Be INFORMED

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Wolfowitz and Shaha Ali Riza Break-up

  As if Paul Wolfowitz didn't have enough troubles he got another stake driven through his heart when his little whore ( Shaha Ali Riza ) dumped him. I must say that it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

  It has to suck to lose your job and your other half all in the past few weeks.

  Sources say ( gotta love the sources ) that Riza was upset about all of the publicity that dear old Wolfie was bringing down upon her and also the fact that it is being said that the only reason she got ahead in her career was with the help ( sleeping with ) of a powerful man. Source

  You know what? When you look at it, Wolfie had it made. Got him a cheap piece of ass while running the World Bank and he still has a legal wife even though they are legally separated.

  Maybe next up, his estranged wife ( Clare Selgin ) will file for divorce and take this punk to the cleaners. Clean his pockets out and leave him lying in the gutter where he belongs!

 

Tags:

Congress On OPEC, Spyware, and U.S. Attorney Appointment Bills

Fixing the US Attorney Appointment Process

May 22nd, 2007 by Jesse Lee  @ The Gavel

The House has just debated the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, which has already passed the Senate and would revoke the power of the President to appoint interim US Attorneys for extended periods, effectively bypassing Senate confirmation. On March 23, the House had passed a somewhat stronger bill (H.R. 580), which included the same repeal of the 2006 provision as the Senate bill, but also included a provision preventing the Administration from using the Vacancies Act to allow the Attorney General to make continuous interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys. The House passed H.R. 580 by a strong bipartisan vote of 329 to 78, but Republicans have blocked H.R. 580 in the Senate. Therefore, the House will pass S. 214 to get a bill to the President’s desk.

*****

 

Spyware bill gains momentum
Ruth Mantell, MarketWatch - May 2, 2007  The Gavel

Consumers may get federal protection from computer criminals who steal their personal information as Congress seeks to safeguard the growing Internet commerce market.

On Wednesday, members of the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary approved by voice vote to favorably report the “Internet Spyware Prevention Act of 2007″ — without any amendments — to the House floor, pushing it one step closer to becoming law. A day before, the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security approved the bill.

“Spyware is a serious and growing problem for American consumers and businesses. Thieves are using spyware to harvest personal information such as Social Security numbers and credit-card numbers for use in a variety of criminal enterprises,” said U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., at the subcommittee hearing.

Spyware is a program placed in a computer through the Internet used to gather information about the computer’s user — without the user’s knowledge. In 2006, consumers spent $2.6 billion trying to block or remove spyware from their computers, according to testimony at the hearing.

The act would impose a prison sentence of up to 5 years for using spyware in committing another federal crime, and up to a 2-year sentence for hacking into a computer and altering its security settings or obtaining personal information with the intent to defraud or injure the person or damage a computer.

*****

  This one falls in to my " dumbest bill " of the day category.

NOPEC

May 22nd, 2007 by Jesse Lee

The House has just debated the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act of 2007, H.R. 2264, which will enable the Department of Justice to take legal action against foreign nations for participating in oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally and in the United States. This legislation does so by exempting OPEC and other nations from the provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when acting in a commercial capacity; by making clear that the so-called “Act of State” doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments; and by authorizing the Department of Justice to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts against cartel members.

  Let me get this right. We are now going to make changes in a law so that we can sue OPEC? Think about this one folks. The government now wants to be able to sue the countries in the middle east for charging us to much for their oil! Maybe before the Bush administration does this, they should sue our United States oil companies for gouging the consumer at the pumps every time we buy their gasoline!

  Our government sues the OPEC members, who in turn cut back on oil production which in turn makes our gas prices go up even more and it also makes the oil companies a shitload of cash. Let us not forget that Bush and his clowns will also make a shitload of cash.

Tags:

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Democrats Offer Bush A Blank Check

   Party officials have said that the upcoming war spending bill will most likely be funding military operations in Iraq and the bill will not be demanding a timeline for bringing our men and women home.

   Once again, the Democrats have proven themselves to be nothing but a group of spineless, cowardly politicians who are concerned with nothing but their elections in 2008. Their fear of not looking week in regard to supporting our troops rings hollow.

"I'm frustrated" with the war, said Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., a member of the Blue Dog coalition, a group of conservative Democrats. "But we realize too we have a responsibility to fund our troops and make sure they have the right equipment."

  This line of bullshit does not hold water! Common sense, which Democrats lack, tells you that not giving Bush the money he wants can result only in him having to withdraw the troops. Case closed.

The bill also was expected to insist that U.S. troops meet certain standards before being sent into battle, out of concern from Democrats that some troops were going to Iraq without proper training. But the measure likely would give the President authority to waive this restriction.

  So what is the point in having the bill insist that the troops meet these standards of readiness if Bush can just waive them? wonder how much the taxpayers are shelling out for this waste of ink on this bill?

  The Democratic leaders are claiming a victory of Bush with this bill. How do they figure that they have won anything? For that matter, what have they won?  NOTHING! Absolutely nothing! That is what they have won.

   This bill is a weak bill and it has no business being okayed by the House or the Senate. Democrats need to get with the program and send Bush another bill that he can veto. Leave the consequences of his veto in his own damn lap.

   I think that I will move back to the independent group. the Dems and the GOP ain't shit.

 

Tags:

Monday, May 21, 2007

MSNBC Poll Says 88% Think Bush Needs Impeachment

    MSNBC has a poll going on right now that you may want to check out.

       This is not a scientific poll.

The question:

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?  

 * 437225 responses

   88% say yes at this time. Go vote your opinion.

 

   Prophetic point here from December 2005. On the illegal spying and our Constitution, Howard Fineman pointed out this:

As best I can tell — and this really isn’t my beat — the only people who knew about the NSA’s new (and now so controversial) warrant-less eavesdropping program early on were Bush, Cheney, NSA chief Michael Hayden, his top deputies, top leaders of the CIA, and lawyers at the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office hurriedly called in to sprinkle holy water on it.

Which presents the disturbing image of the White House as a series of nesting dolls, with Cheney-Bush at the tiny secret center, sifting information that most of the rest of the people around them didn’t even know existed. And that image, in turn, will dominate and define the year 2006 — and, I predict, make it the angriest, most divisive season of political theater since the days of Richard Nixon.

Now the Bush foes will base their case on his having signed off on the NSA’s warrant-less wiretaps. He and Cheney will argue his inherent powers and will cite Supreme Court cases and the resolution that authorized him to make war on the Taliban and al-Qaida. They will respond by calling him Nixon 2.0 and have already hauled forth no less an authority than John Dean to testify to the president’s dictatorial perfidy. The “I-word” is out there, and, I predict, you are going to hear more of it next year — much more.

 

 

Tags:

Dems Issuing A Blank Check to Bush?

