Posts
In keeping with my previous posts on our rights we are losing under this so-called " Patriot Act ", I now present you with a few more details of what the Bush clan has done to you and myself.
It seems that diarist Markthshark over at DailyKos has been keeping up with this as well, but from a Bill of Rights point of view.
I am post his timeline on the Bill of Rights destruction but you may wish to go and read the entire article here.
For what its worth, here it is:
January 2001
• President Bush signs off on a presidential directive that delays [indefinitely] the scheduled release of presidential documents authorized by the Presidential Records Act of 1978, pertaining to the Reagan-Bush administration. (Here)
• The Bush regime begins the process of radically broadening scope of documents and information which can be deemed classified. (Here)
February 2001
• The National Security Agency (NSA) sets up Project Groundbreaker, a monitoring program for domestic call infrastructure. (Here)
February -- April 2001
• A secret order issued by the Bush regime authorizes NSA monitoring of domestic phone and internet traffic. (Here)
September 2001
• In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, over one thousand suspects are brought into detention over the next several months when the Department of Justice authorizes detention without charge for any terror suspects. (Here PDF)
October 2001
• U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announces unprecedented shift in Department of Justice (DOJ) policy. According to the new policy DOJ will impose far more stringent criteria for the granting of Freedom of Information Act requests. (Here)
September – October 2001
• The NSA launches massive database of info on US phone calls. (Here)
October 2001
• The USA Patriot Act becomes law. Among other things, the law makes it a crime for anyone to contribute money or material support for any group on the State Department’s Terror Watch List; allows the FBI to monitor and tape conversations between attorneys and clients; permits the FBI to order librarians to turn over information about patron’s reading habits, and allows the government to conduct surveillance on internet and email use of US citizens without notice. The act also calls for expanded use of National Security Letters (NSLs), which allow the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records of US citizens without a court order, exempts the government from needing to reveal how evidence against suspected terrorists was obtained and authorizes indefinite detention of immigrants at the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities. (Here)
• A NJ Superior court judge and civil liberties scholar Anthony Napolitano, author of A Nation of Sheep, has described the law’s assault on first and fourth amendment principles as follows, "The Patriot Act’s two most principle constitutional errors are an assault on the Fourth Amendment, and on the First. It permits federal agents to write their own search warrants [under the name "national security letters"] with no judge having examined evidence and agreed that it’s likely that the person or thing the government wants to search will reveal evidence of a crime... Not only that, but the Patriot Act makes it a felony for the recipient of a self-written search warrant to reveal it to anyone. The Patriot Act allows [agents] to serve self-written search warrants on financial institutions, and the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2004 in Orwellian language defines that to include in addition to banks, also delis, bodegas, restaurants, hotels, doctors’ offices, lawyers’ offices, telecoms, HMOs, hospitals, casinos, jewelry dealers, automobile dealers, boat dealers, and that great financial institution to which we all would repose our fortunes, the post office. (Here)
November 2001
• Bush issues Executive order 13233. It limits the release of presidential documents. The order gives incumbent presidents the right to veto requests to open any past presidential records and supersedes the congressionally passed law of 1978 mandating release of all presidential records not explicitly deemed classified. (Here)
January 2002
• The FBI and Department of Defense (DOD), forbidden by law from compiling databases on US citizens, begin contracting with private database firm ChoicePoint to collect, store, search and maintain data. (Here)
February -- March 2002
• Bush issues a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to wiretap the phones and read emails of US citizens. (Here)
March – April 2002
• The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acknowledges it has created both a "No Fly" and a separate "Watch" list of US travelers. (Here)
May 2002
• The U.S. Department of Justice authorizes the FBI to monitor political and religious groups. The new rules permit the FBI to broadly search or monitor the internet for evidence of criminal activity without having any tips or leads that a specific criminal act has been committed. (Here)
June 2002
• The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the right of school administrators to conduct mandatory drug testing of students without probable cause. (Here)
November 2002
• The Homeland Security Act of 2002 establishes separate Department of Homeland Security. Among other things the department will federally coordinate for the first time all local and state law enforcement nationwide and run a Directorate of Information and Analysis with authority to compile comprehensive data on US citizens using public and commercial records including credit card, phone, bank, and travel. The department also will be exempt form Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements. The Homeland Security department’s jurisdiction has been widely criticized for being nebulously defined and has extended beyond terrorism into areas including immigration, pornography and drug enforcement. (Here) and (Here)
February 2003
• Draft of Domestic Security Enhancement Act (aka Patriot Act 2), a secret document prepared by the Department of Justice is leaked by the Center for Public Integrity. Provisions of the February 7th draft version included:
(a) Removal of court-ordered prohibitions against police agencies spying on domestic groups.
(b) The FBI would be granted powers to conduct searches and surveillance based on intelligence gathered in foreign countries without first obtaining a court order.
(c) Creation of a DNA database of suspected terrorists.
(d) Prohibition of any public disclosure of the names of alleged terrorists including those who have been arrested.
(e)Exemptions from civil liability for people and businesses who voluntarily turn private information over to the government.
(f) Criminalization of the use of encryption to conceal incriminating communications.
(g) Automatic denial of bail for persons accused of terrorism-related crimes, reversing the ordinary common law burden of proof principle. All alleged terrorists would be required to demonstrate why they should be released on bail rather than the government being required to demonstrate why they should be held.
(h) Expansion of the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty.
(i) The United States Environmental Protection Agency would be prevented from releasing "worst case scenario" information to the public about chemical plants.
(j)United States citizens whom the government finds to be either members of, or providing material support to, terrorist groups could have their US citizenship revoked and be deported to foreign countries.
