The Scum Also Rises...

Holy shit...! We're at war! Who knew!?!

At least that's the imppression one gets when the emergency appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan comes comes up every quarter. This so Dubbyuh doesn't really appear to be blowing any holes in the budget, and we don't really get to see what's in the spending bill. Instead of just providing funding for Dubbyuh's "war on terruh", which it does, the bill has become a hiding place for significant pork. One instance occurred earlier this week. Trent Lott, (R-MS) and Thad Cochran, (R-MS) added a $700 million item to the bill to move a brand new rail line and replace it with a highway in their home state. They say it's to save the rail line from the next hurricane, but the reality is that it is simply a gimme for the real estate and casino developers trying to get their fingers into the thin Hurricane Katrina relief pie.

Even worse, the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans was revealed this week as well. On a party line vote an amendment, introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, (D-MA), to screen all cargo containers entering the US for radiological threats within 5 years was defeated, citing "faulty technology" and "unrealistic deadlines". But hey, guess what...? Hong Kong screens 100% of the cargo entering its port with scanners made by Science Application International of San Diego...HELLO...a US company. The technology exists, and is apparently reliable enough to be put into service in one of the busiest ports in the world. There might be production bottle-necks which would delay implementation at all US ports, but nothing that would be unralistic.

What is unrealistic is the refusal, on the part of Republicans to even debate the issue on the floor as a full bill, but it's difficult to move when they're in the shipping industrys pants. This technology should've been introduced years ago, but the Republicans are content to let the port operators "police themselves".

Rummy's Follies

"...it's bad for the military, it's bad for civil-military relations, and it's potentially very bad for the country..." - Geneneral Richard B. Meyers, USAF(ret), former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

For the full article on Runny's defense, goto:

Rumsfeld Gets Robust Defense From President

Let me tell you what's "...bad for the military...", "...bad for civil-military relations..." and "...potentially very bad for the country...".

A civilian administration which launches an illegal and unjust war of aggression against a sovereign state...Which punishes dissent or contradiction from any source...Which fabricates, from whole cloth, justifications for war and then changes them when they are found to be untrue...Which awards unbid contracts to private corporations with intimate ties to the civilian administration...Which then fails to hold said firms accountable for their actions as they engage in war-profiteering...Which states that it listens to "the generals on the ground" while ignoring their advice in favor of political expediency...Which seeks causus belli with another sovereign nation while its forces are already overstretched and over-taxed...While generals wait until they are safely retired before speaking up, placing their careers before the lives of those entrusted to their command...When junior officers and enlisted personnel are punished for the misdeeds of those at the top of the chain of command who get promoted rather than disciplined...

These are all "...bad for the military...", "...bad for civil-military relations..." and "...potentially very bad for the country...". Until those responsible for these wrongs are held accountable, things will only get worse. But until "We, the People..." wake up and install a new political order in Congress and the White House nothing will change. I only hope it will not be too late when we do awaken.

"The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts..." - Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary

Yep, just when you thought he couldn't sink any lower, you find out just what an evil, black-hearted, murderous, godless prick he really is.

In a familiar echo of the run up to the war in Iraq, Dubbyuh and his merry band are, publicly at any rate, embracing diplomacy as the means to disuade Iran from devloping nuclear weapons. Behind the scenes though, it's a different story.

According to Seymour Hirsch in an April 8th story, the Administration is already preparing for attacks in Iran. Teams already have boots on the ground in Iran to gather targeting data and work on forging ties with groups oppsed to the Iranian government.

Granted Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a certifiable nut-case, but so is Kim Jong-Il...And he already has nukes. But there's no oil under North Korea, so it's not a target. Never mind that intelligence estimates tell us Iran is 5 to 10 years away from developing a useable weapon. The Bush administration is already planning to bomb Iran into the stone age, and use nukes to do it. And let's not forget that before Dubbyuh started babbling about an "Axis of Evil" moderates were begining to make gains in Iran. But that moderates quickly faded away as Dubbyuh launched an illegal and unjust war against Iraq. After that, all bets were off, and the radical mullahs began to take the reigns of power once more. So now, we have Iran's current president who is just as foaming-at-the-mouth crazy as Dubbyuh.

Both seem to be under the impression that God is on their side. Both seem to buy into this apocalyptic end-time prophecy foolishness. So what have they got to lose if they drag the rest of the world down with them? They, and their followers, each believe they are guaranteed a place in heaven according to their respective beliefs. SO who's right?...Neither.