  You've probably all read it by now, hoe the Democrats are crafting a war funds bill that would have no timelines for troop withdrawal in it. I should note that they are also cutting back on the money for our domestic needs because King George doesn't like those either.

  The Democrats are pointing out that the federal minimum wage increase is in the funding bill, but so are some of the tax cuts for for small business's that hire low-skilled or handicapped workers.

   Of course, the usual anonymous sources are saying that the details of the bill are subject to change.  Sure they are, and George Bush is subject to an increase in his I.Q., and we know that isn't going to happen.

    So, military operations in Iraq will be funded through the end of the fiscal year, which is September 30, 2007.

   The Democrats will hope and pray that they can get enough Republicans to switch over to supporting the troop withdrawal when the imaginary September ' wait and see ' period comes around and things are no better in Iraq. Not gonna happen folks. The Republicans are playing a different version of ' bait and switch ' on the Democrats, who are falling over it like rocks in water.

   The Democrats say that they are pushing this currant bill forward because they want to avoid another Bush veto. Bush's veto's were the only thing that Congress had going in their favor and they just flat out trashed it. What a bunch of fucking idiots!  My pet ferret has more spine than these wussies.

     Sorry to say it people. Don't look for any kind of a withdrawal timeline for our troops or for any ' benchmarks ' with any bite for the Iraqis because it ain't going to happen until Bush and the rest of these clowns are all gone. I seriously doubt if it will happen even then.

   The Democrats are turning into ' Bush Lite.'

Tags:  

Pork-barrel Spending Continues With Democrats In Control

   A Senate bill which was approved last week to authorize water projects has some 446 earmarks contained in it. 692 earmarks are in the House version of the bill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): Senator Boxer drafted this bill which runs at $14 billion. $1.4 billion goes to funding projects in her state. she got $25 million for the revitalization of the Los Angeles River, which is double what the Republicans where going to put into their bill. That bill met a death in the last Congress.              Source

 

Money for California water projects

Here are some major provisions for California in the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act, whose chief sponsor is Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.:

-- Raising Folsom Dam for Sacramento-area flood control. Federal share, $444 million; other agencies, $139 million.

-- Bel Marin Keys restoration at Hamilton Army Airfield. Federal cost $166 million; nonfederal $55.5 million.

-- Llagas Creek flood work in Santa Clara County. Federal share $65 million, nonfederal $40 million.

Among items in the bill without a price tag:

-- Flood control project review in St. Helena in Napa County, South San Francisco bay shoreline flood and salt ponds restoration study, study of San Pablo Bay watershed and a report on whether federal maintenance of the Larkspur Ferry Channel is appropriate.       SFGate

 

   There hasn't been a new water project bill in at least seven years so now is a good time to put some of that federal cash to a use for something other than the Iraq war. I'm sure that between the bridges and the levee's and many other things that have been neglected, most of this money will be put to good use. If not, the Democrats will answer for it in the next election cycle.

   Let's just hope that they don't get carried away with their new found authority.

 

Tags:

John McCain's Political Campaign Finance Reform? Not!

     U.S. News  has an interesting piece on John McCain and his straight talk about finance reform'

  You all know that for many of the past few years, Mr. McCain has pressed for campaigns that are run clear of the big cash inflows from special-interest groups. He has been particularly chasing after the " soft money "  coming in from lobbyist, corporations and given to the political parties.

   McCain is now running for the Republican presidential nomination so it begs the question, does all of his straight-talk now have a curve in it? Has it always?

McCain has positioned himself as a die-hard opponent of special-interest influence. But a U.S. News analysis of his 25-year legislative career shows he has been an avid seeker of special-interest money to support his campaigns and initiatives. The pattern goes all the way back to his first House race in 1982. Moreover, as the boss or No. 2 member of the Senate Commerce Committee, he has drawn heavy support from PACs and individuals associated with industries overseen by that committee-especially telecommunications, media, and technology firms. Between 1997 and June 2006, he collected nearly $2.6 million from such interests, according to the Center for Public Integrity, an independent watchdog group in Washington. In some cases, the review showed, McCain's positions mirrored those of his biggest supporters. Big corporate donors also have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Reform Institute, a tax-exempt organization-once closely affiliated with McCain-that was established to promote campaign finance reform.  U.S. News

  His aides claim that he has no other choice than to take the cash from big corporate donors and PACS if he wants to be president.

   So, McCain is selling his soul for the chance at running for president.

Tags:

Morning News For Monday

   After helping to craft the new immigration bill, employers have decided that they do not like it.

WASHINGTON, May 20 — Employers, who helped shape a major immigration bill over the last three months, said on Sunday that they were unhappy with the result because it would not cure the severe labor shortages they foresee in the coming decade.

In addition, employers expressed alarm as they learned that the Senate bill would require them to check a government database to verify that all current and former employees — aliens and citizens alike — were eligible to work in the United States.         NYTimes

**********

 

Second Life for Study Group
Monday, May 21, 2007

After an initially tepid reception from policymakers, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group are getting a second look from the White House and Congress, as officials continue to scour for bipartisan solutions to salvage the American engagement in Iraq.

With negotiations continuing this week on a new war funding bill, the administration is strongly signaling that it would accept the idea of requiring the Iraqi government to meet political benchmarks or else risk losing some assistance from the United States. That was one of the key proposals from the group headed by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton, but it was initially dismissed by the White House when first proposed last December.       Washington Post

**********

Haniyeh Could Be on Israeli Hit List

GAZA CITY/RAMALLAH, 21 May 2007 — Israeli forces killed at least four Palestinians yesterday and an Israeli minister warned that even Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh could be targeted by his country.

Israeli Minister Ze’ev Boim said Israel must strike at Hamas leaders “with all our might.”

“There’s a list of them from the first of them to the very last,” Boim told Israel Radio. “Now, with Hamas saying openly that it is the one who is firing the Qassam rockets, we must strike at Hamas. There are people there who are launching them, there are their commanders there in the armed wing, and there is the political echelon, there is a prime minister.”

Arab News

 

Tags:  

Sunday, May 20, 2007

White House Crying Over Jimmy Carter Speaking The Truth

  It's a good thing that I bought a new box of tissue as old George Bush and the boys at the White house may need them after they are finished crying about former president Jimmy Carter's remarks about Bush being the worst president ever so far as international relations are concerned.  

  As you all know by now, Carter told the  Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that "as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."  So I ask you reader, is Mr. Carter wrong in his statement? I think not.

  White House mouthpiece Tony Fratto had something to  say about it today, saying that Carter was " irrelevant ' in these kinds of things.

Fratto: "I think it's sad that President Carter's reckless personal criticism is out there. I think it's unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments."     WaPo

   Everyone is making a big deal out of this since it is generally a courtesy to not say to much about the president if you have been a president yourself. Get over it Republicans! You punks have changed the rules of the game to favor your immoral and illegal activities so now anyone, former presidents included, can take their best shots at Bush and the rest of you criminals for as long as they wish.