(k) Although the bill itself has never (yet) been advanced in congress due to public exposure, some of its provisions have become law as parts of other bills. For example The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 grants the FBI unprecedented power to obtain records from financial institutions without requiring permission from a judge. Under the law, the FBI does not need to seek a court order to access such records, nor does it need to prove just cause. (Here) and (Here)
March 2003
• Bush issues Executive order 13292, which radically tightens the declassification process of classified government documents, as well as making it far easier for government agencies to make and keep information classified. The order delayed by three years the release of declassified government documents dating from 1978 or earlier. It also allowed the government to treat all material sent to American officials from foreign governments — no matter how routine — as subject to classification, and expanded the ability of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to shield documents from declassification. Finally it gave the vice president the power to classify information. (Here) and (Here)
• In a ruling seen as a victory for the concentration of ownership of intellectual property and an erosion of the public domain, the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft held that a 20-year extension of the copyright period (from 50 years after the death of the author to 70 years) called for by the Sonny Bono copyright Extension not violate either the Copyright Clause or the First Amendment. (Here)
April 2003
• The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Demore v. Kim that even permanent residents could be subject to mandatory detention when facing deportation based on a prior criminal conviction, without any right to an individualized hearing to determine whether they were dangerous or a flight risk. (Here)
September – October 2003
• The FBI changes its traditional policy of destroying all data and documents collected on innocent citizens in the course of criminal investigations. This information would, according to the bureau, now be permanently stored. Two years later in late 2005 Executive Order 13388, expanded access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined. (Here) and (Here)
October – November 2003
As authorized by the Patriot Act, the FBI expands the practice of national security letters. NSLs, originally introduced in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, enabled the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. This was extended by the Patriot Act to include permitting clandestine scrutiny of all U.S. residents and visitors whether suspected of terrorism or not. (Here)
January 2004
• The FBI begins keeping a database of US citizens based on information obtained via NSLs. (Here)
February – March 2004
• U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft invokes State Secrets privilege to forbid former FBI translator Sibel Edmunds from testifying in a case brought by families of victims of the 9-11 attacks. Litigation by 9-11 families is subsequently halted. (Here) and (Here)
June 2004
• The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Nevada state law allowing police to arrest suspects who refuse to provide identification based on police discretion of "reasonable suspicion." (Here)
January 2005
• The U.S. Supreme court rules that police do not need to have probable cause to have drug sniffing dogs examine cars stopped for routine traffic violations. (Here) and (Here)
June 2005
• U.S. Supreme Court rules that the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users even in states which have laws permitting medical marijuana. (Here)
July – August 2005
• Due to expire at the end of 2005, The Patriot Act is reauthorized by Congress. (Here)
December 2005
• The U.S. Senate blocks reauthorization of certain clauses in Patriot Act. (Here)
March 2006
• The U.S. Senate passes amended version of Patriot Act, reauthorization, with three basic changes from the original including: recipients of secret court orders to turn over sensitive information on individuals linked to terrorism investigations are not allowed to disclose those orders but can challenge the gag order after a year, libraries would not be required to turn over information without the approval of a judge, recipients of an FBI "national security letter" — an investigator’s demand for access to personal or business information — would not have to tell the FBI if they consult a lawyer. New bill also said to extend Congressional oversight over executive department usage guidelines. Shortly after bill is signed George Bush declares oversight rules are not binding. (Here) and (Here)
June 2006
• Supreme court rules that evidence obtained in violation of the "knock and announce" rules can still be permitted in court. (Here)
September 2006
• US Congress and Senate approve the Military Commissions Act, which authorizes torture and strips non- US citizen detainees suspected of terrorist ties of the right of habeas corpus (which includes formal charges, counsel and hearings). It also empowers US presidents at their discretion to declare US citizens as enemy combatants and subject to detention without charge or due process. (Here) (Here) and (Here)
October 2006
• The U.S. Senate passes the John Warner Defense Authorization Act. The act allows a president to declare a public emergency and station US military troops anywhere in America as well as take control of state based national guard units without consent of the governor or other local authorities. The law authorizes presidential deployment of US troops to round-up and detain "potential terrorists", "illegal aliens" and "disorderly" citizenry. (Here) and (Here)
May 2007
• The White House issues National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51). It establishes a new post-disaster plan (with disaster defined as any incident, natural or man-made, resulting in extraordinary mass casualties, damage or disruption) which places the president in charge of all three branches of government. The directive overrides the National Emergencies Act which gives Congress power to determine the duration of a national emergency. (Here) and (Here)
June 2007
• In "Bong Hits for Jesus" case the Supreme court ruled that student free speech rights do not extend to promotion of drug use. (Here)
July 2007
• Bush issued Executive Order 13438: "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq, issued. The order asserts the government’s power to confiscate the property "of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people." (Here)
October 2007
• The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act passes the House of Representatives 400 to 6 (to be voted on in the Senate early in 2008). The act proposes the establishment of a commission composed of members of the House and Senate, Homeland Security and others, to "examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States" and specifically the role of the internet in fostering and disseminating extremism. According to the bill the term `violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change, while the term ‘ideologically-based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs." (Here) (Here) and (Here)
That my friends is perhaps the most odious timeline ever. But, it leaves us with a choice. We can turn yet another blind eye to another egregious usurpation of power or we can stop the VRHTA dead in its tracks. Please click the link below to contact your senators. They'll probably be voting on this piece of crap as soon as vacation is over.
Tell them HELL NO!!! on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act. It is unconstitutional. It is unamerican.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
The Patriot Act: Government Intrusion On Your Personal Rights
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
The Rights That You Have Lost Under The Patriot Act, Part II
This post as well as the previous one only deals with our rights so far as our privacy is concerned. If you wish to know other rights of yours that you may no longer have, then please visit Cooperativeresearch.org.
This comes by way of Cooperativeresearch.org and is listed in order by date.
