It's 'Hard Work' Getting all these Lies Straight
John Bolton, Dubya's nominee for ambassador to the United Nations didn't 'recall' being interviewed by the State Department inspector general about his role in fabricating the 'Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa' hoax that Dubya lied about in his 2003 SOTU address.
As part of the Senate confirmation process Bolton was asked to fill out a questionnaire and one of the questions was, had he been "interviewed or asked for information in connection with any administrative investigation, including that of an inspector general, during the last five years", and he answered 'no'.
Well, the problem with that is he had been interviewed by the State Department's IG less than 12 months earlier. But you know, you got to give Bolton the benefit of doubt, it's really hard to keep so many lies straight and 12 months after all, is quite a long time.
When Scott McClellan was asked at Friday's White House press briefing about Bolton's brief lapse of memory he replied, "I think the State Department addressed that last night, and it was John Bolton who pointed that out".
Well Scotty, that's not exactly the way it happened either. You see... it was Joe Biden who wrote Condi Rice a letter pointing out that Mr. Bolton had in fact lied on his questionnaire to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bolton didn't admit anything until Biden called him on it.
John Bolton is not only an embarrassment, but also a liar. But, I guess when you think about it, he'll fit right in with this administration.
He just has to work a little harder on getting all his lies straight; which should only require a few sit-downs with 'Turd-Blossom'.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050729-5.html
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
CAFTA
Melissa Bean D-Illinois
Jim Cooper D-Tennessee
Henry Cuellar D-Texas
Norm Dicks D-Washington
Ruben Hinojosa D-Texas
William Jefferson D-Louisiana
Jim Matheson D-Utah
Gregory Meeks D-New York
Dennis Moore D-Kansas
Jim Moran D-Virginia
Solomon Ortiz D-Texas
Ike Skelton D-Missouri
Vic Snyder D-Arkansas
John Tanner D-Tennessee
Edolphus Towns D-New York
Jim Cooper D-Tennessee
Henry Cuellar D-Texas
Norm Dicks D-Washington
Ruben Hinojosa D-Texas
William Jefferson D-Louisiana
Jim Matheson D-Utah
Gregory Meeks D-New York
Dennis Moore D-Kansas
Jim Moran D-Virginia
Solomon Ortiz D-Texas
Ike Skelton D-Missouri
Vic Snyder D-Arkansas
John Tanner D-Tennessee
Edolphus Towns D-New York
PROGRESSIVE THOUGHT WINNING OUT OVER CONSERVATIVES
Progressive Thought Overtaking Regressive Rightwing Bible-Thumping Luddites
Looks like Dr. Frist, after almost being laughed out of the Senate with his ridiculous diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, is changing his tune a little (and pissing off those who think something the size of a . is a 'baby') and going against Dubya and his threat to veto federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Now all that needs to be done is to convince 22 of 55 Republican Senators to override Dubya's threatened veto and go with science and not with ignorance.
It's easy to see what the Republicans contribute to this country when you realize it's not a 'given' that 40% of them will go with modern technology over their shallow-thinking base; the so-called 'religious' right. That's astounding.
Looks like Dr. Frist, after almost being laughed out of the Senate with his ridiculous diagnosis of Terri Schiavo, is changing his tune a little (and pissing off those who think something the size of a . is a 'baby') and going against Dubya and his threat to veto federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Now all that needs to be done is to convince 22 of 55 Republican Senators to override Dubya's threatened veto and go with science and not with ignorance.
It's easy to see what the Republicans contribute to this country when you realize it's not a 'given' that 40% of them will go with modern technology over their shallow-thinking base; the so-called 'religious' right. That's astounding.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Guest Post - Political Party Strength
This is guest blogger Fourputtinski coming to you from a blue state.
Check out this link from Wikipedia if you would like a breakdown of political parties holdings across the country.
The results may surprise you.
Check out this link from Wikipedia if you would like a breakdown of political parties holdings across the country.
The results may surprise you.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Guest Post - List of Political Parties In The United States
This is Fourputtinski guest-posting while our host is on vacation.
Ever wonder how many political parties there are in the United States?
If so, check out this link from Wikipedia.
Friday, July 15, 2005
SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE
FREEDOM 'OF' OR FREEDOM 'FROM'
When Thomas Jefferson died he left specific instructions as to what would be written on his tombstone. No mention of his presidency, of his vice-presidency, of his being a member of the Continental Congress, of him being the first Secretary of State, of his governorship of Virginia and no mention of his ministry of France. He wanted three things to be listed on his tombstone. The three things; his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his founding of the University of Virginia and his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779 but it was James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', who secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature seven years later in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both Jefferson and Madison considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives.
Please read the following and decide for yourself if these 'founding fathers' were more concerned with protecting religion or protecting the people FROM religion when they wrote this and when the 1st amendment of the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Keep in mind; this, the Virginia Statute, was at a time shortly after the ouster of the repressive Anglican Church of the royal government. Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Draft for a Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia (1779).
by Thomas Jefferson
S e c t i o n I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
S e c t i o n II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
S e c t i o n III.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
When Thomas Jefferson died he left specific instructions as to what would be written on his tombstone. No mention of his presidency, of his vice-presidency, of his being a member of the Continental Congress, of him being the first Secretary of State, of his governorship of Virginia and no mention of his ministry of France. He wanted three things to be listed on his tombstone. The three things; his authorship of the Declaration of Independence, his founding of the University of Virginia and his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1779 but it was James Madison, the 'Father of the Constitution', who secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature seven years later in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both Jefferson and Madison considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives.
Please read the following and decide for yourself if these 'founding fathers' were more concerned with protecting religion or protecting the people FROM religion when they wrote this and when the 1st amendment of the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Keep in mind; this, the Virginia Statute, was at a time shortly after the ouster of the repressive Anglican Church of the royal government. Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
Draft for a Bill to Establish Religious Freedom in Virginia (1779).
by Thomas Jefferson
S e c t i o n I.
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
S e c t i o n II.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
S e c t i o n III.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
GIVE HIM A PASS
Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, Republican Congressman from San Diego is now under federal investigation for his shady dealings with a defense contractor. Cunningham, an 8-term congressman announced yesterday that he would not run for re-election.
As some of you know, I'm not generally one to sympathize with Republicans but in this case, Duke Cunningham has deserved a 'pass' on federal prosecution. Why? Duke Cunningham is a war hero. He was the Navy's highest decorated pilot during Vietnam-earning the Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals and a the Purple Heart. And, he was the first 'Ace' in the Vietnam War.
So set him and his political career out to pasture, drop the investigations, let him retire with dignity and pay him back for what he did. He deserves a pass.
