon with the precise intention of curbing unchecked executive branch surveillance. (Indeed, Nixon's improper use of domestic surveillance was included in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the impeachment articles against him.)

According to Kelley, these congressional limits on the presidency, in turn, led "some very creative people" in the White House and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to fight back, in an attempt to foil or blunt these limits. In their view, these laws were legislative attempts to strip the president of his rightful powers. Prominent among those in the movement to preserve presidential power and champion the unitary executive doctrine were the founding members of the Federalist Society, nearly all of whom worked in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan White Houses.

The unitary executive doctrine arises out of a theory called "departmentalism," or "coordinate construction." According to legal scholars Christopher Yoo, Steven Calabresi, and Anthony Colangelo, the coordinate construction approach "holds that all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." According to this theory, the president may (and indeed, must) interpret laws, equally as much as the courts.
(copyright 1/9/2006-Findlaw)

Now as I read that, it scares me to see that the executive branch of the Federal governmnent can (and must) interpet laws, equally, as much as the courts. Now, what would our Conservitive friends in Congress think if President William Jefferson Clinton decided that, yes...this is a premise that I can adopt in my Presidency. What would be the effect of that in the Republican Party? Do you believe that they would stand with President Clinton as he waved his hand and dismissed Special Prosecutor Starr because it interferred with his prosecution of the war in Kosovo and Bosnia? The hearings aldo mentioned the "Signing Statements" that the administration used in conjuction with the "Unitary Executive" doctrine. What are these all about, and why are they so important? Again I quote from FindLaw's:

President Bush's Aggressive Use of Presidential Signing Statements

Bush has used presidential "signing statements" - statements issued by the President upon signing a bill into law -- to expand his power. Each of his signing statements says that he will interpret the law in question "in a manner consistent with his constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

Presidential signing statements have gotten very little media attention. They are, however, highly important documents that define how the President interprets the laws he signs. Presidents use such statements to protects the prerogative of their office and ensure control over the executive branch functions.

Presidents also -- since Reagan -- have used such statements to create a kind of alternative legislative history. Attorney General Ed Meese explained in 1986 that:

To make sure that the President's own understanding of what's in a bill is the same . . . is given consideration at the time of statutory construction later on by a court, we have now arranged with West Publishing Company that the presidential statement on the signing of a bill will accompany the legislative history from Congress so that all can be available to the court for future construction of what that statute really means.

The alternative legislative history would, according to Dr. Christopher S. Kelley, professor of political science at the Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, "contain certain policy or principles that the administration had lost in its negotiations" with Congress.

The Supreme Court has paid close attention to presidential signing statements. Indeed, in two important decisions -- the Chadha and Bowsher decisions - the Court relied in part on president signing statements in interpreting laws. Other federal courts, sources show, have taken note of them too.

President Bush has used presidential signing statements more than any previous president. From President Monroe's administration (1817-25) to the Carter administration (1977-81), the executive branch issued a total of 75 signing statements to protect presidential prerogatives. From Reagan's administration through Clinton's, the total number of signing statements ever issued, by all presidents, rose to a total 322.

In striking contrast to his predecessors, President Bush issued at least 435 signing statements in his first term alone. And, in these statements and in his executive orders, Bush used the term "unitary executive" 95 times. It is important, therefore, to understand what this doctrine means. (FindLaw copyright 1/9/2006)

When I read this, I can appreciate that the President of The United States of America, and The Liberal Party of America, are not looking at the Constitution of The United States of America, in the same way. I believe that this President, along with his inner circle, do not believe that the Constitution is really the law of the land. I believe that they feel that, because they operate the Executive Branch of government, that they, and they alone, have the power and the legal means to circumvent the Constitution in ways that they can justify by delaring that we are at war, and that they are somehow blessed with extraordinary powers to maintain the "security" of The United States. This line of thinking is wrong and unjustifiable. This kind of thinking is the same kind of thinking that the Presidident used to circumventThe McCain Anti-Tortue Bill when he used a signing statement that said:

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, In a manner consistant with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

So, in effect, The President, not only decides that he does not have to follow this law, but he presupposses that his will, and the will of Congress, are one in the same. This is also a view that is rejected in it's entirety by The Liberal Party of America.

We are indeed replaying history. The President and his minions are approaching (if they haven't already crossed) the Rubicon, and the Senate and The House of Representatives are, along with The Supreme Court, are the only thing stopping us from losing our Democracy. Thomas Paine said in Common Sense:

"In America, the law is King. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."

I believe that in the very core of my being. To think otherwise would make me less than an American. These are trying times. We have an enemy that wants to defeat the very thing that the executive branch is trying to take away from us. The rule of law, and our government that has existed for so long. The reason for that is because of the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers built into our Constitution. To let Osama Bin Laden or any other henchman of death, take away our freedom, so that we can defeat them, is a defeat in itself. We are a nation that can do both, fight the war against tyranny, while keeping and nourishing our democracy. To do it any other way, would be to turn our backs on the men that made this country what it is; a beacon of hope to the entire world. To do less would be treason, for even if we defeat our enemies, and lose our freedom in the process, we become something else, something that isn't American, something our Founding Fathers would be ashamed of. Even if we win this war and lose our freedom, we have lost. We can't let that happen, and if The Liberal Party of America has anything to say about it, we wont let that happen.