Open-Content project managed by Paul, blackmax
January 2002: Study Finds Agents Have Sought Records From 220 Libraries
The Patriot Act permits federal agents to secretly obtain information from booksellers and librarians about customers’ and patrons’ reading, internet and book-buying habits, merely by alleging that the records are relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation. The act prohibits librarians and booksellers from revealing these requests, so they cannot be challenged in court (see October 2, 2001). [Newsday, 9/16/2002] A University of Illinois study now concludes that federal agents have sought records from about 220 libraries nationwide since September 2001. [Miami Herald, 9/1/2002] The Justice Department refuses to say how many times it has invoked this Patriot Act provision (see June 13, 2002). [Observer, 3/16/2003] But Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant says that people who borrow or buy books surrender their right of privacy. [San Francisco Chronicle, 3/10/2003] Some libraries and bookstores unhappy with the law begin to fight back in a number of ways. Some libraries have posted signs warning that the government may be monitoring their users’ reading habits. [Reuters, 3/11/2003] Thousands of libraries are destroying records so agents have nothing to seize. [New York Times, 4/7/2003] Many librarians polled say they would break the law and deny orders to disclose reading records. [San Francisco Chronicle, 3/10/2003]
June 13, 2002: Congresspeople Ask Ashcroft About Patriot Act
Several congresspeople submit a list of 50 questions to Attorney General Ashcroft, asking him how the Patriot Act is being implemented (see October 26, 2001). [New York Times, 7/14/2002] For instance, they ask, “How many times has the department requested records from libraries, bookstores and newspapers? How many roving wiretaps has the department requested?” Ashcroft refuses to answer many of the questions, even though he is legally required to do so. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002] Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D) fails to receive any response to dozens of letters he writes to Ashcroft, and other senators complain of a complete stonewall [Washington Post, 8/21/2002] In March 2003, senators continue to complain that Ashcroft still has not provided the oversight information about the Patriot Act that he is required to give by law. [ABC News, 3/12/2003]
January 12, 2003: Many Cities Pass Resolutions Criticizing Patriot Act
It is reported that 22 cities representing 3.5 million residents have passed resolutions criticizing the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts (see October 26, 2001). Another 70 cities have such resolutions in the works. [Associated Press, 1/12/2003] Many of the resolutions provide some legal justification for local authorities to resist cooperating in the federal war on terrorism when they deem civil liberties and Constitutional rights are being compromised. [New York Times, 12/23/2002]
to be continued...
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Rights That You Have Lost Under The Patriot Act, Part 1
I ran across an interesting web-site which just happens to list the laws that have been enacted under The Patriot Act, so I thought that I would list some of them at this site.
Maybe after you have read some of these laws, you will wake the hell up and realize that these laws are not for keeping track of any terrorist, they are for keeping track of you, and me.
This comes by way of Cooperativeresearch.org and is listed in order by date.
Open-Content project managed by Paul, blackmax
September 19, 2001: First Draft of Patriot Act is Introduced
The first draft of what will later be called the Patriot Act is introduced to Congress. [US Congress, 9/19/2001] However, due to Congressional opposition of its broad powers, the act is revised and reintroduced on October 2 (see October 2, 2001). [Houston Chronicle, 10/7/2001]
October 2, 2001: Patriot Act is Introduced to Congress
The “anti-terrorism” Patriot Act is introduced in Congress, but is not well received by all. [US Congress, 10/2/2001] One day later, Senate Majority Leader and future anthrax target Tom Daschle (D) says he doubts the Senate will take up this bill in the one week timetable the administration wants. As head of the Senate, Daschle has great power to block or slow passage of the bill. Attorney General Ashcroft accuses Senate Democrats of dragging their feet. [Washington Post, 10/3/2001] On October 4, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and future anthrax target Patrick Leahy (D) accuses the Bush administration of reneging on an agreement on the anti-terrorist bill. Leahy is in a key position to block or slow the bill. Some warn that “lawmakers are overlooking constitutional flaws in their rush to meet the administration’s timetable.” Two days later, Ashcroft complains about “the rather slow pace�over his request for law enforcement powers� Hard feelings remain.” [Washington Post, 10/4/2001] The anthrax letters to Daschle and Leahy are sent out on October 9 and difficulties in passing the Act continue (see October 2001).
October 26, 2001: Patriot Act Becomes Law
Bush signs the Patriot Act into law.
Here are some of its provisions:
1) Non-citizens can be detained and deported if they provide “assistance” for lawful activities of any group the government chooses to call a terrorist organization. Under this provision the secretary of state can designate any group that has ever engaged in violent activity as a terrorist organization. Representative Patsy Mink notes that in theory supporters of Greenpeace could now be convicted for supporting terrorism. [San Francisco Chronicle, 11/12/2001]
2) Immigrants can be detained indefinitely, even if they are found not to have any links to terrorism. They can be detained indefinitely for immigration violations or if the attorney general decides their activities pose a danger to national security. They need never be given a trial or even a hearing on their status. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002]
3) Internet service providers can be ordered to reveal the web sites and e-mail addresses that a suspect has communicated to or visited. The FBI need only inform a judge that the information is relevant to an investigation. [Village Voice, 11/26/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002]
4) It “lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess.” [Washington Post, 11/4/2001] It allows the government to access confidential credit reports, school records, and other records, without consent or notification. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002] All of this information can now be given to the CIA, in violation of the CIA’s mandate prohibiting it from spying within the US. [Village Voice, 11/26/2001]
5) Financial institutions are encouraged to disclose possible violations of law or “suspicious activities” by any client. The institution is prohibited from notifying the person involved that it made such a report. The term “suspicious” is not defined, so it is up to the financial institutions to determine when to send such a report.
6) Federal agents can easily obtain warrants to review a library patron’s reading and computer habits (see January 2002). [Village Voice, 2/22/2002]
7) The government can refuse to reveal how evidence is collected against a suspected terrorist defendant. [Tampa Tribune, 4/6/2003]
The law passes without public debate. [Village Voice, 11/9/2001; Village Voice, 11/26/2001] Even though it ultimately took six weeks to pass the law, there was no hearing or congressional debate. [Salon, 3/24/2003] Congressman Barney Frank (D) says, “This was the least democratic process for debating questions fundamental to democracy I have ever seen. A bill drafted by a handful of people in secret, subject to no committee process, comes before us immune from amendment.” [Village Voice, 11/9/2001] Only 66 congresspeople, and one senator, Russell Feingold (D), vote against it. Few in Congress are able to read summaries, let alone the fine print, before voting on it. [Los Angeles Times, 10/30/2001] Feingold says, “The new law goes into a lot of areas that have nothing to do with terrorism and have a lot to do with the government and the FBI having a wish list of things they want to do.” [Village Voice, 11/9/2001] Supporters point out that some provisions will expire in four years, but in fact most provisions will not expire. [Chicago Tribune, 11/1/2001] One year later, criticism of the law grows. [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/8/2002] Dozens of cities later pass resolutions criticizing the Patriot Act (see January 12, 2003).