As some of you know, I'm not generally one to sympathize with Republicans but in this case, Duke Cunningham has deserved a 'pass' on federal prosecution. Why? Duke Cunningham is a war hero. He was the Navy's highest decorated pilot during Vietnam-earning the Navy Cross, 2 Silver Stars, 15 Air Medals and a the Purple Heart. And, he was the first 'Ace' in the Vietnam War.
So set him and his political career out to pasture, drop the investigations, let him retire with dignity and pay him back for what he did. He deserves a pass.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
GUMPSPEAK
Only a Republican could brag about a $333 BILLION deficit.
"It's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies, are working," George (Forest Gump with a trust fund) Bush - 7/13/05
"We got to this point largely because of the president's pro-growth policies, especially tax relief," White House budget director, Joshua B. Bolten
(TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN-LAST YEAR FEDERAL REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GNP WAS THE LOWEST SINCE 1959!)
Republicans, the party that has left this country in financial ruin is now bragging about "$333 deficits"!. When Bill Clinton left office four short years ago, there was a $127 BILLION SURPLUS and now you have Gump and the Republican controlled Congress wanting people to stand up a cheer them for the $460 BILLION dollars swing. (For you Republicans without your calculators handy-you take the 333 and add 127)
For those of you who want to learn just how 'conservative' Republicans have NOT been over the last 25 years, see a portion (below) of an earlier post done on Koolaidsubliminal on June 25th, that proves that if you want to include yourself as a 'fiscal conservative', than you're living a lie if you call yourself a Republican. The term 'conservative republican' is an oxymoron, morons!
WHAT ECONOMISTS SAY ABOUT YESTERDAY'S NEWS
"Economists at Goldman Sachs, in a research note on Wednesday, said it agreed with the administration forecast for this year but not for the longer term. The main reasons, it said, were that the jump in tax revenue stemmed largely from one-time gains in the stock market and the elimination of a temporary tax break last year for businesses to invest in new equipment".
The FACTS about 'unconservative' Republicans posted here from 6/25/05
FEDERAL SPENDING
Many people refer to Ronald Reagan as a 'fiscal conservative' and nothing could be further from the truth. In Reagan's 8 years in office his average increase in federal spending was 6.8%. Compare that to Bill Clinton whose average increase was only 3.55%.
When told this many people attempt to excuse Reagan because of the 'Cold War' spending but that's factually incorrect. If military spending had increased only by the rate of inflation during Reagan's 8 years in office, his average increase in spending would still have been 5.76%, still much higher than Bill Clinton.
An often-repeated fallacy is that Bill Clinton cut military spending and that is how he held down federal spending. Military spending was $292 billion per year when he came into office and it was $306 billion in his last year in office. They obviously confuse his record with George Bush the Elder, who in his 4 years in office reduced military spending from $304 billion to the $292 billion mentioned above.
DEFICITS AND THE NATION'S DEBT
Ronald Reagan was a miserable failure when it came to balancing the federal budget with an average yearly deficit of nearly $177 billion and adding $1.4 TRILLION to the nation's debt during his two terms in office. Another fallacy of this era that is usually spouted by Reagan-revisionists was that the "Democrats in Congress made him do it", which is totally ridiculous since the Senate had a Republican majority from 1981 to 1987.
Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton's administration is the only one since Dwight Eisenhower to balance a budget and they balanced four in a row. The amount added to the debt during Clinton's two terms? None. In fact, the cumulative total of his eight budgets was a SURPLUS of $62 billion.
The two George Bush's? If you think you're a conservative and a republican, you don't want to know. But I am going to tell you anyway. George HW averaged deficits of $259 billion a year and George W has averaged an astronomical $328 billion in his first four. Together the two Bush's have added $2.35 TRILLION to the nation's debt in their combined eight years in office.
So that's Reagan's $1.4 TRILLION and the Bush's $2.35 TRILLION for a grand total of $3.75 TRILLION in debt from three presidents that you want to be called 'conservative'?
Keep in mind; the $3.75 trillion is just the principle. The nation's debt is currently $7.7 trillion and all but about a trillion is directly attributed to these three 'conservatives' (sic).
Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, and when he left the nation's debt was $789 billion-now it's $7.7 TRILLION. Bill Clinton didn't add a dime to that debt, so guess who is responsible for almost $7 TRILLION of it? Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush. Three Republicans and definitely NOT fiscal conservatives!
When you read Koolaidsubliminal, you educate yourself-even if it's not what you want to hear or learn and it exposes all your heroes as the liars they are. You get the FACTS, not hyperbole here.
You're welcome, Yellow Dog.
"It's a sign that our tax relief plan, our pro-growth policies, are working," George (Forest Gump with a trust fund) Bush - 7/13/05
"We got to this point largely because of the president's pro-growth policies, especially tax relief," White House budget director, Joshua B. Bolten
(TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN-LAST YEAR FEDERAL REVENUE AS A PERCENTAGE OF GNP WAS THE LOWEST SINCE 1959!)
Republicans, the party that has left this country in financial ruin is now bragging about "$333 deficits"!. When Bill Clinton left office four short years ago, there was a $127 BILLION SURPLUS and now you have Gump and the Republican controlled Congress wanting people to stand up a cheer them for the $460 BILLION dollars swing. (For you Republicans without your calculators handy-you take the 333 and add 127)
For those of you who want to learn just how 'conservative' Republicans have NOT been over the last 25 years, see a portion (below) of an earlier post done on Koolaidsubliminal on June 25th, that proves that if you want to include yourself as a 'fiscal conservative', than you're living a lie if you call yourself a Republican. The term 'conservative republican' is an oxymoron, morons!
WHAT ECONOMISTS SAY ABOUT YESTERDAY'S NEWS
"Economists at Goldman Sachs, in a research note on Wednesday, said it agreed with the administration forecast for this year but not for the longer term. The main reasons, it said, were that the jump in tax revenue stemmed largely from one-time gains in the stock market and the elimination of a temporary tax break last year for businesses to invest in new equipment".
The FACTS about 'unconservative' Republicans posted here from 6/25/05
FEDERAL SPENDING
Many people refer to Ronald Reagan as a 'fiscal conservative' and nothing could be further from the truth. In Reagan's 8 years in office his average increase in federal spending was 6.8%. Compare that to Bill Clinton whose average increase was only 3.55%.
When told this many people attempt to excuse Reagan because of the 'Cold War' spending but that's factually incorrect. If military spending had increased only by the rate of inflation during Reagan's 8 years in office, his average increase in spending would still have been 5.76%, still much higher than Bill Clinton.
An often-repeated fallacy is that Bill Clinton cut military spending and that is how he held down federal spending. Military spending was $292 billion per year when he came into office and it was $306 billion in his last year in office. They obviously confuse his record with George Bush the Elder, who in his 4 years in office reduced military spending from $304 billion to the $292 billion mentioned above.