Scandal In Washington Again?

LPA:Again we hear of scandal in Washington DC, and we have become almost immune to the news. Time after time, day after day, we hear of payoffs, pork-barrel subsidies, and now we hear of lobbyists paying off our elected officials with golf club memberships, yachts, and junkets accross the planet for themselves and their families.
If you are a Democrat, then you probably got have gotten an e-mail from the DSCC telling you to contribute to the Democratic Party, so that they can clean out the evil Republican politicans in the 2006 elections. What they fail to mention, is that there are more than a few Democrats throwing Jack Abramoff's money at the first charity that will take it. Does that surprise you? Probably not. The truth of the matter is that I don't believe any of these allegations are surprising anyone that has kept up with politics for the last few decades. The only thing I find surprising, is that they had gotten so bold about it, that they hardly tried to cover their tracks. I believe that many of the Washington gang had done it for so long, that they thought of it as business as usual. I saw Newt Gingrich on CBS News, talking with Bob Schiefer how the politicians had violated not only the law, but their contstituents trust for them to uphold the laws that they helped to legislate. Hearing the former Speaker of The House who resigned, rather than face public scrutny for his personal infidelities, reminded me of Tom Delay promising a "Republican Revoulution" that would bring American values back to Washington in 1995. You can't tell the politicians from the criminals without doing an NCIC background check anymore. It doesn't really matter whether they are Washington insiders or outsiders, because it doesn't take any of them long to learn the ropes. They deny everything until the indictments start rolling down the corridors, then they get all teary-eyed and tell us how they didn't know what they were doing. I remember trying that line on my Dad a few times. I found out it was better to just admit it and take the consequences. It only made things worse to act like I didn't know right from wrong. Especially when it was my Dad that taught me in the first place.
This is one reason we decided to start this New Party. I can't trust any political Party on their platform, or their people anymore. I saw Clinton being castigated since the day he took office. He was the most investigated President that we ever had. I remember the Special Prosecutor Starr, hounding him for every deal he ever made as a businessman or a lawyer and came up with nothing. This President has lied to the American people almost everyday that he's held office, but I see no Special Prosucutor asking where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are. I see no congessional commitee investigating him fror wiretapping Americans in full violation of the Constitution. Where is the oversight on this administration? The only time I hear criticism is when the Democrats are e-mailing me for contributions. Meanwhile I now hear that Iraqi deaths are estimated to be around the 100,000 mark. How many people have to die before anyone asks why we are there in the first place?
No, it doesn't surprise me that Jack Abranoff was paying off politicians under the guise of a "lobbyist". There are many things that are happening in this country that are far worse than that. It is about time that the American people take back their government in Washington by sending those that aren't doing what they were elected to do, home. The only way we can do that is by defeating these political elite at the polls. That is why we are here. That is why the American people will be hearing from us more and more, with each passing day. The time to act is now. We can't do this alone. It has to be an American movement. It starts not with just a new political party, but a new American spirit. It starts with American Values that our forfathers taught to us. It starts with looking back to the past, and taking the things that Jefferson, and Washington, and Adams, and all the other forefathers of our country taught us, and applying it to today's world. It takes rememembering Eisenhower's last speech about the military-industrial complex. It takes remembering the word's of JFK when he told us "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". It takes American men and women to stand up for to stand up for not what is just convieniant or expediant, but for what is morally right. To stand up, not for what someone tells you is right, but what you feel is right. It is time to listen with not just our ears, but with our hearts.

Have a Liberal New Year!

LPA: Happy New Year to all. 2005 was not a good year for Liberals as a whole, but the last two months of the year were somewhat exiting. The Liberal Party of America was formed, and now we have a place to hang our hats (If you want to call it that). We welcome all Liberals that are tired of the machine politics of both the Democrats and Republicans, to join with us to make 2006 a swing to Liberalism in America.
Another good sign is that we now have Liberal Party members in California, the most populous state in the country. We hope that Californians will support our Liberal goals. They have had a rough time of it out there as far as political processes go. It seems that money and celebrity status have been the driving force in State politics, and I'm sure that the Liberals in that great state will be glad to have a place to focus on the real issues that are before our country.
We will be adding to our platform and our overview in the next few days. We acually are ready to endorse (or support) a few candidates around the county. If anyone has any suggestions or ideas, please post them in the comments section. We are a VERY small party that is just getting organized, so any input from you will be welcomed and considered. This is a democratic party, with no solid entrenched leadership , so please feel free to get involved and help us in our decision making processes.
Meanwhile, have a great holiday today, and think about some of the things that you want the party to focus on in 2006. Together, we can bring some change to this country that for too long now, has been run by corporations, and the military-industrial complex. Let this year be the year that we take America back from the rightist elite, and put it back in the hands of it's citizens.