Early 2002: Bush Signs Executive Order Allowing NSA to Spy on US Citizens; Spying Began Before 9/11
Sometime in early 2002, President Bush signs a secret executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap phone conversations and read e-mails to and from US citizens. The order extends an operation set into motion at least as early as October 2001 to begin wiretapping US citizens’ phones in a response to the 9/11 attacks. When the program is revealed by the US media in late 2005 (see December 15, 2005), Bush and his officials will say the program is completely legal, though it ignores the requirements of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) that requires the government to obtain court-issued warrants to mount surveillance against US citizens. They will insist that only those suspected of having ties to al-Qaeda, and then only when those individuals make or receive international communications, are monitored. As more information continues to come out about the program, these assertions will be increasingly called into question. [New York Times, 12/15/2005; Washington Post, 12/22/2005] In January 2006, the press will learn that the NSA wiretapping program began well before 9/11, obviating the justification that the Bush administration had to authorize the surveillance in response to the terrorist attacks (see Late 1999, February 27, 2000, December 2000, February 2001, February 2001, Spring 2001, and July 2001). Bush’s order details the NSA to monitor international telephone conversations and international e-mails of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of US citizens without court warrants, in an effort to track what officials call “dirty numbers” linked to al-Qaeda. When the program is finally revealed by the New York Times over three years later (see December 15, 2005, officials will say that the NSA still seeks warrants to monitor domestic communications. But there is little evidence of this (see, e.g., Spring 2001). The presidential order is a radical shift in US surveillance and intelligence-gathering policies, and a major realignment for the NSA, which is mandated to only conduct surveillance abroad. Some officials believe that the NSA’s domestic eavesdropping crosses constitutional limits on legal searches. “This is really a sea change,” a former senior official who specializes in national security law will say in December 2005. “It’s almost a mainstay of this country that the NSA only does foreign searches.” [New York Times, 12/15/2005]
your right to privacy, gone
To Be Continued...
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Iraqis View Of the British Occupation
Here are a few polls from the BBC which, as we all know, say basically that the British and American occupation of Iraq has done no good for the Iraqi citizens.
This comes by way of Dailykos.
Iraqis want coalition forces to leave
by smintheus
Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 07:20:43 AM PST
Iraqi opinion polls don’t get much play in the US for the simple reason that Iraqis hold unflattering views about the way we’ve wrecked their country. The latest poll conducted by the BBC is no exception. On the eve of the British hand-over of control in Basra, it asked the residents of that province their opinion of what the occupation had achieved, whether security will now get better or worse, and what they’d like British troops to do.
As to the latter question, nearly two-thirds of Basrans want the Brits to withdraw not just from Iraq or from the region, but from the Middle East entirely. Of 922 Iraqis surveyed, only one person wanted the British to retain a presence in Basra.
Furthermore only 2% thought the British presence had had a positive impact on Basra, whereas 86% said it was negative. Only 3% said the British troops had reduced the level of militia violence, while 56% thought they had increased violence.
In perhaps the most stunning renunciation of the occupation, only 5% of Basrans think that security will get worse after the British hand-over. Around two-thirds believe that security will improve in both the short and long term. That may be overly optimistic, but in any case it demonstrates how thoroughly sick Iraqis are of the occupation of their country. ( Continued )
Technorati Tags: Iraq.bbc, occuptaion forces
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Constitution, U.S. Government and Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people
to retain their right to keep and bear arms
is as a last resort to protect themselves
against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
...And what country can preserveits liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from timeto time,that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?Let them take arms.The remedy is to set them right as to thefacts, pardon and pacify them.What signify a few lives lostin a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed fromtime to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: November 13, 1787, letter to William S. Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
This is a sneaky bill brought forth by a Democrat ( Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36] ) and this bill did not get much debate in The House. It was pretty much a " here it is, now let's vote on it " kind of setting.
Oct 23, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by roll call vote. The vote was held under a suspension of the rules to cut debate short and pass the bill, needing a two-thirds majority. The totals were 404 Ayes, 6 Nays, 22 Present/Not Voting. govtrack.us
If you wish to see who voted and how they voted, then may I suggest that you go here and check out your Representatives.
Funny thing is that more Democrats ( 219 ) voted " yes " for this bill than did Republicans ( 185 ). Only 6 members voted against this bill, 3 from each party and my hat goes off to them because they apparently have seen that this bill could be more problems to us citizens as far as our eroding rights are concerned.
Arizona- Flake, Jeff [R],California- Rohrabacher, Dana [R],Hawaii- Abercrombie, Neil [D],Illinois- Costello, Jerry [D],Ohio- Kucinich, Dennis [D],Tennessee- Duncan, John [R]
It is in your best interest to contact you Senators to let them know that this bill is no good and that it needs to be dropped. On the surface, fighting homegrown terrorism is a great idea. It is the " other purposes " of this bill which you should be more than worried about. All of those " other purposes " in a vaguely worded bill can cover a lot of areas that should be left alone.
I don't know about you, but I don't like dictators up in the White House in my United States. It is my United States. It is your United States also.
We, the People...
Monday, December 03, 2007
The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: Our Rights Are Past History
It looks as if George Orwell was right when he penned his book " 1984 " as our government now seems intent on banning most forms of group gatherings with this bill.
The reader should really make the effort to take a look at this bill
H.R 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was recently passed by the House and it has it's evil twin looming in the Senate. It begins, “AN ACT - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.” Source
It is the " other purposes " part of this bill that we need to concern ourselves with. I would like to know what those " other purposes " consist of, wouldn't you?