   The correct way to spell ' irrelevant ' is ' Bush.'

 Carter: "We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered."

Tags:

Catholic League President Bill Donohue After Barbara Walters

    It would seem that ABC's The View has gotten the ire of Catholic League president Bill Donohue over a show on this past Friday.

  The discussion was on male nannies and Rosie O’Donnell had said that she would never hire one to take care of her adopted children, to which Barbara Walters asked her, “Are you worried about homosexual tendencies? Is that what you are saying?”

O’Donnell: “No, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexual”

Walters: “Oh, pedophilia.”     Source

   Anyway, later on in the discussion O'Donnell asked Walters if she would have hired a male to watch her daughter as she was growing up. Before Walters could answer, the other  show host ( Joy Behar ) interrupted with the comment, “A priest perhaps?” It is said that O'Donnell just made a face and that the audience busted a gut over it.

  I guess that this just pissed little Bill off so he now will begin a public relations blitz against Barbara Walters since it seems that no one at Disney-ABC Television Group and others within the company has bothered to reply to his stupid rants in the past.

Bill Donohue:  “It is obvious that Barbara Walters is begging for a fight with Catholics.  Consider it done. Over the past year, the Catholic League has registered several complaints with Walters, who is co-owner of the show, executive producer Bill Geddie, and Anne Sweeney, co-chair, Disney Media Networks and president, Disney-ABC Television Group. None has replied. While the anti-Catholic bigots have either been Rosie O’Donnell or Joy Behar (today’s culprit), the person most responsible for allowing this unrelenting assault on Catholic sensibilities is Walters.

“Accordingly, beginning in mid-June, we will commence a public relations campaign against Barbara Walters. When we’re finished, so too will be her once stellar reputation. Today was the last straw.”

  As is with the Christian Right, if this is what a Catholic does ever time they are criticized, we are all screwed.

Tags:

Sinner Gingrich Speaks At Liberty University

  Not that I particularly care about anything that this creep has to say since it is mostly bull anyway, but I thought that I'd let you read some of his comments to the students of the graduating glass.

"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights.

"In hostility to American history, the radical secularists insist that religious belief is inherently divisive and that public debate can only proceed on secular terms. 

  Speaking as a Christian and as a " liberal ", My problem personally is that those so-called Christians like Gingrich, Falwell, Robertson,Dobbs, and others are attempting to force us into believing their idea of Christianity, which is, our way is right and if you don't believe it then you are going to burn in hell. I don't need their version of Christianity shoved down my throat nor will I ever abide by their rhetoric. If there views and actions are what real Christians are, then God help us!

  One more thing though. I do believe that prayer, of any type, should be allowed in the school before class begins if that is what the students wish to do

  Gingrich also went on to rant about the Supreme Courts efforts to separate church and state.

"Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end."

   Once again, the courts have been right in their dealings on this. In case you haven't noticed for the past few years, Fundamentalist ( Christian Right ) have been invading our government in droves. The entire point is to make us a 'one religion view' society. This is why we need separation of church and state.

Falwell intended Liberty to be his most enduring legacy. He envisioned it as a "Protestant Notre Dame," projecting fundamentalist Christianity for generations. It was to be a training ground for conservative politicians, lawyers and judges _ warriors in what Falwell perceived as a cultural war against liberals, gay rights, legalized abortion and forces he saw as a threat to Christianity.

 

Gingrich: "Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert ( my emphasis) all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created."     Huffington Post

     Convert? Into what, may I asked? It is amazing to me that any of these Republican Christians ( hypocrites ) actually have the nerve to stand up before a crowd of anybody and then speak about Christian values! It's just mind boggling, especially someone like Newt.

Tags:

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Sunday Morning Funnies With Our Favorite Politicians

     While everyone else in the universe (mostly) will be covering the usual Sunday morning political pundits who happen to be making the interview shows, I've decided to post some of the latest jokes from our lovely late night comedians and maybe even a few politicians themselves.

"The head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz, resigned after getting in trouble. He promoted his girlfriend and gave her a job at the Bank. That's big news. A Republican forced out over a sex scandal involving ... a woman?!" --Jay Leno

"Porn star Jenna Jameson has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. So, looks like Bill already calling in all the favors." --Jay Leno

"Republicans in Texas think you need a course on how to keep a marriage together. Who's going to teach it? Rudy Giuliani? Newt Gingrich?" --Jay Leno

"Last night, they had another Republican presidential debate. ... Did you see those Republican candidates? They looked like the evil law firm in a John Grisham movie." --David Letterman

"Last night marked the second Republican debate. And the main difference this time? [on screen: Fox News Channel's Brit Hume saying the debate is being sponsored by Fox News and the SC GOP]. Isn't that redundant?" --Jon Stewart

"I'm happy to report that Vice President Dick Cheney has returned from the Middle East. And he certainly straightened that mess out. ... He made a stop in Egypt, as a matter of fact, on the way home. Apparently, Halliburton wants to rebuild the pyramids." --David Letterman

"President Bush's approval ratings have taken somewhat of a dive. A senior slump, if you will. Leading President Bush to one conclusion: He is the only one who realizes what a great job he's being doing." --Jon Stewart

"You know if I had nickel for every time Bush has mentioned 9/11, I could raise enough reward money to go after Bin Laden." --Jon Stewart

"I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers, and rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message that no matter what happens to America she will always rebound with the most powerfully staged photo-ops in the world." --Stephen Colbert, at the WHCD

Tags:

Baghdad Is Home To Worlds Largest Embassy

  In case you haven't read about it or seen it on the news stations yet, I am going to tell you about our new embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq.

   First off, as is usual with anything the Bush crime family does, the embassy will be the most expensive one in the world and the largest one also.

   It is a 104-acre compound and you can bet that it is super secure and has all of the latest high-tech security gadgets in it and around it.

  If you are familiar with the Washington National Mall, then you know almost how big this place is as it would occupy an area two-thirds the size of the mall at a cost of  $592 million with enough desk area for 1,000 people. This is a 21-building complex so you can pretty much guess, correctly, that the United States is going to be there in some form for a very long time, maybe with limited troop deployment.

   It is noted by the Huffington Post  that this task is one of the very few undertaken by this administration that is within budget and on schedule.

  Of course it is. Bush and the rest of the Bushco Mafia can't waste time on their future hide-out, now can they. All of those ExxonMobile, BP executives have to have some place really safe to hang out in while they count their profits from that Iraqi oil that they are going to steal.

  One other tidbit:

The State Department and Congress have tussled this year over a $50 million request for additional blast-resistant housing. The department says it did not anticipate needing so many fortified apartments when the embassy was in the planning stages three years ago and Iraq was a less violent place.