Since the Bush Administration, and much of the rest of the country, haven't noticed, the world is very nervous about these two loonies squaring off. It's patently obvious that Dubbyuh and his merry band have given little, if any, thought to the consequences of attacking Iran. It is their belief that a massive bombing campaign will cause the "common folk: in Iran to rise up against their fundamnetalist masters and overthrow the regime. Remember now, these are the same folks who predicted US troops would be welcomed with flowers and the eternal gratitude of the Iraqi people...That military operations in Iraq would be completed within "...six days, six weeks, certainly not six months..."...That Iraq's oil revenues would cover the costs of military operations. Well, we all know how far off the mark those prognostications were. So, how can anyone even begin to trust what these squirrely bastards are saying now? We can't.

Let's look at what would REALLY happpen in the aftermath of an attack on Iran. Firstly, purely in terms of economic caosts, how about oil and $90...$100...more per barrel? The purely economic shock of that would be enough to destabilize economies the world over. And, of course, there is the billions of dollars of US debt held by one of Iran's largest trading partners, China. I find it highly unlikely that China would simply sit still while one of their principle oil supplys was threatened. All CHina would have to do is call in their notes to send the US economy into a tailspin. If the Administration follows through with its plan to use "Bunker Buster" nukes, the human toll would be astronomical in terms of fallout, radiation sickness and civilian deaths. Something the Administration has clearly failed to take into account. Dubbyuh's protestation that the nuclear option was just "wild speculation" rang hollow, screechy and wholly false.

Then there's Israel, which could play the catspaw in any military action against Iran. Regardles of who strikes first, the US or Israel, there will be some 1.2 billion pissed off Muslims looking for revenge. And, unlike Iraq, Iran has the capability to strike back, hard, against US military and economic interests in the region and around the world. Through conventional military and terrorist tactics, they could drag the rest of the region into the fray. Beyond that, Russia and China might feel compelled to step in militarily. Can you say "World War III?"...I knew you could. No matter what happens, the US will be alone in this. Our only real ally in Europe, Britain, is already seriously questioning the sanity of the the Bush Administration in this attempt to repeat the failure of Iraq, as should we all.

And where is Congress in all of this? On vacation...raising money for the next election cycle. And that is where we, the People, need to make our voices heard. Vote anyone out of office who supports these crazy bastards and elect any reasonably sane politician, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Communist or Silly. It really doesn't matter at this point, just as long as they're willing to remember that their oath of office requires them to support and defend the Constitution. And they must also remember that their first loyalty and duty lies, not with party nor even the President, but with the Constitution. And if that duty calls them to hold this Administration accountable for its actions, even to the point of impeachment, then they will do so.

To be honest though, I'm not really expecting anything like that. We can consider ourselves lucky if they just provide a check to the neo-imperialists in the Bush White House. There's too much money floating around out there for anyone involved with the current system to make any serious changes. If we want to make any serious changes, we may have to do it ourselves...A new national convention.

How twisted do you have to be to come up with this?

"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl, could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life." - South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli

This from Bill Napoli to define just what would constitute an exception to South Dakota's new and repressive anti-abortion law.

1. Not just ANY rape will do...A woman must be brutally raped.

2. The victim must have been a virgin prior to the assault. Once a woman has had sex, she can, apparently, no longer be raped.

3. The victim must be religious. And which religion might that be? If I judge Mr Napoli correctly, it can't be anything other than that "Old time religion".

4. The victim must have been "saving herself for marriage". Will she have to prove this in court?

5. The victim must have been "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it". Apparently light sodomy just won't make the grade.

6. The victim must have been impregnated. It only stands to reason that one can't have an abortion unless one is pregnant.

Mr. Napoli also stated that in a case of "Simple rape", there should be no thought of ending a resulting pregnancy. Mr. Napoli has yet to define just what he meant by the term "simple rape".

What kind of twisted bastard comes up with stuff like this this? And why is he even claiming to be able to make medical decisions for women he hasn't even met? Lord knows, there are so many incompetent women running around out there that a man has to make thse decisions for them. It's a good thing that incompetent women like Condi Rice, Michelle Malkind, Madelyne Albright and all the women who are MD's and engineers and pilots, and, good heavens!, the female members of South Dakota's legislature have men like Bill Napoli around to make these important decisions for them.

On a more enlightened note, Cecelia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation, is working to establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation where South Dakota law has zero, zip, nada jurisdiction.

For information on how to support this effort, go HERE.

Above the Law...?

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

If you will notice, in these relevant sections of the U.S. Constitution, there is no mention made of the ability of the President or Executive Branch to make laws. That power lies solely with Congress. The interpretation of law lies, not with the President or the Executive Branch, but with the Judicial Branch. The only powers the President or Executive Branch has with respect to laws passed by Congress lies with signing them into law or vetoing them in toto, and the enforcement of said laws.

Yet President Bush, after signing the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act, issued a signing statement which seems to place the president above the law. Now, signing statements are a tool which has been commonly used for a number of years by presidents to voice their opinions on laws passed by Congress which contain provisions they find disagreeable, but insufficient to justify a veto of the bill. That's all they were used for until Dubbyuh swaggered into the White House.