After looking at this piece of garbage, I can say with surety that the United States is most certainly headed down the road of no return when it comes to us citizens having any kind of rights that have been granted to us by the Constitution and/or The Bill of Rights.
The “sheer cloudy vagueness” of H.R 1955, as well as its terror factor, may account for its bipartisan 404-6 House vote but how, in an era informed by the Bush-Cheney administration’s egregious assault on the Bill of Rights, can the phrase “other purposes” fail to raise the “National Terror Alert” from its current threat level of “elevated” to “severe.”
Future “other purposes” will undoubtedly be justified by the Act’s use of the term “violent radicalization,” which it defines as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence . . .” or by the folksy, Lake Wobegonesque “homegrown terrorism,” defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born [or] raised . . . within the United States . . . to intimidate or coerce the United States, the civilian population . . . or any segment thereof . . . [italics added].” CommonDreams
This bill could go so far as to make me a terrorist just because I advocate the dismemberment of the Bush administration, non-violently, of course. Taking part in an anti-war protest could possibly get you or I into trouble with the government.
The days of Hitler kind of tactics are not that far off so far as our government is concerned. They've already begun to fuck us when we aren't paying attention and they are getting away with it because the ignorant population of this country prefers to keep their heads buried in the sand.
H.R 1955 would threaten things such as:
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
This is what we'll get if this continues. For that matter, some of the following have gotten us to this point.
“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779“History affords us many instances of the ruin of states, by the prosecution of measures ill suited to the temper and genius of their people. The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy… These measures never fail to create great and violent jealousies and animosities between the people favored and the people oppressed; whence a total separation of affections, interests, political obligations, and all manner of connections, by which the whole state is weakened.”
Benjamin Franklin“It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1781“Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin, Pre American Revolution“Every generation needs a new revolution.”
Thomas Jefferson ( all posted at CommonDreams )
It is the idea put forth by Thomas Jefferson which our beloved government wishes to stop. We cannot let this happen!
I'll have more on this subject as I become better acquainted with it. I'm not letting this just pass you by.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Bush's War Funds and the Democrats, or, Baby Whines Again
"The American people expect us to work together to support our troops. That's what they want.They do not want the government to create needless uncertainty for those defending our country and uncertainty for their families. They do not want disputes in Washington to undermine our troops in Iraq just as they're seeing clear signs of success."< ( he's kidding, right? ) G. Bush, while visiting the Pentagon
"Let us tell our men and women in uniform that we will give them what they need to succeed in their missions, without strings and without delay," Bush said. "I ask Congress to provide this essential funding to our troops before the members leave on their Christmas vacation." Yahoo News
So here we have resident Bush at his usual fine art of trying to tell the Congress that they aren't supporting the troops if the Congress does not give Bush the check that he wants. I wonder, does this idiot ever fucking listen to himself? He sounds like an 8-track tape player that never stops. Every time I here this creep I end up having to reach over for the barf bag because he's so sickening! hopefully this punk will leave on his Christmas vacation and if we get lucky, it'll be permanently!
But my problem on this isn't just Bush by himself, it's the Democrats also. At this point in time, every time Bush spouts the support the troops bullshit, the Democrats cave in and give him what he wants. Did we elect these fucks in 2006 to sit back and say " sure thing George " every time he wants money for nothing? I'm not sure about you, but I didn't. I voted for my Representatives to stop the blank checks to George and to fund our troop withdrawal from Iraq.
The Democrats have said that they will not send George a funding bill at all this year so the Pentagon says that they will have to start curbing spending in other areas next month if they don't get the cash soon. Once again, this is nothing but BULLSHIT since the funds are there for well beyond next month already. Civilian layoffs,reduced operations at the military bases and the termination of contracts? This is Pentagon propaganda once again that was more than likely ordered by Cheney and his buddy Bush.
Cheney is already looking at the prospect of impeachment by his peers and Bush should be the next in line. Hopefully, the Democrats, (the older ones ) will wake the hell up and not fall for the Cheney/Bush fear card once again.
I said hopefully, but I doubt it.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A Call For Impeachment!
George Bush and Dick Cheney promote an imperial presidency. They assert that the executive is the most powerful branch of government, undermining the judiciary and Congress in violation of the Constitution’s bedrock principle of shared power among three co-equal branches. This subverts the very nature of our system of government.
“This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy. … That’s a big problem because that’s essentially a dictatorship,” Fein said. CommonDreams ( blogger's emphasis )
The national movement to impeach is a non-partisan effort to restore the Constitution and the rule of law. People across the political spectrum can unite to preserve the Constitution and civil liberties given to us by the founders. Impeachment is the peaceful, orderly, constitutionally prescribed way to rid ourselves of a lawless administration.
The issue is not about removing Bush and Cheney as much as it is about preserving the Constitution and redeeming the office of the executive. The Constitution is the contract of governance between the people and the government. What happens when major portions of the contract are violated?
Congress has failed to call the president and vice president to account, so citizens must turn up the heat. Members of Congress who fail to demand investigations are covering for criminals. Every elected official has sworn an oath to “support and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.” Anything less than impeachment and a full repudiation of the Bush administration’s crimes and violations of the law is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the public trust.
If we want our democracy back, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to work to clean out the House. CommonDreams
It is way past time to get off of our asses and to get this ball moving!
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The U.S. Economy Turning Into A Outlet for Foreign Shoppers
I got bored this morning and thought that I'd browse a few online newspaper sites to see what they had up today. THIS article caught my eye in particular because of all of the bullshit that the Republicans tell us about how our economy is in great shape and only getting better.
If that was the case then our dollar won't be going down in value against the Euro and others. Because of our declining value, it seems that many Europeans and other foreigners have decided that the United States is the place to come and do their holiday shopping. It's cheaper to get a plane ticket, even at the high cost, and fly to the U.S. to buy goods than it is to buy in their own countries.
... America is one big discount bin, thanks to a weak dollar that slid this week to another record low against the euro. As a result, tourists are spending thousands to travel to the United States to snag blockbuster bargains on everything from iPods to designer clothes and handbags.