The new Democratic-controlled Congress has grumbled about the approximately $1 billion annual cost of embassy operations in Iraq and told the administration the embassy is overstaffed at roughly 1,000 regular employees. Add security contractors, locally hired staff and others and the number climbs to more than 4,000.

"This is another case where poor planning, skyrocketing costs and security concerns are colliding in the Bush administration's policies in Iraq, and we need to make adjustments," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate panel that pays for State Department operations.

"They want hundreds of additional embassy staff who they cannot safely house within the new embassy compound. It's time for a reality check," said Leahy, D-Vt.   Huffington Post

   The embassy is set to open in September, so make your vacation plans and book your rooms now for the festivities!

Tags:

Michael Moore Speaks To Conservatives

  Michael Moore letter to Conservatives a week after the November elections. I just happened to find this while browsing around the Internet and I thought that I would pass it on to you in case you haven't read it yet.

 

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

Signed,

Michael Moore
P.S. Please feel free to pass this on.

 

Tags:

As Some Warn Victory, Some Downfall

  It does not get any better than this!

Published on Friday, May 18, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

As Some Warn Victory, Some Downfall

by Christopher Cooper

I guess we’ll annoy some people here today. Ah, well, yes, and who’s surprised about that? Anybody expecting this corner of the page to deliver comfortable conciliation will long since have learned to seek elsewhere. We come seldom to encourage enthusiasm for the quality of our present accommodation and the solidity of its ride. Alarm more often is our message as we hurry from car to car crying out that the trestle is gone, the engineer drunk or dead, the fireman and conductor about to jump into the puckerbrush with the mailbags full of payroll cash and pension checks.

What may surprise even regular readers, if I can tie my thoughts into a coherent package before the editor comes ‘round to tell me I’ve used up my space and the patience and tolerance of God Almighty his own self, will be just how comprehensively offensive I can be, perhaps alienating right, left and center to such a degree as to engender a true bipartisanship of outrage, although each of course shall be aghast at different points and paragraphs.

I have kept myself in line since the twenty-second of January, when last I confronted this topic. In five columns since then I have presented my thoughts on 1) the quality of editing my pieces endure (a subject itself suggested by a disgusted reader); 2) Sonny and Cher Muslims, a pleasant diversion containing some small kernels of deeper thought that may have passed unnoticed; 3) Maine town meetings, a subject I return to periodically and in the furtherance of which I only incidentally, for contrast, ridicule other, lesser towns than my own; 4) Don Imus, in which piece I appear to have extolled the virtues of both free speech and vulgarity; and 5) a particular, expensive brand of hardware (screws) I like and buy and use, together with appreciative comments concerning several salespersons involved with the product and some general ideas about universal brotherhood and the meaning of interpersonal relationships, honesty, integrity and the value, even to the disaffected, iconoclastic, surly writers of unwieldy essays, of a little bit of the human touch.

So it does seem about time for something just a bit more tart, doesn’t it? OK. Give me ten minutes more and we can both have this behind us.

Subject: The War. Reference: The Republicans. Conclusion: You can waste your summer praying in vain for these people to reconnect with reality. “Stay the course”? What course? The “Surge”? More like a great Flush-more money (billions), more bodies, more social, economic, environmental, spiritual ruin. Stay until we win? Tell me what winning looks like. Until “We get the job done”? What job ? If killing every Iraqi who might now or soon or someday develop a hatred of American policy (different, please understand, from hating America or hating Americans or hating freedom) is our goal, our endgame, our exit strategy, then load up the nukes and let the games begin, because a war of total annihilation we can win, in short order. With, of course, its own consequences, known, unknown and (God, I miss Rummy!), unknown unknown.

But you and I are no safer for one more day or dollar of war. We are in fact less safe the longer we throw our weight around in this country we’ve devastated because of a series of lies too many of us were too eager to believe. Saddam is dead. Feel better? Saddam was a clown, a jerk, a bully. He gassed the Kurds with Rumsfeld’s blessing. Rummy’s Gone; Saddam’s gone. Mission Accomplished. Here’s the irrefutable truth: George Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for many more dead Americans than Saddam Hussein ever was. And (if any of us cares), more dead Iraqis than Saddam, too.

Support the Commander In Chief? Why? Look, I sort of feel sorry for the guy. He was doomed by birth. Had he been adopted into a decent blue collar family of modest means he might have grown up and found an honest job in the construction trades. I think, with direction and encouragement, he could have learned to sand drywall effectively; possibly, with enough practice, he might have learned to apply tape and mud. But President of the United States? The crop of half-crazies and dim bulbs and religious zealots vying for the Republican nomination are pleased to invoke the name of Ronald Reagan, a dead B-movie actor and shill for Boraxo who slept through cabinet meetings, but none too eager to be seen in public with W.

So we need to elect a Democrat. Do we? Didn’t we do just that last November? Gave ‘em a majority in the House and another in the Senate and, according to every proper columnist and commentator I’ve read or heard, sent ‘em a message. The message? Stop the war. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said they understood. In their way and in the fullness of time, nothing sudden or precipitate or radical, you understand, they produced a bill to fund the war a majority of voters want to get out of. Fund it big-time (yes, many more billions) with some minor recommendations and meaningless “benchmarks” for measuring Iraqi performance. (Yes, the conventional wisdom now assigns blame for our fix to the Iraqis, for failing to “step up”.)

Well, W. said that timid bill, which gave him every dime he wanted for bombs and blood and his buddies at Halliburton, gave comfort to “America’s Enemies” (by which I guess he probably didn’t mean Dick Cheney, although I’d give him Public Enemy Number One status) and he’d not sign it. So the Democrats talked among themselves about compromise. They had a meeting with the president. They talked about funding for two months at a time. They talked about some “advisory” language they might slip in to the grant of funds. Bush stood firm against “tying the hands of our commanders in the field” even as one of those recently in the field bought TV time to urge us to get out and go home and stop killing them and fooling ourselves.

Before Bush vetoed the first bill candidate Obama said Congress should send him a second bill that he would find palatable enough to sign. Candidate Clinton said if she’d known back then what she knows now…. She did know. We all knew. Some of us chose to not admit what we knew, even to ourselves. It was war fever time. The handwriting was on the wall. It was get Saddam, show the big stick, kick ass, smoke ‘em, burn ‘em, make somebody pay. It was wrong then, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Reid. It’s wrong now. Are you against the war, Congressmen and Congresswomen? Of course you are, all but thirteen Democrats. Should we cut our losses? The public says yes. Every day we stay we get further into the hole. Every night Public Television shows the pictures of our dead children “as their names are made public and as photographs become available.” There is no “win.” There is only an end with today’s toll of dead or tomorrow’s or next week’s, thirty-five hundred or four thousand, a hundred or so a month.

We’ll leave eventually. We will not have won. We will only have wasted an as yet undetermined amount of money and killed some greater number of men and women and children. We kill children every day, you know. Shoot ‘em, bomb, ‘em, burn ‘em. Are we proud of that?