The signing statement on PATRIOT Act renewal was quietly issued after all the cameras had been turned off...The press corps had been dismissed, and nobody was around to witness this bit of skullduggery. The signing statment, in short, says that Dubbyuh does not feel bound by the notification provisions of the Act which requires that the Executive Branch inform Congress of how the powers outlined in the Act were being used. This information could be witheld at his discretion, citing potential damage to "foreign relations or national security". Notice that "national security" is sucking hind teat to "foreign relations". Dubbyuh goes on to say that, "The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . ".

But, just what is this "unitary executive branch"? Again, looking back to the powers outined for the Executive Branch in Article 2, Sections 2&3, there is no mention of a "unitary executive branch". The root of this doctrine lies in what is known as the "coordinate construction approach", which states that, "...all three branches of the federal government have the power and duty to interpret the Constitution." But the Bush administration takes this notion to its extreme in asserting that this view allows him to actually over-rule or even go around the Legislative and Judicial branches. To quote Jennifer Van Bergen from her article for Findlaw's Writ:

This is a form of presidential rebellion against Congress and the courts, and possibly a violation of President Bush's oath of office, as well.

After all, can it be possible that that oath means that the President must uphold the Constitution only as he construes it - and not as the federal courts do?

And can it be possible that the oath means that the President need not uphold laws he simply doesn't like - even though they were validly passed by Congress and signed into law by him?

In short, the president has declared in this signing statement, and others, that he stands outside the law, and is a law unto himself. And this clearly stands outside the scope of Presidential powers as outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution and, in my uneducated opinion, falls within the realm of high crimes and misdemeanors as outlined in Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution.

If the President continues to go unchallenged by Congress in this arena, Congress may as well pack their bags and go home, as they will have allowed themselves to slip into irrelevance. Their services will no longer be needed, as the President has usurped the power of Congress to make laws. The Judicial branch may soon be relegated to the same status, as newly appointed Justice Samuel Alito is a long time supporter of just such unlimited presidential power.

This abuse of power by the Bush administration poses an unprecedented threat to the very rule of law withint this nation, and the Constitution upon which these laws rest. Such power gathered into the hands so few people, with no accoutability to speak of, represents a deadly threat to democracy and its institutions in this country.

Other Resources:

The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration - John Dean

Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement - Charlie Savage The Boston Globe

Alito & the Ken Lay Factor - Robert Parry

An Afghan Tale

In Afghanistan, Abdul Rahman, told his wife that he was a Christian. He then told his neighbors that he was a Christian, which brought shame to his household. He then told the police. At that point his future became very uncertain.

He is now standing trial for the "crime" of converting to Christianity. If found guilty, he could be killed. But wait, isn't this Afghanistan which US forces liberated from the grips of the Taliban? Weren't those rabidly fundamentalist Islamicists whipped naked and howling into the wilderness? Doesn't a democratically elected government rule in Afghanistan? Isn't Afghanistan's president a staunch ally of the US, and committed to democracy?

To answer: Yes. Yes, kind of...they're back. Not so much. Kinda, maybe.

US troops broke the Taliban's hold on power in Afghanistan, but only temporarily. They weren't able to finish the job because Junior decided his woody for Saddam took precedence over stabilizing Afghanistan.

After being drinven from power in 2001, the Taliban, and elements of Al Qaeda have been waging a guerilla war against the Afghan government.

As for democracy in Afghanistan, well, it's kinda tenuous. While the Taliban were driven from power, the equally fundamentalist warlords filled the vaccum they left behind. Instead of a budding deomcracy in the countryside, we have a fulminating Islamic republic cleaving to extrist interpretations of sharia law.

As for Hamid Kharzhai, Afghanistan's elected president, he is really little more than the Mayor of Kabul. He has little sway over the warlords and mullahs who control the surrounding countryside.

The upshot of all of this is that an innocent man will likely be killed. And why? Despite noises Dubbyuh made about being "deeply disturbed", no action followed. No high ranking official was dispatced to rattle the cages in Afghanistan and let the powers that be know we won't spend our blood and treasure to prop up an fundamentalist regime.

Of course, had our troops actually been allowed to finish the job properly, and a fraction of the bllions wasted in Iraq been spent rebuilding Afghanistan, this man would not be on trial for his life. Converting to another religion would not be a crime. Real democratic institutions respecting the rights of all of Afghanistan's people might actually be taking root. But Dubbyuh had other things on his mind.

The Son-0f-A-Bitch Knew...!

...That there were no WMD's in Iraq!