By 4 a.m. yesterday, Kinsella had rung up nearly $2,000 in Christmas presents and winter clothes, including a $79 black leather jacket at Guess that she estimated would cost more than $250 in Ireland.
"The bargains for us are so great," said Kinsella, who paid $1,000 for a flight and hotel but expects to save even more on purchases here.
But now American wares are even more of a bargain as the slowing US economy has weakened the dollar. Further, as the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to boost the economy, the dollar has lost even more value, and global investors have realized they won't earn as much when they park their cash in greenbacks. As a result, the euro has shot up by 33 percent compared with the dollar since 2002, so Europeans who exchange 1,000 euros now get close to 1,500 US dollars. And the Canadian dollar is worth as much as the US dollar for the first time in three decades.
So the foreign shoppers get great deals by shopping in the United States and the citizens of the U.S. are tightening their purse strings because of a lousy dollar, bad real estate market and other not so great reasons.
Only in America can outsiders do better than we insiders can. But in case of emergency, we can always buy Chinese!
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Bill Richardson Issues Statement on Senate Bill Giving Telecom's Amnesty
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement today calling for the United States Senate to reject the amnesty bill that Bush wants to give the telecom's for helping him spy on U.S. citizens.
Governor Richardson is most certainly right in prodding his Senators into not signing this bill. Bush and his crime family have had more than enough free passes since 2000 and now is the time to put the brakes on this asshole and his friends.
Here is the statement.
"Like most of his promises, President Bush's inauguration day pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution has been folded away and forgotten. From torture to secret prisons and wiretapping, this administration systematically has stripped away or ignored many of the most basic rights and principles upon which this nation was founded.
"This unprecedented assault on American laws and values, cloaked falsely and irresponsibly in the guise of national security, must be stopped.
"Incredibly, the Senate stands on the verge of abetting another Presidential outrage by considering a bill that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies that admitted to assisting the government in spying on American citizens by disclosing personal information. This bill must not pass.
"We need strong leadership to prevent this latest injustice, not equivocation or political calculation. Senators Clinton and Obama say they will oppose the bill, but are leaving the door open to a potential compromise. There can be no compromise on personal rights and privacy. I urge my Democratic primary opponents, and every Senator, to stand up and state loudly and clearly -- without any equivocation -- that he or she will not pass any bill that grants retroactive immunity to companies that willingly aided the Bush administration in violating the law and spying on our own people.
"As President, I will follow the Constitution. America needs and deserves leadership that reflects and upholds our finest principles and traditions. We can have a secure America without trampling on the Constitution and personal freedoms. For now, though, we have President Bush. It is about time that the Senate stood up to him."
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Dissent From Former U.S. Military Captains
I ran across this piece over at The Washington Post and I thought that it should be read by everyone who wants our troops out of Iraq.
This piece was written by 12 former Army captains who all served in Iraq so I'll take their word over any troop posing with Bush for a photo-op any day of the week. This was in Tuesday's paper.
The Real Iraq We Knew
By 12 former Army captains
Tuesday, October 16, 2007; 12:00 AM
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.
What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.
Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.
The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.
U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.
Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.
This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.
America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.
This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William "Jamie" Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.
© Copyright 1996-2007 The Washington Post Company
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Dems push surveillance bill through
As is par for the course, the Democrats in the House pushed their eavesdropping bill through two committees today and they made only minor changes to the bill. Once again, the Bush Crime Family ( GOP ) is waiting to trash this bill because it doesn't give some of the Bushco contributors ( U.S. telecommunications companies ) retroactive immunity from lawsuits. There are around 40 pending lawsuits naming telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Bush has said that he will not okay this bill as long as the said companies can face actions against them for doing something illegal in the first place! This is the Bush that we all love and hate. Pathetic piece of shit.
Bush had the nerve to tell reporters the bill would "take us backward" in efforts to thwart terrorism. Here we go with the usual GOP fear card once again.
The measure advanced by the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees left out the immunity provision Bush wants. Democrats also voted down Republican attempts to tailor the legislation more to the administration's liking.
The committees even strengthened the bill slightly by establishing a new threshold for when the government has to seek a court order to listen in on American communications with foreigners. They also gave the secret court set up 30 years ago to oversee government surveillance a little more power to monitor intelligence agencies' compliance with court orders.
Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the senior Republican on the Intelligence panel, said Republicans had been left entirely out of the creation of the bill. It was delivered to them on Monday, a federal holiday when few were working.
"This is a deeply flawed bill," Hoekstra told reporters after the committees acted.
He and other GOP lawmakers said the bill gives too much power to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oversee intelligence activities and will bog down intelligence agencies with administrative burdens. They charged that the measure extends constitutional protection to phone calls by terrorists overseas, takes rights away from telecommunications companies, and prohibits legitimate surveillance of other countries.
Maybe we should all call Rep. Hoekstra and tell him that it isn't the bill which is flawed but it is him and the rest of the republicans who still insist on trying to scare our citizens into believing everything that they say. The fear card isn't working anymore. Get use to it.
I dare the Democrats in the House or the Senate to decide on a compromise bill after Bush trashes this one. Some of you punks on both sides of the aisle may want to remember that your job review comes up in 2008. Many of you are failing.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
ARE Democrats Republican Lite?
The following may contain some vulgar language. If you do not like it, TOUGH SHIT!!
Yes I know. I've been pretty quiet as of late. I do have other things to do which took up alot of my time. But guess what kiddies? I AM BACK with a freaking vengeance! There is way to much bullshit going on with our Democrats and with the Bush Crime Family to stay silent any longer.
What I am going to do right now is nothing but bitch about our Democrats being nothing but a step in line bunch of pussies! If I had wanted more of the George Bush policy, I'd have voted Republican in the first fucking place. What the fuck is the problem with the Democrats? We vote these asshole's in and then they want to compromise with the White House if not fall in lock and step with the Bush morons.
Come on now! Pelosi, Reid and the rest are acting like Bushco clones! They are either giving into this prick or they are choosing to help him " stay the course" in Iraq and with everything else.