Congressional Republicans are increasingly embarrassed by their president. Some are even ashamed of him, possibly of themselves. None of them wants to run for office or field a Republican candidate for president with this war still surging. Democrats, I think, wouldn’t mind seeing it still festering somewhat closer to election day. I know that sounds cynical, but how else can we interpret their half-hearted, weak, enabling legislation? This war is bad, it’s wrong, it’s stupid. It’s ruined Iraq, damaged America’s reputation, and made every one of us less secure. Support the troops? Sure thing. Send Bush a bill directing him to disengage with all speed consistent with the safe extrication of our men and women and those Iraqi interpreters and allies and employees whose association with us puts them and their families at risk. Give him enough money for airplanes or troop ships or trains to Turkey -enough to bring them home.

Every dead soldier since the new Congress convened may now be laid equally at the threshold of Democratic as well as Republican conscience. It’s just this easy, Senators. Use it without royalty or attribution; I give it to you because few of you seem able to compose such a thought out of your own minds and hearts: I support our troops and will vote to stop paying to put them to death in this war which serves no worthwhile, decent, humane interest and cannot be won according to any rational use of the term.

Bush will veto any funding bill you send him if he doesn’t like the language. He’ll whine that cutting off funding is un-American. That was an effective strategy five years ago; it worked well enough even as he rejected the recommendations of his own Baker Commission and sold this preposterous “surge” idea (if what we’re doing isn’t working, we’ll do it harder and faster). It won’t work now. It took six years, but here’s what we all know now: the president is a loser, his election and re-election were terrible mistakes, and the war is undermining the moral foundations of our once-great country.

Anybody who likes this war should sign on to it. Send his or her son and daughter. Send the Pentagon a generous check toward the cost. Support the troops? Go die in the desert so they don’t have to. Yellow ribbons tied to a power pole or a string of made in China toy flags along a bridge rail don’t do the job five long years into the butchery.

I wish I thought electing Democrats these days made much difference. I wish I thought the anguish ninety or a hundred families feel every month when they see a brace of officers coming up their front walks bearing that unspeakably terrible salutation could somehow seep into each of our hearts and make us turn off the ball game or the car race or walk out of the Spiderman sequel and demand that somebody, anybody, either party, do the right thing. Right now.

Mr. Cooper wishes to assure his readers that he is even more weary of writing about the dangerous criminals running our country, the lame compromisers managing the useless Democratic response, the careful corporate press, and voters for whom babies blown to bits with their tax dollars today are less interesting than lies and fables still circulating on talk radio about the “Heroes of 9/11″ than they are tired of reading him on these subjects. But how does he, how does anyone not return to this awful reality every day? How can he not think about these things and, thinking, necessarily write, using the only weak, small tool he owns against this monstrous perversion? He regrets he has no answers, only outrage and disgust and fear. For those who ask his recommendation for personal action, he offers only this: Ignore your Republican representatives–they are too corrupted to save or instruct or enlighten; write to your Democratic ones only to tell them, “No compromise, no retreat, no surrender–and no more time to waste.” Write him if you like at ckc2@prexar.com.

Tags:

John McCain Foul-Mouths Another Senator and He Misses Another Vote ( 43 Straight )

   Here is a nifty on one of  John McCain's rare visits to Washington, D.C., from WaPo

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hasn't spent much time in the Capitol this year as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination. But one of his rare appearances this week provided a pretty salty exchange with a fellow Republican.

At a bipartisan gathering in an ornate meeting room just off the Senate floor, McCain complained that Cornyn  (Sen. John Cornyn) was raising petty objections to a compromise plan being worked out between Senate Republicans and Democrats and the White House. He used a curse word associated with chickens and accused Cornyn of raising the issue just to torpedo a deal.

Things got really heated when Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. "I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."

  Mr. McCain's response"

"[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room."

    The old man is getting a wee bit testy in his old age, is he not?

   On Thursday afternoon, McCain did gather with nine other colleagues and a few other Bush misfits to announce the immigration deal. McCain then left for New York to do some more campaign events, missing the vote on the $2.9 trillion budget outline.

   It was McCain's 43rd straight time that he has missed being around to vote on the bills.

   Someone may have to refresh my memory, but isn't this idiot getting paid to serve his State and the citizens of the United States?  Being the typical conservative, it is more important to go out and raise/spend money that will put his sorry ass in debt and accomplish nothing.

Tags:  

AG Alberto Gonzales Still Supported By The Criminal In Chief

   A little bit more of the White House press briefing with Tony Fratto yesterday morning.

  You know that the question about AG Alberto Gonzales pressure to resign is always to going to come up, and it did.

Q Senators Schumer and Feinstein are going to introduce a no confidence resolution for Attorney General Gonzales next week, the Senate is going to vote on this. You have a sixth Republican, Norm Coleman, come out and say the Attorney General should resign. Doesn't this all add up to the weight that's dragging him down? And how can he be effective with all --

MR. FRATTO: I think it adds up to the bottomless bag of tricks that Democrats in the Senate would like to pull out on a weekly basis, regarding the Attorney General. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President. He's focused on the mission of the Department of Justice, which is to keep Americans safe, protect us from domestic terrorism threats, child predators. We know that this has been a difficult period, dealing with the discussion and questions having to do with the U.S. attorneys. But the Attorney General is sticking to his job. We feel he's been a very strong Attorney General, and we continue to support him.

      " bottomless bag of tricks "? The Democrats in the Senate may have a bottomless bag but there are no tricks in it, only mounting evidence that this AG is immoral and corrupt. One of the Bush " yes men " as they are calling him these days. Mr. Fratto says that Gonzo has the full support of president Bush and why would he not have that support? After all, he and Bush did try to take over the Department of Justice and either dig up dirt or attempt to manufacture some dirt to get the elections tilted into their favor. Voter fraud? Only on the Republican side of the fence.

Q Let me just follow up on that. Yesterday, Kelly asked the President straight up about the report of when Gonzales was counsel and sending Andy Card down to the hospital. The President refused to answer, saying it was a national security issue. No part of her question had anything to do with national security issues.

MR. FRATTO: No, there are two points there. One is the discussion of classified programs; and the second is deliberative discussions among and between advisors to the President -- and neither of which is an open window for us to look into and talk about.

Now, I think the President -- I think that's the point that the President was making. It puts us in a difficult communications position, because we understand there are questions out there and it's difficult for us from the podium. But that's not something that we can get into, and we're not going to get into.

Q He can unilaterally declassify, so --

MR. FRATTO: He could, but I think he'd prefer to put the safety and security of Americans ahead of that interest.

  ( Republican language for we aren't saying anything that will get us indicted and imprisoned )

Q How does it jeopardize the safety and security of Americans, to say whether --

MR. FRATTO: Any time we talk about --

Q -- to say whether he ordered those guys to go to the hotel room?