DEFICITS AND THE NATION'S DEBT
Ronald Reagan was a miserable failure when it came to balancing the federal budget with an average yearly deficit of nearly $177 billion and adding $1.4 TRILLION to the nation's debt during his two terms in office. Another fallacy of this era that is usually spouted by Reagan-revisionists was that the "Democrats in Congress made him do it", which is totally ridiculous since the Senate had a Republican majority from 1981 to 1987.
Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton's administration is the only one since Dwight Eisenhower to balance a budget and they balanced four in a row. The amount added to the debt during Clinton's two terms? None. In fact, the cumulative total of his eight budgets was a SURPLUS of $62 billion.
The two George Bush's? If you think you're a conservative and a republican, you don't want to know. But I am going to tell you anyway. George HW averaged deficits of $259 billion a year and George W has averaged an astronomical $328 billion in his first four. Together the two Bush's have added $2.35 TRILLION to the nation's debt in their combined eight years in office.
So that's Reagan's $1.4 TRILLION and the Bush's $2.35 TRILLION for a grand total of $3.75 TRILLION in debt from three presidents that you want to be called 'conservative'?
Keep in mind; the $3.75 trillion is just the principle. The nation's debt is currently $7.7 trillion and all but about a trillion is directly attributed to these three 'conservatives' (sic).
Jimmy Carter left office in 1981, and when he left the nation's debt was $789 billion-now it's $7.7 TRILLION. Bill Clinton didn't add a dime to that debt, so guess who is responsible for almost $7 TRILLION of it? Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush. Three Republicans and definitely NOT fiscal conservatives!
When you read Koolaidsubliminal, you educate yourself-even if it's not what you want to hear or learn and it exposes all your heroes as the liars they are. You get the FACTS, not hyperbole here.
You're welcome, Yellow Dog.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH
Who's lying? Republican lying spinmasters or a CIA operative who knows Valerie Plame very well? You know the answer.
By Larry Johnson - TPM Cafe
"Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her".
Karl Rove committed an act of treason when he not only outed Valerie Plame but he blew the cover for her overseas contacts as well. Contacts that were helping the U.S. in finding WMD's. If some of you want to defend that type of behavior just so you can defend the Republicans-go ahead. It doesn't surprise me one bit and it's exactly the type of person I've known you to be all along anyway.
By Larry Johnson - TPM Cafe
"Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her".
Karl Rove committed an act of treason when he not only outed Valerie Plame but he blew the cover for her overseas contacts as well. Contacts that were helping the U.S. in finding WMD's. If some of you want to defend that type of behavior just so you can defend the Republicans-go ahead. It doesn't surprise me one bit and it's exactly the type of person I've known you to be all along anyway.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
REPUBLICANS vs. THE FACTS
As usual, Republicans play lip service to our nation's security
Below are the description and the vote on Senate Amendment 220 that a Democrat sponsored to restore funding that Republicans had cut from the FY06 Homeland Security budget. It passed the Senate by a vote of 63-37 and the 37 Senators who voted 'no' are listed below. Do you see anything about the 37 Senators who voted 'no' that would give you any indication of which party is serious about the security of our nation?
Senate Amendment 220
To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
NAYs ---37
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Do you see any 'no' votes from Democrat Senators?
The total restored to homeland security was $855 million. Keep in mind, George Bush is spending that same amount, $855 million, every 2 1/2 days in his made-up 'war on terrorism' debacle in Iraq. Every 2 1/2 days!
Along with that, the House of Representatives proposed $150 million in rail and transit security funding for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee (read-REPUBLICANS again) proposed cutting related grants for fiscal 2006 by $50 million to $100 million. $50 million? That's what Bush is wasting every 3 1/2 hours in Iraq.
As usual, Republicans are liars, pretenders and downright fools who talk a big game on security. And as usual it is Democrats who are fighting them tooth and nail to deliver on national security. Republicans can lie and spin all they want but Democrats have the facts and the voting record to back their argument.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00064
Below are the description and the vote on Senate Amendment 220 that a Democrat sponsored to restore funding that Republicans had cut from the FY06 Homeland Security budget. It passed the Senate by a vote of 63-37 and the 37 Senators who voted 'no' are listed below. Do you see anything about the 37 Senators who voted 'no' that would give you any indication of which party is serious about the security of our nation?
Senate Amendment 220
To protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
NAYs ---37
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Do you see any 'no' votes from Democrat Senators?
The total restored to homeland security was $855 million. Keep in mind, George Bush is spending that same amount, $855 million, every 2 1/2 days in his made-up 'war on terrorism' debacle in Iraq. Every 2 1/2 days!
Along with that, the House of Representatives proposed $150 million in rail and transit security funding for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2005. The Senate Appropriations Committee (read-REPUBLICANS again) proposed cutting related grants for fiscal 2006 by $50 million to $100 million. $50 million? That's what Bush is wasting every 3 1/2 hours in Iraq.
As usual, Republicans are liars, pretenders and downright fools who talk a big game on security. And as usual it is Democrats who are fighting them tooth and nail to deliver on national security. Republicans can lie and spin all they want but Democrats have the facts and the voting record to back their argument.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00064
Monday, July 11, 2005
SHE'S FINALLY PISSED ME OFF!
Hillary Insults Alfred E. Neuman!
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton attacks President Bush, comparing him to Alfred E. Neuman
ASPEN, Colo. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the attack against President Bush in a speech Sunday, accusing him of damaging the economy by overspending while giving tax cuts to the rich.
The Democrat from New York also accused Bush of depriving U.S. soldiers of equipment needed to fight the war in Iraq and cutting funding for scientific research.
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," Clinton said referring to the freckle-faced Mad magazine character. She drew a laugh from crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catchphrase: "What, me worry?"
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton attacks President Bush, comparing him to Alfred E. Neuman
ASPEN, Colo. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the attack against President Bush in a speech Sunday, accusing him of damaging the economy by overspending while giving tax cuts to the rich.
The Democrat from New York also accused Bush of depriving U.S. soldiers of equipment needed to fight the war in Iraq and cutting funding for scientific research.
"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," Clinton said referring to the freckle-faced Mad magazine character. She drew a laugh from crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catchphrase: "What, me worry?"
ADVICE AND CONSENT
Well, at least I learned something
I was all set to write this post Saturday on how the Constitution's Article 2, Section 2, states that the President has to seek the advice and consent of the Senate on nominating and appointing Supreme Court justices.
I had read Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution several times recently and at my reading comprehension level, it seemed plain to me that a President has to seek both 'advice and consent' on not only Supreme Court justices but "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and all other Officers of the United States", also. Here's Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2;
He (The President) 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.