Iraqi Official, Paid by C.I.A., Gave Account of Weapons

Yet Bush, and his administration, lied this nation into a war in Iraq. Does this not qualify as a high crime against the Republic? Have they not violated their oaths of office? How many more impeachable offenses will the Bush administration have to commit before Congress does its duty and removes these sorry sons-of-bitches from office?

Having rubber-stamped every misbegotten policy this administration, members of Congress have very nearly relegated themselves to irrelevancy. So, does Bush have to be caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl before they act? Or would they just turn a blind eye to this, saying "They got what they deserved."? How much longer will Congress ignore the very real threat this Administration poses, not just to this country, but the world as a whole.

Three years...And counting.

Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: "It could last six days, six weeks.
I doubt six months."

Cheney, 3/16/03: "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months"

"The administration's top budget official [Mitch Daniels] estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion... Mr. Daniels declined to explain how budget officials had reached the $50 billion to $60 billion range for war costs..." [New York Times, 12/31/02]

“There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 3/16/03]

It is now three years into the war in Iraq, not 6 days, 6 weeks or six months.

As it stands now, nearly $350 billion has been appropriated for the war in Iraq, with $400 billion looming.

Some 2,300 US soldiers have been killed with the official tally of wounded exceeding 17.000.

No weapons of mass destruction, causus belli, have been found. The rationale for the war has morphed some 26 times.

On May 1st, 2003, George W. Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and, standing under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished", stated that major combat operations were completed.

Given the grim truths of Iraq and the unrealistic predictions offered by the Bush administration, can anything else they say about Iraq be trusted?

We, the people, were lied into this war...We have been fed lies in order to justify its continuation. The Administration has consistently failed to provide any sort of strategy for rebuilding Iraq and branded those who question them on this matter as "unpatriotic".

Just his weekend, Dick Cheney defended the pre-war assertions as "realistic", when nothing could be further divorced from reality. If anything, it shows just how divorced from reality the Bush administration is.

Just how many more impeachable offenses is it going to take before the members of this Administration ARE impeached?

An Independent Judiciary?

In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "...There is no liberty , if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers'...Liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other two." In case you weren't paying attention in American History while you were in high school, Alexander Hamilton was one of the framers of the Constitution, and this statement should give a clear indication that the origianl intent of the Founding Fathers was to establish an independent judiciary.

More recently, Woodrow Wilson wrote that government "...keeps its promises, or does not keep them, in its courts. For the individual, therefore...the struggle for constitutional government is a struggle for good laws, indeed, but also for intelligent, independent, and impartial courts."

In a November 7, 2005 speech before the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, Sandra Day O'Connor took Representative Tom DeLay and Senator John Cornyn to task for their attacks on the independence of the judiciary, stating:

"We have the power to make the president or Congress really, really angry," O'Connor told the lawyers. "In fact, if we do not make them mad some of the time, we probably aren't doing our jobs. Our effectiveness, therefore, relies on the knowledge that we won't be subject to retaliation for our acts."

An independent judiciary is, therefore, essential to maintaining the Rule of Law and the protection of the freedoms established by the Constitution.

Compare these views of the judiciary with those of Representative Tom DeLay(R-TX), Senator John Cornyn(R-TX) and Representative Tom Feeney(R-FL).

Regarding a death penalty case, Mr. DeLay threatened judges in the case with unspecified retribution, particularly citing Justice Anthony Kennedy for his citing of international law in the rendering of his opinion.

Senator Cornyn made an unwarranted connection between recent courtroom violence and "judicial activism" with his comment

"we seem to have run into a spate of courthouse violence recently in the news, whether the perception in some quarters in some occasions where judges are making political decisions, yet are unaccountable to the public, that it it builds up and builds up and builds up until some people engage in violence."

And Tom Feeney seems to believe that judges who make decision based on foreign precedents should be impeached. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, said that "...a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."

There are also those who hold that "judicial activism" serves to undermine the "will of the majority". Nothing could be further from the truth. An independent judiciary serves to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. When majority will imposes unconstitutional restrictions upon those in a minority, it is the duty of an independent judiciary to step in and strike down those restirctions. Had the Supreme Court not stepped in and ruled as it did in Brown v. Board of Education, the notion of "separate but equal" would have stood unchallenged. The Supreme Court's decision in this case ran contrary to the "will of the majority", and we are better for it today.

And then, we come to this:

Dear Dr. Dobson,

This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support in the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.

I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future. In the meantime, my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how much we appreciate all that you have done.

Sincerely Yours,
Samuel Alito

(emphasis mine)

The only trust placed in Justice Alito is the trust that he will exercise his power in an impartial manner, rather than according to the dictates of personal or outside interests when rendering his decisions. His letter to James Dobson seems to indicate that this will not be the case. He already feels beholden to outside interests thus his impartiality is suspect, at best.

The attacks by the more authoritarian elements of the Republican Party represent a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary. In their attempts to limit court jurisdiction, appoint only party ideologues to the bench, and threaten the removal of those judges with the temerity to defy the Republican right-wing threaten the very rule of law in this country. This undermining of the rule of law is but the begining of a slide down the slippery slope towards fascism, totalitarianism and the death of the Republic.

The Reigns of Power

In the highly polarized political atmosphere we see across the nation today, it is more important than ever to be certain that the hands holding the reigns of power are the proper hands.

Some would say that it is difficult to discern just who is suitable to take up the responsibilities of government. In actuality, it is a simple thing.

Those unworthy to hold the political power they seek to hold, or already hold, can been seen by their actions...Their words are irrelevant,and are little more than an attempt to hide their actions behind their words. They promote fear and hysteria in order to secure their grip on power. They use what power they have to shroud their actions in secrecy and discourage inquiry into their actions. The world is viewed in terms of overly simplistic black-and-white terms. They seek to displace blame for their actions on others. The thought of accountability for their actions never seems to arise or, if it does, it is but a shadowy movement on the periphery of their consciousness.

These actions are the hallmark of President Bush, his administration and its supporters. We need look no further than the shifting rationales for the invasion of Iraq...The secrecy shrouded meetings haeld by Dick Cheney to set U.S. energy policy...The failure of the White House to co-operate with the 9/11 Comission and the grand jury investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert operative...The President's refusal to accept the grim realities on the ground in Iraq...These, and many more instances show just how disconnected from reality this administration is and how poorly they were equiped to take up the reigns of power.

President Bush, his administration and its supporters have consistently failed to accept the responsibility imposed upon them by the power they hold. And that is the key to good governance...The responsible use of power. In their hubris, they have forgotten that they serve the people, not vice-versa. They grasp the reigns of power, not gently, but with a death grip born of the fear of losing all that they have gained. But it is only fitting that they do lose everything, as they have profited at the expense of countless others and sacrificed the lives of too many of our service men and women on the bloody altar of their blind ambition.

These small, petty, narrow-minded, mean-spirited men did not earn the right to hold the reigns of power. Instead, they snuck in, like thieves in the night, and took them. And we are to blame. Freedom requires vigilance, and our vigilance faltered. We slept, and as we slept the reigns of power were taken from our limp hands by these thieves. It is not, however, too late yet to wrest them back. Demand an accounting by you Congressional representatives. Remind them, in no uncertain terms, that their first loyalty lies not with their party, nor even the President. Their first loyalty lies with the Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend when they took their oath of office. Remind them that if they fail to act in the face of an increasingly imperious and imperial presidency, they may as well pack their bags and go home...They will have rendered themselve irrelevant. Remind them too that if they fail to act, they may find themselves packing their bags anyways...Midterm elections are coming up.

A Letter to Senator Mike DeWine

Senator DeWine:

Earlier this week you, and the rest of the Republicans on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, decided that loyalty to party and President outweigh the Constitution and federal law. By declining to launch an investigation into the clearly illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying program initiated by President Bush you abdicated your responsibility and duty to oversee the actions of the executive branch.

This is but the latest, and most egregious, of Congressional lapses in oversight. If you are willing to simply rubber-stamp the policies of the executive branch, regardless of their legality or constitutionality, you and the rest of Congress may as well pack your bags and go home...You have rendered yourselves irrelevant by your own unconstitutional ceding of congressional authority to an increasingly imperious and ever secretive executive branch. The President can do as he pleases, when he pleases by what amounts to royal fiat. And none will gainsay him.

Why do you think the Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of powers? They knew that when too much power was concentrated in one set of hands, despotism would soon follow. By your actions, you and the rest of the lick-spittles in Congress, are laying the foundation for that despotism. If you continue to abdicate your oversight responsibilites, the Republic will perish with nary a whimper from those whose duty it is to protect it...And the terrorists will have won.

A Letter to Senator Pat Roberts

Senator Roberts:

Yesterday, you shamefully abdicated your oversight responsibilities and rubber-stamped President Bush's illegal and un-Constitutional domestic spying program. If you, and your Republican colleagues, are unwilling to do your duty and reign in these abuses of presidential power, you may as well pack your bags and go home as you are no longer needed. The President is a law unto himself, and being able to do as he wishes, when he wishes, he need worry no longer about interference from a spineless Congress unwilling to do its duty.

When you took your oath of office, you swore to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In shirking your oversight duties, you have foresworn that oath. The Republic is dead...Long live the President.

Cheney’s Got a Gun

(Sung to the Aerosmith tune “Janie’s Got a Gun”)

Dum, dum, dum, dummy what have you done
Dum, dum, dum, it's the sound of your gun
Dum, dum, dum, dummy what have you done
Dum, dum, dum, it's the sound, it's the sound...
Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah....

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His whole world's being spun
Look at those news crawls run
Oh what did he do
Where’d the press go to

Cheney declined to be tested
Was there enough oxygen gettin to his brain
But Harry, he wasn’t even runnin’
Now that Cheney's Got A Gun
He ain't never gonna be the same

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His dogs, they knew to run
But Harry thought it was all just fun
Now he knows that it ain’t true
What did the dummy do

He thought it was a quail
”Oh shit!” his friends did wail
The sneer remained in place
Until Harry took it in the face
His pants now bear the stain

Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn

Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn
Stonewall, stonewall the press

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His dogs, they knew to run
But Harry thought it was all just fun
Now he knows that it ain’t true
And Cheney, he’s turnin’ blue.

Did they have drinks that went down easy
Or was he just a little queasy
Cause his ticker, it just ain’t right
That pacemaker is just a fright
He ain't never gonna take the blame

Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn
Stonewall, stonewall the press
Damn, damn, damn, damn, damn
Stonewall, stonewall the press

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
The story, it’s bein’ spun

Cheney's Got A Gun
Cheney's Got A Gun
His dogs, they knew to run (Dummy, dummy what did you do)
'Cause Cheney's Got A Gun (Yeah and that’s a fright)
Cheney's Got A Gun (That vein in his temple throbbin’)
But Harry thought it was all just fun (Now he’s in ICU)
And Cheney, he’s turnin’ blue
The story it’s bein’ spun
Cheney’s got a gun

If You're Innocent...

...Then you don't have anything to hide. Or so goes the argument made by many of those who support Dubbyuh's domestic spying program. So, let's look at a logical extension of this argument.

If they're innocent of any wrong-doing or malfeasence, there is no reason for the Bush administration to withhold information about its response to Hurricane Katrina.

If they're innocent of any wrong-doing, there is no reason for the Bush administration not to turn over the name(s)of the individual(s) responsible for blowing Valerie Plam's cover. And let's not forget that this led to the rolling up of a program to indterdict the transfer of weapons technology...a program vital to national security.

If he is innocent of any wrong-doing, there is no reason for Dick Cheney to withold documents pertaining to his energy policy task force. As it was he fought tooth and nail to keep those documents secret. What's he got to hide if he's done nothing wrong?

If they're innocent of any wrong-doing, why did the Bush administration stonewall the 9-11 Commission? After all, they've nothing to hide...or do they?

If they've done nothing wrong, then the Bush administration will have no difficulty laying out all of the information leading to the decision to go to war with Iraq. But since they seem unwilling to do this, it leaves one wondering what they've got to hide.

If we the people are to be subjected to continuous and ongoing surveillance...If we the people are expected to surrender our right to privacy...Doesn't seem apropriate that our elected leaders and their staff be subjected to the same level of scrutiny? Apparently not. They seem to hold themselves to be above the law and in a nation of laws, this is not just acceptable, it is intolerable.

Just when they thought they could forget about this turd in the punchbowl...

...Up it pops to the surface. The story, in the Feb 9th The New York Times tells the tale of Scooter Libby. Apparently, Scooter rolled on his for boss, Darth Cheney. He stated, under oath and before a grand jury, that he had permission from his "superiors" to leak calssified information in order to build support for Dubbyuh's dirty little war in Iraq. Coincidentaly enough, this was at about the same time he leaked Valerie Plame's name to Bob Novak. But then, there are no coincidences in politics, especially with the buch of vindictive bastards currently occupying the White House.

It requires no imagination at all to discern just who those "superiors" might be. The first one that comes to mind is...could it be?...DICK CHENEY! It simply boggles the mind. And the whole "Plamegate" episode has Turdblossom's fingerprints all over it, which is why he's still under the scrutiny of Patrick Fitzgerald.

With this revelation in Scooter's testimony, the possibility of Dick Vader being hauled into the dock to testify under oath seems very real. Although one simply can't imagine him making it past the couthouse metal detectors what with all of his artificial parts.

With the wheels coming off the Bush administrations cart, I can't help but feel a certain degree of schadefreud at their straights. I also feel a rather strong sense of outrage at a Congress which has failed to hold these sorry-assed rat-bastards accoutable for their crimes. But as Mark Twain said, so many years ago,

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress.

Some things never change.

Crocodile Tears

After the non-event that was Alberto Gonzalez's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the White House has been doing its best to bury the whole issue. But, like a rotting corpse buried in the basement, it keeps coming back to haunt them.

Heather Wilson (R-NM), issued a statement today expressing her reservations and concerns regarding the legality of Dubbyuh's domestic spying program. SHe also stated that it was high time for the Administration to fully brief House and Senate intelligence committees on the program.