MR. FRATTO: The hospital room --

Q I'm sorry, hospital room.

MR. FRATTO: -- according to the reports.

Q -- former acting Attorney General.

MR. FRATTO: Any time we talk about classified programs you're opening the door, and we need to be very careful in how we talk about it.

Let me make another point that the President made yesterday. All of our programs have been appropriately briefed to Congress. They have all had appropriate oversight. So I think that is the forum for discussing our classified programs, and I think that is where we're going to leave it.

Q Are you saying that the Congress knew the President ordered the wiretapping without any warrant, and they said okay?

MR. FRATTO: I'm saying that appropriate briefings of Congress were made

   If the Congress was briefed on this and they still let Bush get away with this, then they should be held accountable for the act. that would pretty much wipe out the Conservatives for many decades to come.

   On Gonzales and Cards visit to Rumsfeld while he was in the hospital, Fratto had this to say.

Q Does the White House deny that this incident occurred, where --

MR. FRATTO: We're not --

Q -- in relation to some unnamed, unspecified program, these two White House aides sought out the Attorney General -- who was ill and had passed his powers over to his acting -- sought him out instead of going to the Attorney General. Do you guys deny that took place?

MR. FRATTO: Let me say very clearly: I am not addressing any particular report, okay. But I will say that ultimate authority rests with the President of the United States.

Transcript

   The ultimate authority rests with the President of the United States. Does anything else really need to be said about where all of the illegal shit begins?

Tags:

Friday, May 18, 2007

The Senate Immigration Agreement

  A few of the Republican presidential candidates  issued  press statements yesterday on how they feel about it.

Boston, MA - Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on today's U.S. Senate agreement on immigration reform:
"I strongly oppose today's bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach. Any legislation that allows illegal immigrants to stay in the country indefinitely, as the new 'Z-Visa' does, is a form of amnesty. That is unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S.
"Today's Senate agreement falls short of the actions needed to both solve our country's illegal immigration problem and also strengthen our legal immigration system. Border security and a reliable employment verification system must be our first priority."         Mitt Romney

Former Senator Fred D. Thompson...

... today released the following statement regarding the immigration bill currently pending in the United States Senate:             “With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security.  We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.”       National Review

         

           Rudy Giuliani 

          Statement From The Communications Director

Below is a statement from Giuliani Communications Director Katie Levinson regarding the immigration bill agreement announced by the Senate today:

"Rudy's top priority and main objective is to ensure our borders are secure and to stop potential terrorists and criminals from coming in. The recent Fort Dix plot is a stark reminder that the threat of terrorism has made immigration an important matter of national security. We need to know who is coming in and who is going out of this country if we are going to deal with those who are here illegally.”

  Of course John McCain supported this crap

   Can't place the link to his release because it keeps going to Giuliani's.

   Oh well.

Tags:

Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Leaders Send Bush Letter Condemning His Opposition To Military Pay Raise

      Below is a letter that the Democratic leaders jointly issued to Bush  in response to his opposing a pay raise for the U.S. troops and for opposing an increase in benefits to surviving spouses of our of our military men and women.

May 18, 2007

The Honorable George W. Bush
President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing to urge you to reconsider your objections to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Your office’s recent Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1585 raised several concerns regarding this bipartisan legislation that the House of Representatives passed yesterday by an overwhelming 397-27 margin.

In particular, the Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1585 objected to sections 601 and 606, which raises military pay 0.5% above your proposal, and Section 644, which provides an extra $40 per month for surviving spouses of fallen members of our armed services.

Mr. President, you have consistently called on Congress and the American people to support our troops. Considering the sacrifices that our military families make, the Democratic proposal to provide the troops with the pay raise they deserve and an increase in benefits for the spouses they may leave behind is one small way that we can support our troops.

When it comes to supporting our troops, our actions must match our words. Please join us in supporting our troops by reconsidering both your veto threat to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, and your objections to an increase in military pay and survivor benefits for the brave men and women serving our country in the armed forces.

Respectfully,

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House

Steny Hoyer
Majority Leader

James E. Clyburn
Majority Whip

Rahm Emanuel
Chair, Democratic Caucus

Ike Skelton
Chair, House Armed Services Committee

Ellen Tauscher
Chair, Strategic Forces Subcommittee

Steve Israel
Member of Congress

 

Tags:

Ernie Fletcher Leads In Kentucky GOP Republican Primary Polls

    The primary for governor of Kentucky is next week and according to two polling groups, Republican governor Ernie Fletcher is in the lead at this point in time.

Bluegrass Poll. 5/10-15. Likely Republican voters. MoE 5.2% (No trend lines)

Fletcher 41
Northup 26
Harper 10

SurveyUSA. 4/28-4/30. Likely Republican voters. MoE 4% (3/31-4/2 results)

Fletcher 46 (40)
Northup 34 (31)
Harper 14 (16)

  You no why they really call Kentucky the ' blue grass state ' ? It is because the Republican residents of the state are  to ignorant and to stupid to vote out one of the most corrupt governors in the nation.

   On the Democrat side of the fence.

Bluegrass Poll. 5/10-15. Likely Republican voters. MoE 5.2% (No trend lines)

Beshear 27
Lunsford 21
Henry 13

SurveyUSA. 4/28-4/30. Likely Democratic voters. MoE 4% (3/31-4/2 results)

Lunsford 29 (20)
Beshear 23 (15)
Henry 18 (20)

  Lunsford needs to be beaten in this one as he is a Democratic in name only. He endorses and backs more of the Republican crap than he does the Democratic things.

  Bluegrass Report

 

Top 10 Reasons To Vote Against Bruce Lunsford For Governor

10. During the 2006 congressional race, Lunsford personally contributed more money to Anne Northup ($4,100) than to John Yarmuth ($2,000).
9. Four years ago, during the KET Democratic gubernatorial debate, Lunsford vowed to support the Democratic nominee in the general election, but on October 20, 2003, while standing next to his “friend” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R), Lunsford endorsed Ernie Fletcher for governor.

8. Lunsford now promises “I’ll fix our broken health-care system” but as Chairman and CEO of Vencor, he paid $104.5 million to the federal government for Medicare/Medicaid fraud claims.

7. A few months before Vencor publicly admitted to investors about declining revenues and staggering debt in 1997, Lunsford had sold 50,000 shares at $47 apiece, for $2.35 million. Within three months, Vencor was trading at $30/share, and eventually the stock became worthless.

6. On the Vencor Board of Directors at the time of its crash was none other than current U.S. Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, also the wife of U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R).

5. Following his election as governor in 2003, Fletcher named Lunsford to lead a blue ribbon transition team to re-organize government. Immediately, Lunsford’s team eliminated the Labor Cabinet.

4. After Congress cut Medicaid reimbursements to nursing homes, Lunsford offered cash bonuses to his employees who successfully evicted seniors who relied upon Medicaid to pay their bills so they could fill those beds with higher paying, private patients. This practice was known as “patient dumping.”