Regardless of how many times I read Clause 2 it wasn't totally clear to me if the president needed 'advice' from the Senate on nominating justices of the Supreme Court and 'other officers' or not, so I decided to see what James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", had said or done about this clause and came up with three nominations, one for Secretary of State, one for Secretary of War (that's now Secretary of Defense) and one to the Supreme Court. Although the rejection of Madison's Supreme Court nomination, Alexander Wolcott was rejected at the 'consent' level, you still get the idea that Madison was, if anything, respectful of the Senate's role in the process, which included seeking their advice on nominees.
1809: President James Madison dropped plans to appoint the Swiss-born Albert Gallatin, Thomas Jefferson's secretary of the Treasury, as his secretary of State in the face of Senate opposition. Madison kept Gallatin at Treasury and gave the State Department job to a senator's brother, Robert Smith
1811: The Senate rejected Alexander Wolcott, a Madison nominee to the Supreme Court and customs collector from Connecticut, on the grounds that he lacked the experience and temperament for the job.
1815: Madison nominated Henry Dearborn, a former secretary of War under Jefferson and general during the War of 1812, to run the War Department again. Madison sought to withdraw the nomination the next day after quickly realizing how little support there was for Dearborn. The Senate had already voted to reject Dearborn, but had the vote erased from its journal.
I had also heard and read recently of how Bill Clinton, who had a Democrat majority in the Senate still sought the 'advice' of Orrin Hatch, the Senate minority leader on the Judiciary Committee, before nominating Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Clinton had wanted to nominate his Secretary of Interior and former Arizona governor, Bruce Babbitt but after seeking the advice of MINORITY leader Hatch, he showed class and statesmanship by accepting Hatch's recommendations. Here is what Orrin Hatch later wrote in his autobiography:
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.
President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.
I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
But, although James Madison and Bill Clinton showed diplomacy and statesmanship with their willingness to seek the Senate's advice on nominating, what is the correct interpretation of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2?
The answer comes from a Supreme Court ruling from 1804, ironically titled, Marbury v. Madison. Yes, 'Madison' is James Madison, who in 1804 was Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State. Although Marbury v. Madison was not about nominating justice to the Supreme Court (William Marbury sued Madison, and won to force his holdover appointment from the John Adams' presidency to Washington D.C. justice of the peace) it does have one very clear and unambiguous statement in it's ruling.
1. The nomination. This is the sole act of the president, and is completely voluntary.
So, my interpretation was wrong. Bush is not constitutionally required to seek the 'advice' of the Senate on his nominees to the Supreme Court.
And just because Madison and Clinton showed both class and statesmanship when they nominated their justices-we know we won't get that now from the most secretive, most narrow-minded and most divisive president in history. Sure, Bush has called Judiciary Committee's minority leader, Patrick Leahy, but we'll see how much of his advice he takes.
Senate Democrats will be prepared to do battle.
I was all set to write this post Saturday on how the Constitution's Article 2, Section 2, states that the President has to seek the advice and consent of the Senate on nominating and appointing Supreme Court justices.
I had read Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution several times recently and at my reading comprehension level, it seemed plain to me that a President has to seek both 'advice and consent' on not only Supreme Court justices but "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and all other Officers of the United States", also. Here's Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2;
He (The President) 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.
Regardless of how many times I read Clause 2 it wasn't totally clear to me if the president needed 'advice' from the Senate on nominating justices of the Supreme Court and 'other officers' or not, so I decided to see what James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", had said or done about this clause and came up with three nominations, one for Secretary of State, one for Secretary of War (that's now Secretary of Defense) and one to the Supreme Court. Although the rejection of Madison's Supreme Court nomination, Alexander Wolcott was rejected at the 'consent' level, you still get the idea that Madison was, if anything, respectful of the Senate's role in the process, which included seeking their advice on nominees.
1809: President James Madison dropped plans to appoint the Swiss-born Albert Gallatin, Thomas Jefferson's secretary of the Treasury, as his secretary of State in the face of Senate opposition. Madison kept Gallatin at Treasury and gave the State Department job to a senator's brother, Robert Smith
1811: The Senate rejected Alexander Wolcott, a Madison nominee to the Supreme Court and customs collector from Connecticut, on the grounds that he lacked the experience and temperament for the job.
1815: Madison nominated Henry Dearborn, a former secretary of War under Jefferson and general during the War of 1812, to run the War Department again. Madison sought to withdraw the nomination the next day after quickly realizing how little support there was for Dearborn. The Senate had already voted to reject Dearborn, but had the vote erased from its journal.
I had also heard and read recently of how Bill Clinton, who had a Democrat majority in the Senate still sought the 'advice' of Orrin Hatch, the Senate minority leader on the Judiciary Committee, before nominating Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Clinton had wanted to nominate his Secretary of Interior and former Arizona governor, Bruce Babbitt but after seeking the advice of MINORITY leader Hatch, he showed class and statesmanship by accepting Hatch's recommendations. Here is what Orrin Hatch later wrote in his autobiography:
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.
President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.
I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
But, although James Madison and Bill Clinton showed diplomacy and statesmanship with their willingness to seek the Senate's advice on nominating, what is the correct interpretation of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2?
The answer comes from a Supreme Court ruling from 1804, ironically titled, Marbury v. Madison. Yes, 'Madison' is James Madison, who in 1804 was Thomas Jefferson's Secretary of State. Although Marbury v. Madison was not about nominating justice to the Supreme Court (William Marbury sued Madison, and won to force his holdover appointment from the John Adams' presidency to Washington D.C. justice of the peace) it does have one very clear and unambiguous statement in it's ruling.
1. The nomination. This is the sole act of the president, and is completely voluntary.
So, my interpretation was wrong. Bush is not constitutionally required to seek the 'advice' of the Senate on his nominees to the Supreme Court.
And just because Madison and Clinton showed both class and statesmanship when they nominated their justices-we know we won't get that now from the most secretive, most narrow-minded and most divisive president in history. Sure, Bush has called Judiciary Committee's minority leader, Patrick Leahy, but we'll see how much of his advice he takes.
Senate Democrats will be prepared to do battle.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Time for a 'Frog March'
Outing a CIA Operative is an act of treason
"Political peril", my ass! It's an act of treason to knowingly out a CIA operative anytime much less during time of war. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative who specialized in WMD's and this is not just another example, but the biggest example, of how far Bush and those around him went to deceive and lie to the public and punish anyone who disagreed with their exaggeration and manipulation of what the intelligence was telling them.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fritzgerald now needs to expand his investigation into what Bush knew and we need to begin an impeachment hearing after Rove's waterboarding reveals when Bush's involvement in this act of treason began.
After all, an act of treason is far more serious than an act of fellatio.
"I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," - Joseph Wilson
July 10, 2005
It's Here! Newsweek Does Nail Rove
David Corn
"The Newsweek story I described below is out. Reporter Michael Isikoff has obtained a copy of an email that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent his bureau chief, Michael Duffy, on July 11, 2003--three days before conservative columnist Bob Novak first published the leak that outed CIA officer Valerie Wilson/Plame. In that email, Cooper wrote that he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. Read the full Newsweek piece here, and read my item below on why it is so important. There now is clear-cut evidence that Rove was involved in--if not the chief architect of--the actions that led to the outing of Plame/Wilson. If he's not in severe legal trouble, he ought to be in political peril".
"Political peril", my ass! It's an act of treason to knowingly out a CIA operative anytime much less during time of war. Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative who specialized in WMD's and this is not just another example, but the biggest example, of how far Bush and those around him went to deceive and lie to the public and punish anyone who disagreed with their exaggeration and manipulation of what the intelligence was telling them.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fritzgerald now needs to expand his investigation into what Bush knew and we need to begin an impeachment hearing after Rove's waterboarding reveals when Bush's involvement in this act of treason began.
After all, an act of treason is far more serious than an act of fellatio.
"I would love to see them frog-marched out of the White House," - Joseph Wilson
Friday, July 08, 2005
MEASURE
Heard an interesting tidbit of statistical information on the Al Franken Show today. As you all know, the last two major terrorist attacks, London and Madrid have been attacks on trains, or other railways like London's subway.
In Bush's Homeland Security budget he spends the same amount for railway security in the entire U.S., for the entire budget year that he's spending in Iraq every 8 HOURS.
Oh, you didn't know Bush has spent $350 MILLION a DAY in Iraq? That's almost $15 MILLION an HOUR or $243,000 a MINUTE.
But sure, it's worth it though because the Iraqi people need to be able to vote after all.
So, 8 hours of the cost of Iraq equals a full year of security for our railways. Seems typically Republican to me.
It's your money fools.
In Bush's Homeland Security budget he spends the same amount for railway security in the entire U.S., for the entire budget year that he's spending in Iraq every 8 HOURS.
Oh, you didn't know Bush has spent $350 MILLION a DAY in Iraq? That's almost $15 MILLION an HOUR or $243,000 a MINUTE.
But sure, it's worth it though because the Iraqi people need to be able to vote after all.
So, 8 hours of the cost of Iraq equals a full year of security for our railways. Seems typically Republican to me.
It's your money fools.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
AIDING OUR ENEMIES
Another Result of Bush's Blunder
Another glaring example of Bush's total ineptness and one that I have personally raised since before our needless invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is what was surely due to happen once Saddam Hussein was no longer in power and the Shia majority filled that vacuum.
Of course, everyone I know had no clue what a Shia and/or Sunni was and therefore 95% of the U.S. population was, and still is, totally clueless of what the ramifications would be to the U.S. once Hussein was out of power.
Iran, a former bitter, and long-fought enemy of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni, is 90% Shia and now the government we installed in Iraq has admitted they have signed a pact with Iran to accept 'military training' and 'other cooperations'.
Iraq is anywhere from 60-70% Shia and those Iraqi Shia have long alliances with Iranian Shia going back to before the Ayatollah Khomeini. When it was suggested to Iraq's Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi that the new military pact could possibly anger Washington, his reply was, "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries."
Today we get a clue of what is going to happen in the vacuum created by Saddam Hussein being out of power. Saddam Hussein only had control of 1/3 of his country when he was overthrown-the U.S. controlled the entire 'southern no-fly zone' and the British controlled the entire 'northern no-fly zone', leaving Saddam Hussein powerless and certainly no threat to us. Today proves yet another blunder by Bush and one that will make Iraq more of a danger and more of a threat to the United States than before we invaded in March 2003. And today, I get to tell a lot of fools-I told you so.
Another glaring example of Bush's total ineptness and one that I have personally raised since before our needless invasion of Iraq in March 2003, is what was surely due to happen once Saddam Hussein was no longer in power and the Shia majority filled that vacuum.
Of course, everyone I know had no clue what a Shia and/or Sunni was and therefore 95% of the U.S. population was, and still is, totally clueless of what the ramifications would be to the U.S. once Hussein was out of power.
Iran, a former bitter, and long-fought enemy of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni, is 90% Shia and now the government we installed in Iraq has admitted they have signed a pact with Iran to accept 'military training' and 'other cooperations'.
Iraq is anywhere from 60-70% Shia and those Iraqi Shia have long alliances with Iranian Shia going back to before the Ayatollah Khomeini. When it was suggested to Iraq's Defense Minister Saadoun al-Dulaimi that the new military pact could possibly anger Washington, his reply was, "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries."
Today we get a clue of what is going to happen in the vacuum created by Saddam Hussein being out of power. Saddam Hussein only had control of 1/3 of his country when he was overthrown-the U.S. controlled the entire 'southern no-fly zone' and the British controlled the entire 'northern no-fly zone', leaving Saddam Hussein powerless and certainly no threat to us. Today proves yet another blunder by Bush and one that will make Iraq more of a danger and more of a threat to the United States than before we invaded in March 2003. And today, I get to tell a lot of fools-I told you so.
THE COST OF DIVERSION
The Miserable Failures
Many Brits undoubtedly are asking themselves today why they went along with Tony (the Poodle) Blair and his asinine decision to join Bush's diversionary war in Iraq, after London was shaken by multiple bombings this morning.
As is the same case with the United States, Britain has never been attacked by any terrorist plots from Iraq. The group "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" who claimed responsibility for today's bombings in London is almost assuredly based in either Afghanistan or Pakistan and certainly not from, or has any ties to, Iraq.
We have close to 140,000 American troops in Iraq and have never had more than 15,000 in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda has always been. The diversion of 140,000 troops to a country that was not a threat, did not attack us or who never had ties to the people who did, is just another example of the many failures of this administration and those who sheepishly followed.
We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and destroyed al-Qaeda when we had the chance. We could have used just even half of those 140,000 troops who were needlessly diverted to Iraq to accomplish that mission and we could have saved $300 billion, 1,750+ lives and 13,000 wounded that we've wasted in Iraq.
Don't listen to the fools who now try to somehow rationalize their failure in Iraq. Just ask them: why didn't we finish the job against the groups who were, and who still are, responsible for the terrorists' attacks?
Many Brits undoubtedly are asking themselves today why they went along with Tony (the Poodle) Blair and his asinine decision to join Bush's diversionary war in Iraq, after London was shaken by multiple bombings this morning.
As is the same case with the United States, Britain has never been attacked by any terrorist plots from Iraq. The group "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" who claimed responsibility for today's bombings in London is almost assuredly based in either Afghanistan or Pakistan and certainly not from, or has any ties to, Iraq.
We have close to 140,000 American troops in Iraq and have never had more than 15,000 in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda has always been. The diversion of 140,000 troops to a country that was not a threat, did not attack us or who never had ties to the people who did, is just another example of the many failures of this administration and those who sheepishly followed.
We should have finished the job in Afghanistan and destroyed al-Qaeda when we had the chance. We could have used just even half of those 140,000 troops who were needlessly diverted to Iraq to accomplish that mission and we could have saved $300 billion, 1,750+ lives and 13,000 wounded that we've wasted in Iraq.
Don't listen to the fools who now try to somehow rationalize their failure in Iraq. Just ask them: why didn't we finish the job against the groups who were, and who still are, responsible for the terrorists' attacks?
HOW DO YOU BURP A " . " ?
Bush and his Bible-Thumping Core Stand in the Way of Science
The Senate is all set to approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, going against our shallow-minded, Luddite of a president and his threat of veto. The House approved the measure, 238-194 in May and the Senate, led by conservative Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, are said to have at least 60 votes, maybe more.
At issue is whether we as a country are going to allow scientists the needed support to develop a whole host of treatments for diseases like diabetes, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, leukemia and various spinal-cord injuries or are we going to let the minority of religious ignorant Bible thumpers dictate to us what science and technology will be allowed to do?
One of the ignorant right wingers, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, before voting 'no' on progress played the sound of a fetal heartbeat over the House speaker system and declared "This is what it's all about, folks". When you're dealing with ignorance at that level you're best to just shun the narrow-minded and hope you have the 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to override the ignorance that currently comes from the White House.
For any of you who would care to know, an embryonic stem cell is the size of the period, (".") you would write at the end of a sentence-and it doesn't have a heartbeat.
For those of you who continue to speak as if something the size of (.) is a living human being, we, the huge majority of forward-thinking people just ask that you shut-up, go read your Bible and stay the hell out of the way of progress. If you later choose not to benefit from what this research will surely attain, then you can choose that choice later-just don't drag the rest of us down with your ignorance.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112069419123079027-jpfQUj3RstmnY8TgqD_kNFYmPIo_20060706,00.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
By BERNARD WYSOCKI JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 7, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- Republicans are breaking with President Bush on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The question is whether enough of them will break to upend his policy anytime soon.
Polls show that most rank-and-file Republicans favor increased federal funding for such research, despite the staunch opposition of Mr. Bush and conservative leaders. In May, 50 Republican House members defected from the White House line and joined Democrats in approving a measure to expand funding
The Senate is all set to approve federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, going against our shallow-minded, Luddite of a president and his threat of veto. The House approved the measure, 238-194 in May and the Senate, led by conservative Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, are said to have at least 60 votes, maybe more.
At issue is whether we as a country are going to allow scientists the needed support to develop a whole host of treatments for diseases like diabetes, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, leukemia and various spinal-cord injuries or are we going to let the minority of religious ignorant Bible thumpers dictate to us what science and technology will be allowed to do?
One of the ignorant right wingers, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, before voting 'no' on progress played the sound of a fetal heartbeat over the House speaker system and declared "This is what it's all about, folks". When you're dealing with ignorance at that level you're best to just shun the narrow-minded and hope you have the 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to override the ignorance that currently comes from the White House.
For any of you who would care to know, an embryonic stem cell is the size of the period, (".") you would write at the end of a sentence-and it doesn't have a heartbeat.
For those of you who continue to speak as if something the size of (.) is a living human being, we, the huge majority of forward-thinking people just ask that you shut-up, go read your Bible and stay the hell out of the way of progress. If you later choose not to benefit from what this research will surely attain, then you can choose that choice later-just don't drag the rest of us down with your ignorance.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112069419123079027-jpfQUj3RstmnY8TgqD_kNFYmPIo_20060706,00.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
By BERNARD WYSOCKI JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 7, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- Republicans are breaking with President Bush on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The question is whether enough of them will break to upend his policy anytime soon.
Polls show that most rank-and-file Republicans favor increased federal funding for such research, despite the staunch opposition of Mr. Bush and conservative leaders. In May, 50 Republican House members defected from the White House line and joined Democrats in approving a measure to expand funding
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
HARD WORK
GUMP FALLS OFF BICYCLE YET AGAIN
July 6, 2005
GLENEAGLES, Scotland --President Bush collided with a local police officer and fell during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders Wednesday.
Bush suffered "mild to moderate" scrapes on his hands and arms that required bandages by the White House physician, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. The accident occurred on asphalt, McClellan said. It was raining lightly at the time, and Bush was wearing a helmet.
Isn't this about his third wreck on his bicycle? Could some one buy him some damn training wheels? Or better yet, a high-speed motorcycle might do the trick.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/07/06/bush_falls_off_bike_while_in_scotland/
July 6, 2005
GLENEAGLES, Scotland --President Bush collided with a local police officer and fell during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders Wednesday.
Bush suffered "mild to moderate" scrapes on his hands and arms that required bandages by the White House physician, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. The accident occurred on asphalt, McClellan said. It was raining lightly at the time, and Bush was wearing a helmet.
Isn't this about his third wreck on his bicycle? Could some one buy him some damn training wheels? Or better yet, a high-speed motorcycle might do the trick.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2005/07/06/bush_falls_off_bike_while_in_scotland/
MILLER JAILED-COOPER WALKS
ROVE TWISTS
NY Times' Judith Miller jailed for refusing to disclose White House leak
WASHINGTON, July 6 - A federal judge today ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to be jailed immediately after she again refused to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative.
Another reporter who had been facing jail time on the same matter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed today to testify to a grand jury about his confidential source on the same matter, thus avoiding jail. Mr. Cooper said he had decided to do so only because his source specifically released him from promises of confidentiality just before today's hearing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt
NY Times' Judith Miller jailed for refusing to disclose White House leak
WASHINGTON, July 6 - A federal judge today ordered Judith Miller of The New York Times to be jailed immediately after she again refused to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative.
Another reporter who had been facing jail time on the same matter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, agreed today to testify to a grand jury about his confidential source on the same matter, thus avoiding jail. Mr. Cooper said he had decided to do so only because his source specifically released him from promises of confidentiality just before today's hearing.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt
"TRUTH TOUR"
Send in your nominee for the 'truth tour'
'A contingent of conservative (sic) talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary".
You have until this Friday to nominate your choice of big-mouth conservative (sic) radio talk show host you want to send over to Iraq for the 'truth'. Seems the Hannitys, O'Reillys, Savages and Limbaughs are going to send some members of the B team (of course, you didn't think they'd go, did you?) to Iraq to seek the truth and with the hope that by doing so the insurgents will quit bombing and lay down their arms.
Hope they enjoy the ride from the Baghdad airport. We'll see if they even leave the 'Green Zone' once they're there.
http://rightalk.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0.2933.161463.00.html
'A contingent of conservative (sic) talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary".
You have until this Friday to nominate your choice of big-mouth conservative (sic) radio talk show host you want to send over to Iraq for the 'truth'. Seems the Hannitys, O'Reillys, Savages and Limbaughs are going to send some members of the B team (of course, you didn't think they'd go, did you?) to Iraq to seek the truth and with the hope that by doing so the insurgents will quit bombing and lay down their arms.
Hope they enjoy the ride from the Baghdad airport. We'll see if they even leave the 'Green Zone' once they're there.
http://rightalk.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0.2933.161463.00.html
Monday, July 04, 2005
INDEPENDENCE DAY
Declaration of Independence
Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on theInhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr., Thomas Lynch, junr., Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, C. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.
IN CONGRESS, JANUARY 18, 1777.
Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America
------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
HE has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and the Convulsions within.
HE has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
HE has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
HE has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
HE has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us;
FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on theInhabitants of these States:
FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:
FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies:
FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
HE has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
HE has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
HE is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized Nation.
HE has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
HE has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
WE, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
John Hancock.
GEORGIA, Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, Geo. Walton.
NORTH-CAROLINA, Wm. Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn.
SOUTH-CAROLINA, Edward Rutledge, Thos Heyward, junr., Thomas Lynch, junr., Arthur Middleton.
MARYLAND, Samuel Chase, Wm. Paca, Thos. Stone, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton.
VIRGINIA, George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Ths. Jefferson, Benja. Harrison, Thos. Nelson, jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton.
PENNSYLVANIA, Robt. Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benja. Franklin, John Morton, Geo. Clymer, Jas. Smith, Geo. Taylor, James Wilson, Geo. Ross.
DELAWARE, Caesar Rodney, Geo. Read.
NEW-YORK, Wm. Floyd, Phil. Livingston, Frank Lewis, Lewis Morris.
NEW-JERSEY, Richd. Stockton, Jno. Witherspoon, Fras. Hopkinson, John Hart, Abra. Clark.
NEW-HAMPSHIRE, Josiah Bartlett, Wm. Whipple, Matthew Thornton.
MASSACHUSETTS-BAY, Saml. Adams, John Adams, Robt. Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry.
RHODE-ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE, C. Step. Hopkins, William Ellery.
CONNECTICUT, Roger Sherman, Saml. Huntington, Wm. Williams, Oliver Wolcott.
IN CONGRESS, JANUARY 18, 1777.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
A FREE PRESS vs. JUSTICE
Time-Warner Adheres to the Rule of Law or,
New York Times Steadfast on the Free Press
When the Supreme Court denied them a hearing on their appeal last week, Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times were to begin 120-day jail sentences for refusing to testify and divulge their confidential sources in the unlawful disclosure of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Originally sentenced in October by Chief District Court Judge Thomas Hogan, Cooper and Miller were to surrender to authorities and begin serving their jail sentences this week.
Time-Warner immediately caved on Thursday and turned over all of Cooper's confidential documents to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office. The NY Times on the other hand remain steadfast and refuses to cooperate with prosecutors, and Judith Miller is to begin serving her sentence this Wednesday.
In 2003, someone in the Bush administration leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak in retaliation against Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. Wilson had embarrassed the Bush administration when he shot down Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger.
Why Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller and not Robert Novak? Novak attributed his information to "two senior" Bush administration officials-who are those "two senior" officials?
Should the courts be able to force a reporter to disclose their sources when a felony has been committed? Is the New York Times upholding the 1st Amendment by refusing to cooperate with the Federal District Court?
I'm for upholding the 1st Amendment but it sure would be nice to see who the 'senior officials' in Bush's inner circle are (Rove has been questioned for two hours by the grand jury) and to see the fur fly when they're indicted for exposing a CIA operative, a felony.
Bush has said he wants to get to the 'bottom of this' and I must admit I agree with him on something; so do I.
New York Times Steadfast on the Free Press
When the Supreme Court denied them a hearing on their appeal last week, Matthew Cooper of Time and Judith Miller of the New York Times were to begin 120-day jail sentences for refusing to testify and divulge their confidential sources in the unlawful disclosure of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Originally sentenced in October by Chief District Court Judge Thomas Hogan, Cooper and Miller were to surrender to authorities and begin serving their jail sentences this week.
Time-Warner immediately caved on Thursday and turned over all of Cooper's confidential documents to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office. The NY Times on the other hand remain steadfast and refuses to cooperate with prosecutors, and Judith Miller is to begin serving her sentence this Wednesday.
In 2003, someone in the Bush administration leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak in retaliation against Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson. Wilson had embarrassed the Bush administration when he shot down Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union speech that Iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger.
Why Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller and not Robert Novak? Novak attributed his information to "two senior" Bush administration officials-who are those "two senior" officials?
Should the courts be able to force a reporter to disclose their sources when a felony has been committed? Is the New York Times upholding the 1st Amendment by refusing to cooperate with the Federal District Court?
I'm for upholding the 1st Amendment but it sure would be nice to see who the 'senior officials' in Bush's inner circle are (Rove has been questioned for two hours by the grand jury) and to see the fur fly when they're indicted for exposing a CIA operative, a felony.
Bush has said he wants to get to the 'bottom of this' and I must admit I agree with him on something; so do I.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR
REPLACING REASON ON THE COURT
In July 1981, Ronald Reagan, obligated to keep his campaign promise to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, named Sandra Day O'Connor to replace the retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart, and she became the first woman in 191 years to serve on the Supreme Court.
Although her nomination initially drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats as both questioned her views on the same issue, abortion, Day O'Connor was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. The long tradition of addressing the Court with "Mr. Justice" would now be simply, "Justice".
During Day O'Connor's 24 years on the Court, she has been the deciding vote in many 5-4 decisions and is frequently the justice to whom oral and written arguments are directed because she is so frequently the deciding vote. And over the years she has continued to be criticized, and praised by both sides of the spectrum.
In 1989, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services she was the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision that allowed states to restrict access to abortion. But then in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey she wrote the decision in a 5-4 win that upheld Roe V. Wade, refusing to go so far as to overturn a woman's right to choose.
She voted to end certain governmental affirmative action hiring programs and yet she was the deciding vote once again in upholding affirmative action in the case involving University of Michigan's Law School in 2003.
She voted with the 6-3 majority in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned the prohibition of homosexual sodomy after voting to uphold Georgia's right to prohibit sodomy 15 years earlier.
Just last week she voted 'for the 10 Commandments (Texas) before she voted against them' (Kentucky). Both of those decisions were 5-4.
And of course, Sandra Day O'Connor sided with the majority in its 5-4 ruling on December 11, 2000, in Gore v. Bush.
Most thought Chief Justice William Rehnquist would be the first justice Bush would need to replace but as it turns out, that will not be the case. Rehnquist's spot as Chief Justice has been known to be a 'given' to be replaced with a Scalia or Thomas type of conservative but Sandra Day O'Connor's spot has not.
Democrats with the help of the few moderate Republicans there are in the Senate need to fight like hell to ensure O'Connor's replacement is one who respects the precedent of earlier Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality.
Democrats and Republicans both praise and criticize Sandra Day O'Connor, which probably means she did a good job. You just don't realize how good of a job it was until you think about the type of person Bush may try to replace her with. After all, having four Scalia/Thomas types on the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow to liberty.
In July 1981, Ronald Reagan, obligated to keep his campaign promise to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, named Sandra Day O'Connor to replace the retiring Associate Justice Potter Stewart, and she became the first woman in 191 years to serve on the Supreme Court.
Although her nomination initially drew criticism from both Republicans and Democrats as both questioned her views on the same issue, abortion, Day O'Connor was confirmed by the Senate unanimously. The long tradition of addressing the Court with "Mr. Justice" would now be simply, "Justice".
During Day O'Connor's 24 years on the Court, she has been the deciding vote in many 5-4 decisions and is frequently the justice to whom oral and written arguments are directed because she is so frequently the deciding vote. And over the years she has continued to be criticized, and praised by both sides of the spectrum.
In 1989, in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services she was the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision that allowed states to restrict access to abortion. But then in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey she wrote the decision in a 5-4 win that upheld Roe V. Wade, refusing to go so far as to overturn a woman's right to choose.
She voted to end certain governmental affirmative action hiring programs and yet she was the deciding vote once again in upholding affirmative action in the case involving University of Michigan's Law School in 2003.
She voted with the 6-3 majority in Lawrence v. Texas that overturned the prohibition of homosexual sodomy after voting to uphold Georgia's right to prohibit sodomy 15 years earlier.
Just last week she voted 'for the 10 Commandments (Texas) before she voted against them' (Kentucky). Both of those decisions were 5-4.
And of course, Sandra Day O'Connor sided with the majority in its 5-4 ruling on December 11, 2000, in Gore v. Bush.
Most thought Chief Justice William Rehnquist would be the first justice Bush would need to replace but as it turns out, that will not be the case. Rehnquist's spot as Chief Justice has been known to be a 'given' to be replaced with a Scalia or Thomas type of conservative but Sandra Day O'Connor's spot has not.
Democrats with the help of the few moderate Republicans there are in the Senate need to fight like hell to ensure O'Connor's replacement is one who respects the precedent of earlier Supreme Court rulings on constitutionality.
Democrats and Republicans both praise and criticize Sandra Day O'Connor, which probably means she did a good job. You just don't realize how good of a job it was until you think about the type of person Bush may try to replace her with. After all, having four Scalia/Thomas types on the Supreme Court would be a devastating blow to liberty.
Friday, July 01, 2005
ARTICLE. II. SECTION. 2.
Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2: 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.
Section. 2.
Clause 2: 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.
U.S. TROOPS HELD CAPTIVE BY TALIBAN
16 U.S. SPECIAL FORCES KILLED ATTEMPTING RESCUE
Team of U.S. GIs Missing in Afghanistan
By DANIEL COONEY-FRIDAY JULY 1, 2005
(AP) KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A small team of U.S. soldiers was missing Friday in the same mountains in eastern Afghanistan where a special forces helicopter was shot down earlier this week, and U.S. forces are using "every available asset" to find them, a U.S. military spokesman said.
The MH-47 Chinook helicopter - with 16 people on board who all died in the crash - had gone into the mountains Tuesday to extract the soldiers who are now missing. The team on the ground has been unaccounted for since the chopper was downed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara said.
Only eight months ago, Afghan and U.S. officials were hailing a relatively peaceful presidential election as a sign that the Taliban rebellion was finished.
But remnants of the former regime have stepped up attacks, and there are disturbing signs that foreign fighters - including some linked to al-Qaida - might be making a new push to sow an Iraq-style insurgency.
Afghan officials say the fighters have used the porous border with Pakistan to enter the country, and have called on the Pakistani government do more to stop them.
The loss of the helicopter follows three months of unprecedented fighting that has killed about 465 suspected insurgents, 43 Afghan police and soldiers, 125 civilians, and 45 U.S. troops, including the 16 killed in Tuesday's crash.
The dead in this week's crash comprised seven soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), Hunter Army Airfield, Ga., one from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), Fort Campbell, Ky., and eight Navy SEALs assigned to units in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego, the U.S. military said in a statement.
I thought the Taliban had been defeated? They certainly should have been. If we hadn't diverted our troops to the mistake in Iraq, we would have completely defeated the Taliban and all other allies of al-Qaeda by now. Think of the outrageous cost of that diversion into Iraq and how it's prevented us from finishing the job against those who REALLY had something to do with 9/11.
53% say 'Iraq was a mistake' in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released today. Only 20% of us said it was a 'mistake' from the beginning. It would have been nice if that additional 33% wouldn't have acted like the sheep they are-we could have completed the job in Afghanistan by now.
Team of U.S. GIs Missing in Afghanistan
By DANIEL COONEY-FRIDAY JULY 1, 2005
(AP) KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A small team of U.S. soldiers was missing Friday in the same mountains in eastern Afghanistan where a special forces helicopter was shot down earlier this week, and U.S. forces are using "every available asset" to find them, a U.S. military spokesman said.
The MH-47 Chinook helicopter - with 16 people on board who all died in the crash - had gone into the mountains Tuesday to extract the soldiers who are now missing. The team on the ground has been unaccounted for since the chopper was downed, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara said.
Only eight months ago, Afghan and U.S. officials were hailing a relatively peaceful presidential election as a sign that the Taliban rebellion was finished.
But remnants of the former regime have stepped up attacks, and there are disturbing signs that foreign fighters - including some linked to al-Qaida - might be making a new push to sow an Iraq-style insurgency.
Afghan officials say the fighters have used the porous border with Pakistan to enter the country, and have called on the Pakistani government do more to stop them.
The loss of the helicopter follows three months of unprecedented fighting that has killed about 465 suspected insurgents, 43 Afghan police and soldiers, 125 civilians, and 45 U.S. troops, including the 16 killed in Tuesday's crash.
The dead in this week's crash comprised seven soldiers from the 3rd Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), Hunter Army Airfield, Ga., one from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), Fort Campbell, Ky., and eight Navy SEALs assigned to units in Norfolk, Va., and San Diego, the U.S. military said in a statement.
I thought the Taliban had been defeated? They certainly should have been. If we hadn't diverted our troops to the mistake in Iraq, we would have completely defeated the Taliban and all other allies of al-Qaeda by now. Think of the outrageous cost of that diversion into Iraq and how it's prevented us from finishing the job against those who REALLY had something to do with 9/11.
53% say 'Iraq was a mistake' in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released today. Only 20% of us said it was a 'mistake' from the beginning. It would have been nice if that additional 33% wouldn't have acted like the sheep they are-we could have completed the job in Afghanistan by now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