Bush did veto the health bill for impoverished children and now we have Democrats wanting to work out a compromise bill with the prick! There should be no deals to get this measure passed. Dems compromised when they cut back the funding to $35 billion from the original amount.
In case you haven't noticed. Our presidential front-runners ( Clinton, Obama, Edwards ) will not commit to a timely withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
In case you haven't noticed, We are getting fucked by the politicians that we wanted to turn things around!
Pelosi. You'd better get your ass in gear because you can be replaced!
I'm just warming up folks. There will be much more in the coming days. I'm fed up, pissed off, and hostile and I'm not taking anymore bullshit from our elected representatives.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Bush Vetoes Children's Health Insurance Plan
Always remember that some of your friends voted for this moron!
From the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decried Bush's action as a "heartless veto."
"Never has it been clearer how detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people," Reid said in a statement. "By vetoing a bipartisan bill to renew the successful Children's Health Insurance Program, President Bush is denying health care to millions of low-income kids in America."
So now it is time to put the screws to the Republican House members who voted against this bill and we need to make sure that the House can come up with the number needed to override Bush's veto. This can already be done in the Senate.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Alberto Gonzales Resigns!
CRAWFORD, Texas - Embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, under fire from congressional Democrats, has resigned, senior Bush administration officials said Monday.
A senior Justice Department official said that a likely temporary replacement for Gonzales is Solicitor General Paul Clement, who would take over until a permanent replacement is found.
Another official, also speaking on grounds of anonymity, said that Gonzales had submitted a resignation letter last Friday. These officials declined to be identified because the formal announcement about Gonzales was still pending.
That would be one down, and many more still to go! This is great news for the United States. Now if we can just get around to beginning this shitheads prosecution in a court of law!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Iraq Evaluation Written By The White House?
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.
Ten bucks says that the September report has already been written a month or so back, especially if the White House is doing the writing.
Come on people, are we really to believe anything that comes out of General Petraeus's mouth or from out of the mouth of the White House?
I guess that it hasn't dawned on the Bush Crime Family that only 28% of the population still has their heads stuck up their asses or either still buried in the sand.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales
Originally from Consortiumnews
Impeachment & the Constitution
By Stephen Crockett
July 31, 2007
Editor’s Note: Once considered a fringe idea, impeachment is moving quickly into the mainstream of American public opinion, as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney insist on flouting the rule of law and defying congressional oversight.
In this guest essay, Stephen Crockett of DemocraticTalkRadio.com casts the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as not just an option but an imperative:
The United States has been in a prolonged Constitutional crisis since the Supreme Court showed it had been corrupted by partisan politics when the Bush vs. Gore ruling was issued in December 2000.
The Bush Administration began by Republican politicians thumbing their noses at the rule of law. The past seven years have been an unending assault on Constitutional government, American political traditions and personal freedom.
It is time to place impeachment fully on the table for the top members of the Bush White House and Cabinet.
The appointment of Attorney General Gonzales should never have been approved by the Senate. His record of distorting the truth in order to protect the political career of George W. Bush is the only real qualification he had when nominated. It was the reason he was appointed and the reason the appointment should have been soundly rejected.
Gonzales has always been an advocate of radical legal theories that attack the essence of our Constitutional protections of personal freedom. The Attorney General holds legal theories that would give the President dictatorial powers.
Bush, Cheney and Gonzales have resolutely claimed powers not given by the Constitution to the Executive Branch. These claims are essentially “high crimes” by their very nature. They subvert the American Constitution and border on treason.
Claims that the President can place in prison any American citizen by declaring that person an enemy combatant, without court hearings forever, are criminal violations of Constitutional guarantees of personal freedoms.
These claims are illegal bids for power – not granted in our Constitution – by Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. These legal theories are fascist in nature. All three need to be facing impeachment.
Impeachment is designed to check corrupt, dictatorial members of the Executive and Judicial Branches of government.
Bush has issued executive orders that negate laws passed by Congress like the Presidential Papers Act. The signing statements routinely and radically used by Bush to gut the intent of Congress concerning legislation are assaults on the Constitutional checks and balances and are illegal.
Cheney’s claims that he does not have to comply with laws limiting the powers of members of the Executive Branch or Congress are illegal. His role in almost every scandal connected to the White House seems apparent but Cheney remains secretive and defiant. The power claims of Cheney are assaults on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.
Impeachment hearings are needed for Bush, Cheney and Gonzales for many reasons. All three are claiming Constitutional powers that are not Constitutional. All three have played major roles in subverting federal law enforcement and an independent judiciary.
All three have deceived both the American public and Congress. All three are hiding their activities, using false national security and executive privilege claims to hide their law-breaking.
Bush has demonstrated his willingness to use Presidential powers to keep his White House cronies from paying the costs of their illegal behaviors.
Scooter Libby committed perjury to obstruct justice in a federal investigation of White House operatives who broke the law by intentionally outing a covert CIA agent. Bush protected him. It appears that Bush and Cheney may have been directly responsible for the crime.
The political firings of U.S. Attorneys has been another issue where Presidential powers may be used to obstruct justice, hide the truth and subvert the rule of law. It certainly appears that Gonzales has committed perjury like Libby and for similar reasons.
Presidential pardon powers do not apply to impeachment.
Because Bush is willing to misuse his Presidential powers and the Supreme Court has been packed with radical, partisan Republican appointees, only impeachment hearings will reveal to the public the abuses of the Bush White House. Only impeachment will bring these powerful criminals to justice and preserve the Constitutional rule of law.
Stephen Crockett is co-host of Democratic Talk Radio, http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com. His e-mail is midsouthern@aol.com.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Spineless Democrats and The " Terror War "
Check this article out from Black Agenda Report.
When a cowardly congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 last fall, many were quick say that in the House of Representatives at least, Democrats never had any realistic hope of stopping it. This anti-constitutional atrocity rolled the cause of human rights back some 800 years, legalizing secret imprisonment, torture, and evidence obtained by torture. It made possible life imprisonment with neither accusation nor trial, and absolved from prosecution all the recently active kidnappers and torturers on US government payrolls and contracts along with those who gave them orders.
But last fall’s good news, supposedly, was that the Republican congress was certain to be replaced in a matter of weeks by clear Democratic majorities in the House and Senate who’d stand up to the president, end the war, indict even impeach some of the malefactors, and begin to undo some of the damage inflicted by the most lawless presidential administration in the nation’s history. It hasn’t happened that way.
Instead, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have ruled impeachment of Bush, Cheney or Gonzalez off the table. Congressional Democrats have increased the Pentagon’s budget by $100 billion over Bush’s request. They continued construction of an 80 acre embassy and the largest military bases in the world in Iraq. The end of 2007, a full year of Democratic control of the nation’s purse will see more US forces and mercenaries in Iraq than at the beginning of the year. Only last week Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama declared himself ready to take up the “White Man’s Burden” and invade Pakistan. Democrats are scrambling to re-brand the fictitious “global war on terror” as their own, and to outdo Republicans at threatening the peace abroad and scaring citizens at home.
This is one reason that we may have to fire some of our elected Democrats in 2008. They are not doing the job that we have been paying them to do and that is cause for dismissal, starting with Nancy Pelosi. It has become time to put her on the table if impeachment of Bush and Cheney is to remain off of the table.
The above article in its entirety, crossposted from CommonDreams, is below.
Published on Thursday, August 9, 2007 by Black Agenda Report
“Terror War” Terrorizes Spineless Democrats
by Bruce Dixon
When Democrats compete to adopt the phony “global war on terror” as their own, and promise they can do it “better” or “smarter” than Republicans, they erase what little difference remains between the parties. “Terror Democrats” have abandoned the politics of hope for the politics of fear, and turn the political process into one that threatens to elect the candidates who frighten us the most.
When a cowardly congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 last fall, many were quick say that in the House of Representatives at least, Democrats never had any realistic hope of stopping it. This anti-constitutional atrocity rolled the cause of human rights back some 800 years, legalizing secret imprisonment, torture, and evidence obtained by torture. It made possible life imprisonment with neither accusation nor trial, and absolved from prosecution all the recently active kidnappers and torturers on US government payrolls and contracts along with those who gave them orders.
But last fall’s good news, supposedly, was that the Republican congress was certain to be replaced in a matter of weeks by clear Democratic majorities in the House and Senate who’d stand up to the president, end the war, indict even impeach some of the malefactors, and begin to undo some of the damage inflicted by the most lawless presidential administration in the nation’s history. It hasn’t happened that way.
Instead, Democratic leaders of the House and Senate have ruled impeachment of Bush, Cheney or Gonzalez off the table. Congressional Democrats have increased the Pentagon’s budget by $100 billion over Bush’s request. They continued construction of an 80 acre embassy and the largest military bases in the world in Iraq. The end of 2007, a full year of Democratic control of the nation’s purse will see more US forces and mercenaries in Iraq than at the beginning of the year. Only last week Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama declared himself ready to take up the “White Man’s Burden” and invade Pakistan. Democrats are scrambling to re-brand the fictitious “global war on terror” as their own, and to outdo Republicans at threatening the peace abroad and scaring citizens at home.
Last week both houses of Congress, including dozens of Democrats approved legislation granting the feds the absolute power to intercept phone, fax and email traffic of anyone, anywhere in the world without the bother of explanations to any judge or competent authority whatsoever. House Democratic leaders denounced it, but didn’t stop it. Senate Democratic leaders, including presidential candidates Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden if they mentioned it at all, decried the bill. But true to form, none stepped forward to lead a filibuster that might have stopped it.
With Congressional poll numbers nearly as low and the president’s the gap between Democratic office holders and Democratic voters has never been wider. At the same time, corporate donations to Democratic candidates are higher than ever. These are two sides of the same coin. The Democratic establishment’s uncritical embrace of the so-called “global war on terror” is exposing for all to see the widening fissure between the two Democratic parties — the Democratic party of voters who are called out once every year or two, and the permanent Democratic party of consultants, pundits, lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors. It is this gap between the expectations of voting Democrats and the will of donors and leading Democrats that prompted Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate President Harry Reid to avoid last weekend’s Yearly Kos, where they would have faced pointed questions on impeachment, war and peace, or domestic policy from an ordinarily tame crowd of Democratic bloggers, consultants, campaign staffers and wannabees. Pelosi and Reid know who their real base is.
Bush and Cheney have already declared that their “global war on terror” will be the foundation of America’s domestic and foreign policy for the next twenty or thirty years. By following their lead, Democrats have doomed themselves to a cycle in which they will no longer compete with Republicans to offer a better vision of life for Americans and the rest of the planet, and have made the Republican politics of fear their own. Subsequent campaigns, including the 2008 presidential well underway will be contests to see who can scare us the most. And worse news still — they’re pretty good at it. Four out of seven Democratic presidential candidates declared their immediate readiness to undertake immediate US military action in Sudan, completely bypassing the African Union force option to which all the regional parties have agreed.
As former Alaska senator Mike Gravel remarked in more than one of this year’s presidential forums, “…all these guys up here scare me….” He should know. Gravel is a man well acquainted with scary times, scary politicians and exposing the lies they tell the public. As a US Senator back in 1968 Gravel risked his own safety and his political career by revealing to the the massive decade-long campaigns of lies to the American public that made possible the secret bombings of Laos and Cambodia and the war in Vietnam, which killed two to three million Vietnamese alone.
“You won’t get change from any of these guys up here” said Gravel in Chicago last week. “For that you need a movement. You’ll have to get together and make some of your own policy, your own laws. Change doesn’t come from elections and political parties and politicians. It comes from movements”
We at BAR think this is uncommonly good advice coming from a presidential candidate. Our African American politicians are fond of describing themselves as sons, daughters and heirs of the Freedom Movement. It’s time we began to untangle that mess, to consciously separate those claims from reality, and see whose followers, whose heirs they really are.
Bruce Dixon, Managing Editor of The Black Agenda Report, can be reached at bruce.dixon(at)blackagendareport.com
© 2007 The Black Agenda Report