3. After Congress passed legislation to outlaw Lunsford’s practice of “patient dumping,” he paid a Washington, DC lobbyist $60,000 to try amend the Social Security Act to allow patient dumping after courts told him to stop and Vencor had been fined $780,000 for trying to kick out 137 residents.

2. Between 1995 and 2000, Lunsford personally donated $52,000 to federal political candidates and parties. Of that amount, $40,250 (77%) went to Republicans, including to both of Kentucky’s Republican senators, four Republican congressmen (Rogers, Whitfield, Lewis, Northup), as well as the Republican Party of Kentucky, Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and George W. Bush for President.

1. In May 2003, Lunsford dropped out the Democratic gubernatorial primary after polls showed him falling into third place (behind Ben Chandler and Jody Richards). Rather than finish third, Lunsford pulled-up lame and blamed a mean Chandler television ad for his surrender. Does Kentucky want another wimp as governor?

***On May 22, Kentucky Democrats must refuse to elect Bruce Lunsford as its nominee for Governor***

  Had enough?

 

Tags:

Bush Is The Conservative's Conservative No Matter What They GOP Candidates Tell you

   In case you haven't noticed as of late, the Repugnican presidential candidates have all been making the rounds with the ' don't blame me. blame Bush ' line of rhetoric in order to distance themselves from him and his failed government, Iraq war,Katrina, and a host of many, many other issues.

   McCain, in particular, would have you believe that he had nothing to do with the White House incompetence which has run rampant from day one. That low-life Cretin from New York City ( Giuliani ) would have you think the same thing. The only difference between these two is that John McCain was able to back Bush by voting ' yes ' on Bush's laws and other bullshit while Giuliani's only option was sending his buddy some letters of support.

   Now we even get to her the candidates talk about how Bush doesn't represent their idea of conservatism. That is funny, especially since he has been representing their idea of conservatism since 2001 or they would not have voted to give the prick everything that he has asked for since he came into office.

   Don't let these Republican pieces of shit fool you! Bush, as a human being and a leader is incompetent, but the conservative Bush has been plenty smart in helping the conservative base make their gains, such as they are. Now we have to get rid of most of the Republican crime, greed, and those who would see a one-party rule in our society.

   Government by conservatives has been and will always be a failure in the United States.

Alan Wolfe: Contemporary conservatism is a walking contradiction. Unable to shrink government but unwilling to improve it, conservatives attempt to split the difference, expanding government for political gain, but always in ways that validate their disregard for the very thing they are expanding. The end result is not just bigger government, but more incompetent government.

Al Franken: "Conservatives tell you government doesn't work. When they get elected, they prove it."

 

 by vets74  @ reader at Daily Kos

 Again, Anti-Social Personality Disorder ASPD ...

presents with alarming frequency in this Bush Administration.

These individuals prefer lies, bribery and repeated dishonesty. They have no problem with brutality.

Wolfowitz, Feith, Chertoff, Rumsfeld, Gonzo on torture, Cheney, Richard Perle, and many others.

Their statements elevate a mental "toughness" that is, in fact, an absence of normal emotion-based relations with ordinary people. Similar to The Mob of 1930-1995.

Rumsfeld at 50,000-feet over Iraq is THE NORM for these ASPD's.

This ASPD is a recognized personality disorder. The Bush crew attracted ASPD types over a period of at least a decade. Smart ASPD's to be sure.

However, ASPD's can't govern in a democracy. They need dictatorship or feudalism or theocracy. They failed here in America from 2001 to the present.

From their point of view, stupid/weak America failed them.

  Don't let the GOP pull one over on you. The fact that the majority of Republicans in the House and Senate still back most of Bush's agenda should be a clear sign that he is one of their conservatives.

   Read this for more on the conservative worldview.

  Or, check this out from Rockridge Nation

 

Tags:

Thursday, May 17, 2007

White House Opposes Pay Raise For Troops and An Increase In Widow's Benefits

  Here is just a little bit more of the George Bush version of supporting our troops. I guess  that he only supports our troops when it comes to sending them to Iraq to get killed.

White House States Opposition to Pay Raise for Troops,
Increase in Widows’ Benefits

May 17th, 2007 by Jesse Lee

Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel:

“We ask our troops to risk their lives for our nation. We ask their spouses to raise families and make ends meet without them as they serve. The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families. It’s easy to say you support our troops, but actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric.”

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
Rick Maze, Army Times - May 16, 2007

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.

The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.

The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

Bush budget officials said the administration “strongly opposes” both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases “unnecessary.”

See the full Statement of Administration Policy, or SAP (pdf) >>

Here is the relevant excerpt “strongly” opposing the pay raise:

Military Pay: The Administration strongly opposes sections 601 and 606. The additional 0.5 percent increase above the President’s proposed 3.0 percent across-the-board pay increase is unnecessary. When combined with the overall military benefit package, the President’s proposal provides a good quality of life for servicemembers and their families. While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the three percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that. The cost of increasing the FY 2008 military pay raise by an additional 0.5 percent is $265 million in FY 2008 and $7.3 billion from FY 2008 to FY 2013.

Here the Administration opposes an additional $40 per month for widows of slain soldiers:

Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance: The Administration opposes section 644, which would pay a monthly special survivor indemnity allowance of $40 from the DoD Military Retirement Fund. The current benefit programs for survivors, DoD’s Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and Department of Veterans Affairs’ Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC), provide sufficient benefits and avoid duplication of two complementary federal benefits programs established for the same purpose — providing a lifetime annuity for the survivor of an active, retired or former servicemember. This offset policy is consistent with private sector benefits. The provision is estimated to cost $27 million in the first year and about $160 million through FY 2013. It appears to be the first step toward eliminating the offset between SBP and DIC; full elimination of this offset would cost the Military Retirement Fund between $6 and $8 billion over 10 years.

Here the Administration opposes additional benefits for surviving family members of civilian employees:

Death Gratuity for Federal Civilian Employees: The Administration strongly opposes section 1105, which would amend the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) to provide an additional $100,000 death benefit for surviving family members of civilian employees who died supporting U.S. forces in a contingency operation. This provision would raise equity concerns by eroding the uniformity of benefits provided by FECA.

Here the Administration opposes price controls for prescription drugs under TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for military personnel and their dependents:

The Administration strongly opposes section 703, which would impose price controls on prescription drugs when they are dispensed to enrollees in TRICARE through community pharmacies. The Administration believes market competition is the most effective way to promote discounts in the community setting. Government price-setting at community pharmacies will eliminate retail competition; it could also have an adverse impact on other markets, which could limit access to life-saving drugs, reduce convenience for beneficiaries, and ultimately increase costs. Drugs dispensed directly by DoD in its hospitals, clinics, and mail order facilities are already purchased at government purchasing schedules and DOD is working to encourage beneficiaries to take advantage of the lowest prescription drug prices available whenever possible.