Juxtapose this with Dick Vader's...er...Cheney's grotesque mockery of the Constitution insistence on unlimited presidential power on "The News Hour with Jim Leher". Here, Cheney essentially dismissed the whole of Congress as being, not only irrelevant, but also as a threat to national security. This being the case then, members of Congress should simply pack their bags and go home. Our Maximum Presidente will see to everything.

Given that the Bush administration hasn't much credibility, on the streets or anywhere else for that matter, we should take with a grain of salt any statements made by its members regarding the honourable intentions behind the domestic spying program. Lacking any outside oversight, of any kind, the insistence by Alberto Gonzalez, and others, that the intercepts are "narrowly targeted" is utterly meaningless.

Couple that with the flimsy grasp that Administration spokes-persons have on the Constitution and they have even shakier grounds on which to build their house of cards. In his January 23rd appearance before the National Press Club, General Michael Hayden (deputy director of National Intelligence with the Office of National Intelligence) displayed a remarkable degree of ignorance regarding Fourth Amendment protections. The Fourth Amendment clearly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

General Hayden stated:

"...it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me -- and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one -- what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is "reasonable." And we believe -- I am convinced that we are lawful because what it is we're doing is reasonable."

Ahhh well, The Constitution is just a "...goddamned piece of paper..." anyways.

It seems to me, though, that the concerns raised by some Republican lawmakers ring hollow. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), among others, has often voiced his concern over Dubbyuh's domestic spying program. Yet at Monday's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee he voted, along with the rest of the Republicans on the committee, to allow Alberto Gonzalez to give his testimony without being sworn in. Were they really that afraid AG Gonzalez would perjure himself? It seems so. After all, he lied at his confirmation hearing about the "hypothetical" issue of illegal domestic spying by the president.

Indeed, the concerns of some Republican lawmakers regarding this matter are simply window dressing. They have forgotten that their first duty lies, not with their party or even the president. Their first duty lies with the Constituion, which their oath of office require they uphold "...against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...". They weep copious crocodile tears as they rend the Constitution to shreds.

If not now, when...?

While it may seem to be ancient history and a moot point at this time, new information regarding the Bush Administration's run up to the war in Iraq has been reported in Britain's "The Guardian".

A newly released memo regarding a meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair on January 31st, 2003 clearly indicates that Bush intended to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not there was a second UN vote on the matter or failure of weapons inspectors to find any WMD's. In short, the invasion of Iraq was a fait accompli.It was a done deal, and the US was going to forge ahead with this ill-concieved and illegal war of aggression. And this with the full support of Blair, regardless of the illegalities involved.

This is relevant now in that Bush is asking for another $120 BILLION to fund the war in Iraq, bringing the total spent there to more than $350 Billion. Despite administration claims to the contrary, there is no end in sight.

With social safety-net programs being cut to the point of bankrupting them...With an ongoing program of fiscally disasterous tax-cuts benefitting only the wealthiest of Americans...With ongoing borrowing from foreign banks, especially China...it seems our greatest enemy lies, not beyond our borders, but within them. And that enemy sits within the White House. Our national security is now at risk as it has never been before. All that our foreign creditors need do is refuse to buy any more US debt and the US economy will come tumbling down like the house of cards it has become under this administration.

Had a foreign figure done this he would be considered a threat to our nation and hunted down. Had any other US citizen done this they would be branded a traitor and be hanged. But now that the Republicans control all three branches of government can we expect that the architects of this disaster within the Bush Administration will be held accountable? All current evidence says they will not. This Republican controlled Congress has so consistently failed in its oversight duties that there will be no accounting until they are replaced. And if they they continue to fail in theier oversight duties, then Congress may as well pack their bags and return home for they will have reduced themselves to irrelevancy. The President can do as he chooses whenever he chooses and there are none to gainsay him. The Republic will have died with nary a whimper from those whose duty it was to protect it from an increasingly imperious and imperial Presidency.

With all that is coming to light regarding the moral bankruptcy and utter and absolute corrution of this administration, if Congress will not act now to hold its members accountable for their actions, when will they?

It is time...Long past time...

...For Congress to act.

On December 17th, 2005 President George W. Bush, in a nationally televised address, confessed to high crimes and misdemeanors by authorizing the NSA to begin domestic spying operations against US citizens without a warrant.

Contrary to the Administration's protests, there is no mention of any such authority contained within S.J.RES.23 of September 14th 2001. Contrary to the Administration's protests, they had all of the information in hand prior to 9/11...They simply chose to ignore it. Remember the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S."? The pieces of the puzzle were all in hand, bureaucratic incompetence and indifference kept them from being assembled. There was no lack of information.

President Bush has wilfully ridden roughshod over the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has done violence to the letter and the spirit of the law. And he continues, unrepentantly, to do so. He had all of the legal authority he required to conduct domestic surveillance under FISA, yet that was not enough. He ignored the FISA court, which has only declined four warrants since its inception, and declared himself and his administration to be above the law and could do as he, and they, see fit in pursuit of an unending "war against terrorism". These tactics are not those of the leader of the oldest extant democracy in the world, they are the actions of a despot.

It is now incumbent members of the House and Senate to remember that their first loyalty is, not to their party, nor even to the President. Their first loyalty is to the Constitution which they have all sworn to uphold against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is, therefore, incumbent upon all Representatives in the House, Republican and Democrat, to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry in response to the gross abuse of power the President's domestic spying program represents. It is then incubent upon Republican and Democratic members of the Senate to act upon this resolution of inquiry and begin impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush, et al. Congress has utterly failed in its oversight capacity to this point. If they are not willing to do their duty in this matter, they may as well pack up and go home as Congress has no further use in the face of an increasingly imperious presidency.The President will have become the law unto himself, and the Consttitution will be little more than a "...goddamned piece of paper...". The Republic and its dream will die, and Congress will have stood quietly by as it happened...even has they held the power to stop it.

Two Wrongs...

...Don't make a right. Yet that is exactly what right-wing pundits are doing when they point to Bill Clinton's alleged use of warrantless searches in 1995. I say 'alleged', as Clinton did sign an exectuive order which states,

Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

(Full Text of U.S.C. 1822 found HERE)

Section 2 states, unequivocally, that the AG can authorize physical searches without a warrant "...for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information...." so long as the premises on which the search is conducted and all information gathered therein, are used "exclusively" by a foreign power.

It should be noted that in 2004 a "lone wolf" amendment was added to FISA. A 'lone'wolf is defined as a non-US person who engages in, or plans for,international acts of terrorism.

If Clinton did engage in an abuse of power as Bush has already admitted to doing, why didn't the Republican controlled Congress begin impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors? They could have surely gotten more traction out of such a proceeding than they did with consensual sex in the Oval Office, and he would have richly deserved whatever punishment was meted out by Congress

The upshot of this is that the President, under Title III and FISA can order warrantless searches against non-US citizens. The president does not, however, have carte blanche to order domestic surveillance of US citizens on US soil without a warrant. The Constitution trumps presidential perogative on this matter at every turn. And for those who have forgotten, the Constitution was established to protect US citizens from the abuses of power by the government, such as those perpetrated by Bush, regardless of the circumstances.

The remarkable lack of imagination shown by the conservative talking heads as they continue to point their grubby fingers at Clinton is indicative of just how indefensible Bush's actions are in this matter. Their shrill whining about how "Clinton did it too!" are nothing more than a vain attempt to distract from Bush's sins. But, Bush, having confessed to high crimes and misdemeanors in a nationally televised address makes it very difficult to put any polish on that turd. And if Clinton engaged in such an abuse of power, he should be have to pay the price. But a Republican controlled Congress seems to have chosen to ignore that particular sin, if it ever happened at all.

A sad affair indeed...

On December 17, 2005, President Bush, in essence, confessd to high crimes and misdemeanors in a nationally televised speech. These high crimes and misdemeanors involve the authorization of domestic surveillance operations to be conducted by the NSA.

Such operations, however are violations of federal law unless conducted under the auspices of Title III and FISA which,

“shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire and oral communications may be conducted.”

In other words, in the absence of Congressional action (in the form of legislation), President Bush lacked the authority to order such operations. Despite Administration claims that S.J. Resolution 23 of 9/14/01, authorizing military action in Afghanistan, grants the President the authority to conduct such operations, there is no language contained in the resolution that may even be construed as granting such authority.

These actions are an affront to, and violation of, the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution which states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

.

This abuse of power by President Bush, for that is what it is...no point in mincing words...If left unchallenged and unchecked, will be be our undoing. Previous actions of this Administration have sorely tested the Cosntitutional underpinnings of this Republic. If these abuses of power are not stopped...now...the Constitution will not be worth the match it would take to burn it. After all, President Bush has, by some accounts, described the Constitution as nothing more than "...A goddamned piece of paper...".

The truly appaling thing though, is not the brazen manner in which the President has attempted to place himself above the law, but that it seems so many will so cravenly acquiesce to this unwarranted and illegal invasion of their lives. Particularly when so many of those individuals have decried the intrusion of "big government" into their lives in the past. This craven acceptance of unbridled power is an insult to the sacrifices made in defense of liberty by every American from the Revolutionary War to the present day. And to those who willingly, even cheerfully, accept this abuse of power, I say, "Line up. Your yokes and shackles await you."