And here the Administration urges deletion of various contract accountability provisions:

Acquisition Policy: While the Administration supports the underlying interests of section 806, 821, 822, 824, and 843, the Administration urges their deletion because each of these provisions is either duplicative of recently-enacted laws and implementing regulations or would be counterproductive and not of practical help in strengthening the acquisition process. Section 824, in particular, which imposes exhaustive reporting on contract deficiencies, will interfere with agencies’ ability to address and resolve contract performance problems in a timely manner. In addition, section 326(b) would impose on the Department’s contractors unmanageable and costly reporting requirements with questionable benefit.         The Gavel

See the provisions themselves in the full text of the legislation (pdf) >>

 

Tags:  

Report Says That Iraq Is Nearing collapse

  This is an interesting report from Chatham House where Dr Gareth Stansfield says that there isn't just " one " civil war nor is there just " one "  insurgency but there are several in each category between the communities in Iraq. hit the site and download the report, which is in PDF.

  Within this warring society, the Iraqi government is only one among many 'state-like' actors, and is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic, and political life.  It is now possible to argue that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation.  Accepting Realities in Iraq

Accepting Realities in Iraq  is the title of the new Briefing Paper which Dr. Stansfield wrote. It goes on to say:

...although Al-Qaeda is challenged by local groups, there is momentum behind its activity. Iraq's neighbors too have a greater capacity to affect the situation on the ground than either the UK or the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all have different reasons for seeing the instability in Iraq continue, and each uses different methods to influence developments.

Dr Stansfield says: ‘The coming year will be pivotal for Iraq. The internecine fighting and continual struggle for power threatens the nation’s very existence in its current form. An acceptance of the realities on the ground in Iraq and a fundamental rethinking of strategy by coalition powers are vital if there is to be any chance of future political stability in the country.’

  The report also says that Baghdad blogger's, Sunni and Shi'a, give a better understanding of the of the political identity in Baghdad, dealing with the atrocities in daily life and the affects that they are having.

   Another note about the blogger's compared to their views only just a year ago.

" Barely a year ago, young Iraqis commonly talked about their desires to see the Americans leave and for a genuinely Iraqi political process to emerge. Now, bloggers tend to fall into one of two categories: they either wish the U.S. to stay in order to prevent the final collapse into a ' total ' civil war: or they wish the U.S. to leave in order to allow the civil war to erupt fully- such is the level of sectarian-based hatred in Baghdad today."

  I will be delving into this report off and on as it has some really eye opening conclusions in it, which maybe those idiots in the White House will read through. I doubt it though, to much reality in it.

 

Tags:  

It Is Our Constitution/Bill Of Rights, Not Our governments

     We are going to take a look now at our U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights with the help of Steve Osborn over at Populist America, which is a very good site.

A Framer quotes

Under every government the [last] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes.  Whenever a people ... entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.

Lord Acton quotes:

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.

 

 Contract with America: The Bill of Rights

December 1, 2006
by Steve Osborn

The American People signed a contract. An agreement between the Governed and the Government. It is called the Constitution of the United States. The first ten amendments to that Constitution is known as the Bill of Rights. As Justice Hugo Black stated, "It is my belief that there are absolutes in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions to be 'absolutes.'"

Think about it:

  • Without the First Amendment, newspapers could only print the "party line" or be suppressed. Books and plays would be censored or banned. We might have to attend the State Authorized Religion, or be forbidden to attend any other form of worship, or any worship at all. We could even have a church telling us how to live, backed up with government force! We would have no right of public assembly or protest, nor could we petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  • Without the Second Amendment, we would be a completely disarmed populace, at the mercy of government troops or security forces.
  • Without the Third Amendment, the government could quarter troops in your home without your consent.
  • Without the Fourth Amendment, the government's security force or military could search your home at will, without a warrant, confiscate your papers and property, monitor your communications and phone conversations without your ever knowing about it.
  • Without the Fifth Amendment, you could be picked up, your property confiscated, you could be held incommunicado for an indefinite time without legal counsel and could be forced to testify against yourself.
  • Without the Sixth Amendment, your could be held for an indefinite period, without charge, and without being told why you're being held. Your trial, if any, could be held in secret without your being able to confront your accusers or examining any evidence, nor would you have the right to legal counsel.
  • Without the Seventh Amendment, in civil suits, you would not have the right of trial by jury.
  • Without the Eighth Amendment, there would be no limit on the amount of bail set or fines imposed, and any cruel punishment could be meted out, even death by torture.
  • Without the Ninth Amendment, any rights not spelled out would be forfeit to the government.
  • Without the Tenth Amendment, the People of the United States would have no powers reserved to themselves, it would all lie with the State.

Isn't it tragic that the Congress gave to the Executive, through misguided PATRIOTism, an ACT that would unconstitutionally repeal those rights guaranteed by the Constitution and turn it all over to Homeland Security?

Read your Constitution and Bill of Rights, then read the text of the Patriot Act and the amended Patriot Act, then think about it. We the People of the United States have been virtually stripped of those freedoms that the founders of our nation fought so hard to secure from an earlier King George.
Everybody is heaving a great sigh of relief that the "Democrats" are now back in power, but already things are returning to business as usual.
We have got to impeach and remove the cancer that has infected our nation before it becomes inoperable. We are facing widened wars of desperation as Bush and his gang looks desperately for a way of regaining control. They are not beyond a "Black Op" against the United States (remember the Maine, Tonkin Gulf, the WMD lies and the jury is still out on 9/11) followed by a declaration of martial law. The groundwork has been carefully laid and is available to review on many sites.
We must hold Congress to the Contract that We the People made with them over two centuries ago, restore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, intact and functioning to the halls of government, and return to using them for the rule and guide of our actions.

 

Tags:   

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

John McCain Has Problem When It Comes To Bills Concerning Iraq

  Just for the record, here are the votes that Mr. Warmonger McCain has missed just since the new Congress has been in.

(1) The anti-surge resolution that failed on a slim 48-50 vote on March 15? McCain missed it — even as he publicly argued that we should trust in the judgment of President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus.

(2) McCain also missed the vote on the succeeding resolution that renounced the cutting off of funds.

(3) McCain did show up to vote for the Cochran Amendment on March 27, which would have stricken timetable language from the Iraq supplemental. But then after the Cochran Amendment failed, and after McCain voted No on initial passage of the Senate version, he later missed the vote on the final passage of the conference report on April 26.

(4) Just this morning, McCain missed the Senate vote on the Feingold Amendment, which would have provided for the the redeployment of troops form Iraq.  

  It would seem as if Mr. McCain is to busy going around the country stating his reasons for staying in Iraq than he is to vote for those reason's which he so vehemently believes in.

Tags: