Monday, March 19, 2007
Boogie Nights: The Midnight Blue Collection Vols. 1-5 review
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, March 16, 2007
OHIO REP. DENNIS KUCINICH PUT IMPEACHMENT ON THE TABLE IN THE HOUSE YESTERDAY: GOOD IDEA?
WASHINGTON D.C.--Impeachment is one of those things that looks good on-paper, in-theory, but never in-practice. The name of one standing US president who was ever successfully impeached please? This means successful, or that he was run out-of-office, and even held-accountable for crimes he committed while holding-office. No takers? That's right, it's never happened in American history, and the chances of it ever occurring are virtually-nil.
Why? Because in a democracy, representatives have the vote in the legislature, not the public. Granted, they are ostensibly there representing the "will of the people," but the final votes are down to them. They like the powers that the office of the president holds, and they covet that office. To the mainstream politician, impeachment isn't an option, it's unthinkable. But there is a possibility for it if...
Yes, we know the usual lame-excuses from politicos: separation of powers (which never bothered them when Bush violated them, but...), preserving the powers of the president, (and for later) preserving the office of the president. They aren't going pull the trigger of impeachment in either house of Congress--unless the Bush administration attacks Iran in some form directly with American military forces. Kucinich is correct about that, since the political will would finally be there to do it, and that's why his putting impeachment on the table at this time could be a serious gaffe. That was in January when he and Conyers stated this political truth. But why would he push for it now? There might be a disappointing reason for this, or he might be the victim of a politically-timed smear from the FEC exactly one-week before his push for impeachment proceedings:
The Federal Election Commission on Thursday said Kucinich, who is again running for president, must repay the government $135,518 in public matching funds that he spent after he had become ineligible to use them. FEC auditors said Kucinich spent the money between March 4, 2004, and July 29, 2004, when Kerry was officially nominated. Candidates who receive less than 10 percent of the popular vote in two consecutive primaries lose their eligibility for money from the taxpayer financed presidential campaign fund. (CNN.com, 03.08.2007)
My prediction is that Kucinich's campaign will pay this amount, but will continue to dispute the allegations, which is their right. What's interesting is that Rep. Kucinich is a real lightning-rod for the anti-war bloc in Congress, and that this really stinks of Rovian tactics of the smear. Considering all of the irregularities surrounding the GOP in the 2004 elections, with no substantial investigations and hearings on them, it's safe to say that the FEC's bureaucracy is being pressured by the Bush administration to act on these charges. Whether they are true or not is currently unknown, and stands-aside of this fact. Priorities.
It's also likely that the Bush administration is still spying-on its political enemies and critics. Did they know Kucinich would be delivering these remarks before the House "a priori"? Rep. Dennis Kucinich has stated, bluntly, that impeachment is the only way to prevent a war with Iran. Here's the full-text from the press secretary of the House of Representatives. If he's innocent of the FEC's audit-conclusions, this is why he has moved on putting impeachment forward in the House for consideration:
The Iraq war funding bill, currently under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives, would allow the Bush Administration to launch an attack against Iran without Congressional approval, Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said on the floor of the House today.
"The House Appropriations Committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran," Kucinich said today. "Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration, and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."
Kucinich continued, "This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power. The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."
He went on to explain, "The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world [that mandates] all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
"Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal," Kucinich told other House members.Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who voted against the original war authorization measure in 2002 and every war-funding appropriation since. (kucinich.us/, 03.15.2007)
He's factually correct, but can we successfully impeach the president of the United States? Will the votes be there before a conflict? With a GOP still-intent on this war, I don't see how. You would have to have a full-blown congressional rebellion against the president, fostered by events on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran being a total-catastrophe.
When GOP-incumbents make it clear that they will not listen to the public--even the people who mistakenly voted for them--you have a roadblock that's only going to go through an explosion of social forces and events that essentially smash it. What you have are two social forces colliding: the will of the American public, versus a narrow-band of entitled economic interests who are directly represented in Congress. Dennis Kucinich could well be a political visionary in all of this. To his credit, Kucinich is addressing the FEC's allegations.
Why? Because in a democracy, representatives have the vote in the legislature, not the public. Granted, they are ostensibly there representing the "will of the people," but the final votes are down to them. They like the powers that the office of the president holds, and they covet that office. To the mainstream politician, impeachment isn't an option, it's unthinkable. But there is a possibility for it if...
Yes, we know the usual lame-excuses from politicos: separation of powers (which never bothered them when Bush violated them, but...), preserving the powers of the president, (and for later) preserving the office of the president. They aren't going pull the trigger of impeachment in either house of Congress--unless the Bush administration attacks Iran in some form directly with American military forces. Kucinich is correct about that, since the political will would finally be there to do it, and that's why his putting impeachment on the table at this time could be a serious gaffe. That was in January when he and Conyers stated this political truth. But why would he push for it now? There might be a disappointing reason for this, or he might be the victim of a politically-timed smear from the FEC exactly one-week before his push for impeachment proceedings:
The Federal Election Commission on Thursday said Kucinich, who is again running for president, must repay the government $135,518 in public matching funds that he spent after he had become ineligible to use them. FEC auditors said Kucinich spent the money between March 4, 2004, and July 29, 2004, when Kerry was officially nominated. Candidates who receive less than 10 percent of the popular vote in two consecutive primaries lose their eligibility for money from the taxpayer financed presidential campaign fund. (CNN.com, 03.08.2007)
My prediction is that Kucinich's campaign will pay this amount, but will continue to dispute the allegations, which is their right. What's interesting is that Rep. Kucinich is a real lightning-rod for the anti-war bloc in Congress, and that this really stinks of Rovian tactics of the smear. Considering all of the irregularities surrounding the GOP in the 2004 elections, with no substantial investigations and hearings on them, it's safe to say that the FEC's bureaucracy is being pressured by the Bush administration to act on these charges. Whether they are true or not is currently unknown, and stands-aside of this fact. Priorities.
It's also likely that the Bush administration is still spying-on its political enemies and critics. Did they know Kucinich would be delivering these remarks before the House "a priori"? Rep. Dennis Kucinich has stated, bluntly, that impeachment is the only way to prevent a war with Iran. Here's the full-text from the press secretary of the House of Representatives. If he's innocent of the FEC's audit-conclusions, this is why he has moved on putting impeachment forward in the House for consideration:
The Iraq war funding bill, currently under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives, would allow the Bush Administration to launch an attack against Iran without Congressional approval, Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said on the floor of the House today.
"The House Appropriations Committee removed language from the Iraq war funding bill requiring the Administration, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, to seek permission before it launched an attack against Iran," Kucinich said today. "Since war with Iran is an option of this Administration, and since such war is patently illegal, then impeachment may well be the only remedy which remains to stop a war of aggression against Iran."
Kucinich continued, "This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power. The Administration has been preparing for an aggressive war against Iran. There is no solid, direct evidence that Iran has the intention of attacking the United States or its allies."
He went on to explain, "The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world [that mandates] all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
"Even the threat of a war of aggression is illegal," Kucinich told other House members.Kucinich is the only Presidential candidate who voted against the original war authorization measure in 2002 and every war-funding appropriation since. (kucinich.us/, 03.15.2007)
He's factually correct, but can we successfully impeach the president of the United States? Will the votes be there before a conflict? With a GOP still-intent on this war, I don't see how. You would have to have a full-blown congressional rebellion against the president, fostered by events on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran being a total-catastrophe.
When GOP-incumbents make it clear that they will not listen to the public--even the people who mistakenly voted for them--you have a roadblock that's only going to go through an explosion of social forces and events that essentially smash it. What you have are two social forces colliding: the will of the American public, versus a narrow-band of entitled economic interests who are directly represented in Congress. Dennis Kucinich could well be a political visionary in all of this. To his credit, Kucinich is addressing the FEC's allegations.
We can only wait-and-see. Good luck with the impeachment, we'll need it. Charges of treason are almost impossible to make stick either--irregardless of actual guilt--and it should be noted that this-month is the 200th anniversary of the Aaron Burr trial. Burr was acquitted of treason by the Supreme Court in 1807, and he was most-definitely guilty...of attempting to cause the secession of Louisiana, making it his own Republic. He had once been the Vice President under Thomas Jefferson (search this site for "Aaron Burr," links will be forthcoming).
AP on the FEC Audit, 03.08.2007: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/kucinich-forced-to-repay-fec-135000.html
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's statements before the House Yesterday: http://kucinich.us/node/3667
On the FEC Audit: http://kucinich.us/node/3514
AP on the FEC Audit, 03.08.2007: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/kucinich-forced-to-repay-fec-135000.html
Rep. Dennis Kucinich's statements before the House Yesterday: http://kucinich.us/node/3667
On the FEC Audit: http://kucinich.us/node/3514
Thursday, March 15, 2007
"I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT." --AG ALBERTO GONZALES
wArsHINtuHN--Back in the GOP's post-9/11 biZaroworld universe, another man said the same words. His name was Donald Rumsfeld. Prepare for the firing, Al, you're gone. Now the GOP in Congress are beginning to lose their resolve to obstruct for you any longer. You knew--I hope to God you knew--that this administration was going to use you as one of their ever-dwindling parachutes, a goat. You didn't? What, are you stupid?!
Don't answer Al. Just clear that desk out, and prepare for the subpoenas that are likely to follow you for the rest of your miserable, pathetic, croc-grinning life. You don't even make a good gringo, but would make a good Mexican version of Barney Rubble...ah-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh! Yeah, definitely time to make the Attorney General an elected office. Anyone can be a judge in these United States, you just have to have some good friends to help you. Qualifications are unnecessary. Void where prohibited.
Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070315/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_gonzales_dc_3;_ylt=AnM_59FqonGMpdUT6L3nA7SWwvIE
Please Sign The DNC's and Gov. Howard Dean's FOIA request on
the US Attorney Firings: http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/RNCFOIA
Don't answer Al. Just clear that desk out, and prepare for the subpoenas that are likely to follow you for the rest of your miserable, pathetic, croc-grinning life. You don't even make a good gringo, but would make a good Mexican version of Barney Rubble...ah-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh! Yeah, definitely time to make the Attorney General an elected office. Anyone can be a judge in these United States, you just have to have some good friends to help you. Qualifications are unnecessary. Void where prohibited.
Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070315/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_gonzales_dc_3;_ylt=AnM_59FqonGMpdUT6L3nA7SWwvIE
Please Sign The DNC's and Gov. Howard Dean's FOIA request on
the US Attorney Firings: http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/RNCFOIA
DEMOCRATS PUSHING CLOSER TO SUBSTANTIAL LEGISLATION TOWARDS ENDING WAR IN IRAQ
WASHINGTON D.C.--People, you have to look at each one of these bills and proposals as steps. Yes, keep-hammering, but realize that if you push too-hard, you're going to scupper their genuine attempts in Congress to end this war sooner (rather than significantly-later). We have to learn from the last major anti-war movement that there is a time to rest, and a time to stand-down. Because this wasn't done, our involvement in the war in Vietnam lasted longer than it should have.
It wasn't just Nixon's fault, it was also the movement's. The GOP want to kill the process, but all they're doing is buying the president time. That's all they did in the last Congress, so it appears they've learned nothing from the 2006 midterms. That works for me, because they're endangering their long-term future as a party with any significance. That would be Spring in America:
Overall, the bill's price tag was $124 billion, and included funds for Democratic domestic priorities such as health care for veterans and children. The political landscape was different across the Capitol, where Republicans expressed confidence they had the votes to defeat an alternative approach advanced by Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats. Their proposal sets a goal of a troop withdrawal by March 31, 2008. A mid-afternoon vote was expected. In the House, assembling the support needed to pass the withdrawal plan has become the first major test for the Democratic leadership that took office in January. Aides and senior lawmakers have expressed confidence in recent days that they would succeed, both in the committee and on the House floor next week. But prospects of the bill becoming law are dim. (AP, 03.15.2007)
This is the political reality in Congress, and once-again the GOP are the primary roadblock to peace and prosperity for the average person. Let the Democratic-majority do what they have to do in Congress to make this a reality. Events on the ground are going to decide this, not any one group of activists, not the Pentagon, not Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the Executive branch. The insurgents will decide this war. And stop pestering representatives like David Obey, go after that Rahm Emanuel and his faction of conservative Democrats. You're confronting the wrong people in many-cases. How about Hillary? How about those idiots in the GOP? They're the ones who need a good scaring about 2008, and those moronic conservative Democrats.
But even conservative old Sen.Chuck Schumer is lining-up with a withdrawal plan for Iraq, even while shills like Emanuel attempt to scare American Jews and Israelis that Iran is going to invade them at any moment. This is sky-high demagoguery, and it's not in the interest of Jews anywhere to believe it. It's in the interests of war-mongers in the governments (and boardrooms) of Iran, Israel, and America who benefit. They're playing with all of our lives, simply-put, to maintain and expand their (and their backers') power within human society. This has happened before when obsolete regimes (America included) and power-structures begin to sense their time-is-up on the stage of history. The Houses of the Hollenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Ottoman turks shook, and so too did our world as they scrambled to preserve their worlds. The trick is not getting-involved in helping them.
Did you notice that the newest budget request is now at $124 billion? Here's why, and I can't complain entirely: there's finally amendments in there to take-care of our wounded properly. Nonetheless, I agree in-principle that the overall thrust of the bill is a joke, and only allows Bush to continue his phony-war into 2008. That's about all it does, so how radical can a pullout by March of 2008 be?
To the GOP, this is anathema, and they're scared of losing what's left of their claim to being "strong on national security." Military leadership--both active-duty and retired--seem to feel otherwise, and a majority are backing most of the features of the Democratic proposals. But there are others. There are the Iraq veterans, and veterans of past-wars who have made it into-office in the last midterms, and will continue to do so. They are the people we can replace establishment hawks, the GOP-incumbents, and Democratic conservatives with. Seeing more Vietnam vets in there is heartening.
Sestak, 55, is one of five freshmen House Democrats with military experience who have emerged as party leaders in the congressional debate over President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy -- appearing with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking up in caucus meetings and advising more senior colleagues. Other members are looking upon Tim Walz, Joe Sestak, Chris Carney, Phil Hare and me to play a leadership role,'' said Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, who served in Iraq as a captain in the 82nd Airborne Division. The lawmakers, who all oppose the war, get their first chance to influence the course of the conflict today as the House begins debate on military-spending legislation that includes a Democratic provision requiring the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq next year. (Bloomberg, 03.15.2007)
As we've seen with the events of September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan, standing-down when they could have captured Osama Bin Laden at Tora Borah, giving the aristocracy of Saudi Arabia a free-pass when they're known paymasters of terrorism, and so much more, one has to wonder why anyone ever believed them. The remaining GOP-incumbents in Congress are merely doing what they did under the former majority: lock-stepping with the president, and continuing to support his wrongheaded war that is sapping our wealth, souls, and security in the world.
The first-hurdle has been cleared today. Voting 37-27 along party lines, the House Appropriations committee has endorsed the bill with the March 2008 withdrawal (or sooner, if certain conditions and benchmarks aren't met by the Iraqi government soon) timetable and monies for wounded-troops intact in the language of the bill. Does it matter if it passes the Senate? No, this is a major first-step that would never have occurred under the GOP-majority, it wouldn't have even been considered. You can see that in their counter-proposals.
Despite the measure's approval, its longer-range fate is dim. In the Senate, minority Republicans can use procedural moves to block the troop withdrawal language and the White House has threatened to veto the bill if it contains the provision forcing the removal of troops. Rallying enough support for the bill, which allots $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been a challenge for Democratic leaders. Many party members support bringing troops home sooner than the 2008 deadline, while others have been reluctant to embrace a firm deadline to end the war. The defeated Republican amendment would have eliminated the 2008 deadline and inserted language that would promise not to cut funding for troops. (AP, 03.15.2007)
It wasn't just Nixon's fault, it was also the movement's. The GOP want to kill the process, but all they're doing is buying the president time. That's all they did in the last Congress, so it appears they've learned nothing from the 2006 midterms. That works for me, because they're endangering their long-term future as a party with any significance. That would be Spring in America:
Overall, the bill's price tag was $124 billion, and included funds for Democratic domestic priorities such as health care for veterans and children. The political landscape was different across the Capitol, where Republicans expressed confidence they had the votes to defeat an alternative approach advanced by Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats. Their proposal sets a goal of a troop withdrawal by March 31, 2008. A mid-afternoon vote was expected. In the House, assembling the support needed to pass the withdrawal plan has become the first major test for the Democratic leadership that took office in January. Aides and senior lawmakers have expressed confidence in recent days that they would succeed, both in the committee and on the House floor next week. But prospects of the bill becoming law are dim. (AP, 03.15.2007)
This is the political reality in Congress, and once-again the GOP are the primary roadblock to peace and prosperity for the average person. Let the Democratic-majority do what they have to do in Congress to make this a reality. Events on the ground are going to decide this, not any one group of activists, not the Pentagon, not Congress, the Supreme Court, or even the Executive branch. The insurgents will decide this war. And stop pestering representatives like David Obey, go after that Rahm Emanuel and his faction of conservative Democrats. You're confronting the wrong people in many-cases. How about Hillary? How about those idiots in the GOP? They're the ones who need a good scaring about 2008, and those moronic conservative Democrats.
But even conservative old Sen.Chuck Schumer is lining-up with a withdrawal plan for Iraq, even while shills like Emanuel attempt to scare American Jews and Israelis that Iran is going to invade them at any moment. This is sky-high demagoguery, and it's not in the interest of Jews anywhere to believe it. It's in the interests of war-mongers in the governments (and boardrooms) of Iran, Israel, and America who benefit. They're playing with all of our lives, simply-put, to maintain and expand their (and their backers') power within human society. This has happened before when obsolete regimes (America included) and power-structures begin to sense their time-is-up on the stage of history. The Houses of the Hollenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Ottoman turks shook, and so too did our world as they scrambled to preserve their worlds. The trick is not getting-involved in helping them.
Did you notice that the newest budget request is now at $124 billion? Here's why, and I can't complain entirely: there's finally amendments in there to take-care of our wounded properly. Nonetheless, I agree in-principle that the overall thrust of the bill is a joke, and only allows Bush to continue his phony-war into 2008. That's about all it does, so how radical can a pullout by March of 2008 be?
To the GOP, this is anathema, and they're scared of losing what's left of their claim to being "strong on national security." Military leadership--both active-duty and retired--seem to feel otherwise, and a majority are backing most of the features of the Democratic proposals. But there are others. There are the Iraq veterans, and veterans of past-wars who have made it into-office in the last midterms, and will continue to do so. They are the people we can replace establishment hawks, the GOP-incumbents, and Democratic conservatives with. Seeing more Vietnam vets in there is heartening.
Sestak, 55, is one of five freshmen House Democrats with military experience who have emerged as party leaders in the congressional debate over President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy -- appearing with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking up in caucus meetings and advising more senior colleagues. Other members are looking upon Tim Walz, Joe Sestak, Chris Carney, Phil Hare and me to play a leadership role,'' said Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, who served in Iraq as a captain in the 82nd Airborne Division. The lawmakers, who all oppose the war, get their first chance to influence the course of the conflict today as the House begins debate on military-spending legislation that includes a Democratic provision requiring the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq next year. (Bloomberg, 03.15.2007)
As we've seen with the events of September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan, standing-down when they could have captured Osama Bin Laden at Tora Borah, giving the aristocracy of Saudi Arabia a free-pass when they're known paymasters of terrorism, and so much more, one has to wonder why anyone ever believed them. The remaining GOP-incumbents in Congress are merely doing what they did under the former majority: lock-stepping with the president, and continuing to support his wrongheaded war that is sapping our wealth, souls, and security in the world.
The first-hurdle has been cleared today. Voting 37-27 along party lines, the House Appropriations committee has endorsed the bill with the March 2008 withdrawal (or sooner, if certain conditions and benchmarks aren't met by the Iraqi government soon) timetable and monies for wounded-troops intact in the language of the bill. Does it matter if it passes the Senate? No, this is a major first-step that would never have occurred under the GOP-majority, it wouldn't have even been considered. You can see that in their counter-proposals.
Despite the measure's approval, its longer-range fate is dim. In the Senate, minority Republicans can use procedural moves to block the troop withdrawal language and the White House has threatened to veto the bill if it contains the provision forcing the removal of troops. Rallying enough support for the bill, which allots $95.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been a challenge for Democratic leaders. Many party members support bringing troops home sooner than the 2008 deadline, while others have been reluctant to embrace a firm deadline to end the war. The defeated Republican amendment would have eliminated the 2008 deadline and inserted language that would promise not to cut funding for troops. (AP, 03.15.2007)
Yes, those number just keep changing. Expect more obstructionism from the GOP in the Senate, while we all the know that the White House will veto it no matter what. They cannot claim any spirit of bipartisanship when their own are calling for an end to this war. More GOP-incumbents will break-ranks as the conditions on the ground worsen in Iraq. It's an inevitability, making such obstructionism both pointless and criminally wasteful of the lives of Iraqis and American military personnel--but this has never been a concern of the GOP.
AP Today: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070315/D8NSN48O0.html
AP Today: http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070315/D8NSN48O0.html
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
THE US ATTORNEY FIRINGS: ROVE RELAYED COMPLAINTS FROM N.M. GOP REPS (ON LYING)
"From what we've been hearing for weeks it seems he [Karl Rove] might have relevant information. ...He's clearly one of the White House officials we've been intending to question. The revelations from Mr. Weh certainly give us something else relevant and salient to talk about." --Rep. John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary committee yesterday (McClatchy Newspapers, 03.12.2007)
WASHINGTON D.C./NEW MEXICO--This is something-else! Allen Weh (wha?), the GOP's party chairman in New Mexico is doing this backwards-forwards pedalling--these people never stop, do they? Stop what? Well, lying, of course, what else do Republican politicians do for-a-living? Here's the offending discourse by an ersatz human being (expletives deleted):
McClatchy Newspapers reported that Allen Weh said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove, asking that he be removed, and followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House. "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event. "He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh. "I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh. Weh told The Associated Press later Saturday that "Rove has little or nothing to do with this." (AP, 03.12.2007)
Strange how Weh's recounting of the incident doesn't support his contention of what was said and what was meant, eh? His contention is that Iglesias was doing a bad-job, but that's not in the purview of a state chairman to involve-himself in the investigative process...or any politicians in congress, aides, or even the president. Prosecutorial discretion is sacrosanct in a democracy, and a legal system with any pretensions of expediting a modicum of justice. US Attorneys have to be insulated at all-times from political pressures to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld and apply to everyone. It's a crime to obstruct or to impede any federal investigation, and improper for any politician to pressure a federal prosecutor. This was common under the GOP-majority, so this whole affair is just one in an ocean of criminality and obstruction.
Yes, the president can fire these folks--the people he picked, incidentally--at any time, but considering the revelation today that they were considering firing all 93--hey, that's news.No matter how good you are at lying, if you're busted cold, you appear to be lousy at it. There's the stammering, the misleading-comments used for misdirection ("It wasn't a political decision, we don't make those."), the denials, and the final-stage of the grieving-process of acceptance and those little morsels-of-truth that trickle down (couldn't resist it) as it becomes obvious that the jig is up.
Rove said he did not suggest that any of the U.S. attorneys be forced to resign, Perino said. The new details about Rove's involvement in the firings emerged as the top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee declared their interest in talking to him. The committee is trying to determine whether the firings were part of an effort to exert political influence over federal prosecutions. (McClatchy, 03.12.2007)
We're about at the end of the process, and now it appears that Harriet Miers and Karl Rove are going to be speaking before the House Judiciary committee, and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi.) and Linda Sanchez (D-Ca.). It's about time. Once it became clear they were going to have to testify, they start talking. Of course, once the investigations begin, they'll stop. It's all about covering-yourself, another aspect of the Bush administration's "preemptive-strike" stratagem. You know, one that's failing in Iraq and everywhere else.
Weh is saying all of these revealing statements to cover himself if he's questioned later. He can now say he was transparent and forthcoming. Only he wasn't, he's sat on this since 2005. So, we have two congresspersons from New Mexico and the GOP state party chairman, as well as the president's political adviser (Rove), and his legal adviser who had been slated for a seat on the Supreme Court (Miers). This is bad for any standing administration. It's Nixon time. Thanks again Jerry Ford. He's still dead, you know. I checked. Right now, Attorney General Gonzales is hemming-and-hawing, and making more contradictory statements:
Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress," Gonzales said. "I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here. (AP, 03.13.2007)
That's great, but you had to be dragged before Congress after a washout midterm election that demolished your ability to ignore any accountability on these issues. Alberto Gonzales has a peculiar logic, like his boss. He's saying two-things: that he stands-behind the decisions, but that "mistakes were made in the process." Wrong. The whole-process was unethical, illegal, and just another crime by this administration that's going to sink them. Gonzales accepted responsibility today by firing his top aide, Kyl Sampson. They all knew, and there were no miscommunications, unless you count ones that get you caught breaking-the-law. The president knew this because he and the Vice President ordered it, that's why Rove was relaying the messages. Jesus.
AP Yesterday: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPUETG0.html
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
McClatchy 03.11.2007: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16878479
WASHINGTON D.C./NEW MEXICO--This is something-else! Allen Weh (wha?), the GOP's party chairman in New Mexico is doing this backwards-forwards pedalling--these people never stop, do they? Stop what? Well, lying, of course, what else do Republican politicians do for-a-living? Here's the offending discourse by an ersatz human being (expletives deleted):
McClatchy Newspapers reported that Allen Weh said he complained in 2005 about then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias to a White House liaison who worked for Rove, asking that he be removed, and followed up with Rove personally in late 2006 during a visit to the White House. "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh said he asked Rove at a White House holiday event. "He's gone," Rove said, according to Weh. "I probably said something close to 'Hallelujah,'" said Weh. Weh told The Associated Press later Saturday that "Rove has little or nothing to do with this." (AP, 03.12.2007)
Strange how Weh's recounting of the incident doesn't support his contention of what was said and what was meant, eh? His contention is that Iglesias was doing a bad-job, but that's not in the purview of a state chairman to involve-himself in the investigative process...or any politicians in congress, aides, or even the president. Prosecutorial discretion is sacrosanct in a democracy, and a legal system with any pretensions of expediting a modicum of justice. US Attorneys have to be insulated at all-times from political pressures to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld and apply to everyone. It's a crime to obstruct or to impede any federal investigation, and improper for any politician to pressure a federal prosecutor. This was common under the GOP-majority, so this whole affair is just one in an ocean of criminality and obstruction.
Yes, the president can fire these folks--the people he picked, incidentally--at any time, but considering the revelation today that they were considering firing all 93--hey, that's news.No matter how good you are at lying, if you're busted cold, you appear to be lousy at it. There's the stammering, the misleading-comments used for misdirection ("It wasn't a political decision, we don't make those."), the denials, and the final-stage of the grieving-process of acceptance and those little morsels-of-truth that trickle down (couldn't resist it) as it becomes obvious that the jig is up.
Rove said he did not suggest that any of the U.S. attorneys be forced to resign, Perino said. The new details about Rove's involvement in the firings emerged as the top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee declared their interest in talking to him. The committee is trying to determine whether the firings were part of an effort to exert political influence over federal prosecutions. (McClatchy, 03.12.2007)
We're about at the end of the process, and now it appears that Harriet Miers and Karl Rove are going to be speaking before the House Judiciary committee, and Rep. John Conyers (D-Mi.) and Linda Sanchez (D-Ca.). It's about time. Once it became clear they were going to have to testify, they start talking. Of course, once the investigations begin, they'll stop. It's all about covering-yourself, another aspect of the Bush administration's "preemptive-strike" stratagem. You know, one that's failing in Iraq and everywhere else.
Weh is saying all of these revealing statements to cover himself if he's questioned later. He can now say he was transparent and forthcoming. Only he wasn't, he's sat on this since 2005. So, we have two congresspersons from New Mexico and the GOP state party chairman, as well as the president's political adviser (Rove), and his legal adviser who had been slated for a seat on the Supreme Court (Miers). This is bad for any standing administration. It's Nixon time. Thanks again Jerry Ford. He's still dead, you know. I checked. Right now, Attorney General Gonzales is hemming-and-hawing, and making more contradictory statements:
Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress," Gonzales said. "I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here. (AP, 03.13.2007)
That's great, but you had to be dragged before Congress after a washout midterm election that demolished your ability to ignore any accountability on these issues. Alberto Gonzales has a peculiar logic, like his boss. He's saying two-things: that he stands-behind the decisions, but that "mistakes were made in the process." Wrong. The whole-process was unethical, illegal, and just another crime by this administration that's going to sink them. Gonzales accepted responsibility today by firing his top aide, Kyl Sampson. They all knew, and there were no miscommunications, unless you count ones that get you caught breaking-the-law. The president knew this because he and the Vice President ordered it, that's why Rove was relaying the messages. Jesus.
AP Yesterday: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070311/D8NPUETG0.html
AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
McClatchy 03.11.2007: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16878479
Monday, March 12, 2007
HAWKISH DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SCUPPERS ASSAULT ON BUSH WAR POWERS
WASHINGTON D.C.--You know it was Rahm Emanuel and his faction in the House. Granted, Israel has a right to feeling secure, but Palestinians also have right to a homeland with access to water, roads, and a communications and civil infrastructure. That's a lot of shoulds. Now these twerps in the House have watered-down what the public really wants: an end to this pointless-war.
I don't blame Speaker Pelosi, nor do I blame Maxine Waters, and all the other of the 71 in Congress, but let's just sign the more moderate bill as a step-forward. None of this would have been possible with the GOP-majority, not ever.
But with conservative and moderate Democrats refusing to consider a faster timetable or a cutoff of war funding, party leaders have had to steer a more centrist course on Iraq. They point to polls that show the public opposes cutting off funding or revoking President Bush's authority for the war but backs bringing home troops by next year. They argue that their measure can at least make Bush report to Congress any time he deploys a unit that doesn't meet training or readiness standards, or has not spent at least a year at home between tours. Some left-of-center Democrats say they recognize their party's delicate position, and are coming around to the idea of supporting an Iraq measure that falls short of what they want. (AP, 03.12.2007)I am 100% certain that Joe Donnelly, my representative, has helped in the scuppering of this. I can forgive him for now as a freshman legislator, but when the meltdown comes to Iraq, he's going to have line-up with the 71 anti-war representatives in Congress.
If he and all the others don't, they had best remember that the 2nd District will be calling him back home to South Bend. He can run his business again, eat ice cream in bed, build a ship in a bottle, go fishing, grow a second prostate, real mover-and-shaker stuff. That'll learn ya.'
One has to understand that you cannot rush any of this. The openings will come of their own accord, and that a misstep can result in the war continuing much-longer than it needs to. But I frankly believe that events on the ground in Iraq are going to decide all of this. We're going to have to lose, and that is what we are doing right now. The Democratic majority didn't lose anything today, this is just how politics works.
They still have the provision of a withdrawal today, which is the reason for Cheney's lame-remarks that the anti-war caucus "are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out." A ten-year-old could smell this for the B.S. it is. This--according to AP--is the gridlock within the DNC:
Public opinion has swung the way of Democrats on the issue of the war. More than six in 10 Americans think the conflict was a mistake —the largest number yet found in AP-Ipsos polling. But Democrats have struggled to find a compromise that can satisfy both liberals who oppose any funding for the military effort and conservatives who do not want to unduly restrict the commander in chief. (AP, 03.12.2007)Restrict the commander in chief? Are you nuts?! Of course he needs to be restricted, you morons. There are claims that the public doesn't want funding to be cut--prove it, what is this poll? We get no name for who did it from AP. Perhaps it was the "mystery man" who gave a press conference in Airforce Two for Vice President Cheney. Who was that guy? Must have been that guy who ejected all those activists from GOP events. You know, the one who said he was a Secret Service agent, when he really wasn't.
Or all those mysterious people who obstructed people--mostly Black and poor--from voting throughout the United States in 2000, 2002, and 2004? Oh yeah, and they tried it in 2006 too. The people who made a truckload full of voting-records in Florida in 2000 vanish, and then to magically-reappear hours later. Who are those guys (and where are the investigations)? What I find most-disturbing, however, is the attempt at scaring the Israelis into a conflict with Iran. It won't work, and it's unknown if either nation would still be standing after a full-on war.
It would be a disaster that I don't want to see happen to Israel and Iran, they are both nations that can be great together, with incredible contributions to world culture, and peaceful solutions are possible. The Bush administration wants war, while the world doesn't. This is a no-brainer, and Iran has a right to its own domestic nuclear power. They deserve to have energy independence, just as does Israel, America, Venezuela, Georgia and Armenia, or any other nation. This is the right to self-determination in its truest-form.
AN OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY & HIS VANITY: THE DEBATE THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN
Salt Lake City, Utah--It happened on the same-day that the cancellation story broke, when some resident of SLC who has a brain-malformation told him to do it. It's never going to happen, and here's why: "I think we need to be discussing this throughout this land however we can. I think Sean Hannity will have trouble in a debate format where there are rules, and he can't hang up on people." (AP, 03.09.2007) They should realize that the mayor really will eat this turd alive, and having some shill call in to save your ass to KSL radio just isn't going to work. Sean Hannity, you are a low-life, lily-livered punk. You are the original SLC punk.
You're Jeff Gannon, a male hustler for rich homosexuals, a bitch. You're a towel-boy at a gay bath house. A twit, a moron, and a whore. The mayor of SLC is going to kick-your-ass--hell, he already has. You are not a man, you are a child, and your listeners are emotionally retarded children who weren't beaten enough by their authoritarian parents. In short: fuck you Sean Hannity, and your stupid whorish ilk.
You and your listeners prove that stupidity, venality, and greed thrive in America today. It's idiots like you that make us all look simple and malevolent throughout the entire civilized world. I wouldn't bother to kick-your-ass, because you aren't worth the energy. You are beneath me, the mayor, and all good Americans, you scumbag. Get a real job, you are nothing.
That's why Fox's Hannity producers cancelled the appearance--I would wager that old Roger Aisles made that call originally, knowing you're a little inarticulate, ignorant-twerp without any balls or brains. All you have is a mouth, the part your masters love best. It won't happen, and if it does, they're making-sure that it's not going to be nationally-televised. But, it's not going to happen, these people are straw dogs who are scared-shitless to leave their studios where they can act any way they want, and have civil guests ejected by their moronic, lawless security. That's known as being pathetic and afraid.
Sean Hannity, may your intestines liquefy, may your bad-case of syphilis-of-the-soul finally destroy what's left of your mind. Children will mock you as you walk like a robot through the streets from the corkscrew virus eating-up you spinal cord.
Individuals like yourself deserve to be homeless, and I and others pledge to make this a reality. We're going to crush you scumbags with the might of our numbers--millions of us who despise and loathe your very existence in the country we love so much, and who hate to see it destroyed by whores like you. We took care of the last brew in Congress, and we're not done with that institution yet, we're going to take all of you operatives and your posh lives and wreck them.
America isn't special, but if we blow it, there's no hope for humanity. You are the problem.
But, it appears that mayor Anderson has already done half-the-work for us, you dirty little twit, you little faggot (there's nothing wrong with being gay, but you are a faggot). They know it would be a disaster to confront someone like Anderson, which is why they never do so off their own turf. Notice how you're the only one who's accepted the debate challenges of Rocky? That's because they're not as stupid as you are. Stupid Rush Limbaugh (though not as stupid as his listeners he despises), Annie "the Tranny" Coulter--you and all those idiots I never listen to, are afraid. Suffer, you little asshole.
Sean Hannity, fuck you and the rest of like you. Start packing, and filling your offshore bank accounts, we want you out. And remember this: unless the debate is nationally televised on Fox News, it didn't happen. That was the deal that you blew...besides Roger Aisles and Karl Rove. But, most of Hitler's S.A. (Brownshirts) were homosexuals, so consider that you all share their company.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
BAD NEWS IS BEST TOLD IN TWO-PARTS: BUSH REALLY WANTS ADDITIONAL 8,200 TROOPS FOR IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN
wArSHINtuHN--It's amazing how these stories change, shift, and the numbers are never fixed. No, I don't mean the president's approval-ratings, I mean these troop-escalations. Yesterday, it was 4,400 (apparently, only slated for Iraq), and today the total is almost doubled for both wars: 8,200. This is a dramatic escalation of forces within the region, which can only mean the Bush administration has wider-aims. Is it Iran? That's a hard-call, as it's becoming obvious that any attacks authorized by the president will have considerable political fallout. Coupled-with a pardon of former Cheney aide, "Scooter" Libby, this could be the final-straw for Congress--even the hawks and the so-called "moderates." Saturday, it's being called a "revised request"...again. And again. And again...
President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January. Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring. (AP, 03.11.2007)
But there is more. AP is saying the original budget request was "$93.4 billion." Bloomberg was saying $93 billion yesterday, and another estimate had it at $96 billion (see article below). Unless you think this is insignificant, consider that Bloomberg left-off $400 million, a tidy-sum to any American, eh? It's a game to to make it appear that less is being requested and spent. The game is shaping all of our perceptions. Luckily, we have the internet.
We should be asking AP and the other wire services exactly what these programs that the Bush administration are. All we get is that they are "low-priority defense items." What would that be? If it's funding for weapons-research...not so bad, but the money shouldn't be appropriated/shifted for any reason other than redeployment. It's official: the president is unbalanced. After Abu-Ghraib, the secret CIA-prisons, the torture, the tens-of-thousands of Iraqi-casualties--the man is insane, he has lost his mind (if he ever had one).
These are costs to allowing these criminals to usurp the Executive branch in 2000. We have been in a constitutional crisis since that time, and Iraq is just one symptom. 9/11 and the rollback of all of our rights is the other, along with a rampant corruption that this nation has ever seen. The cost of cowardice is tyranny, and that's exactly what we've gotten for the last six-years. The time to stand-up and confront these people and their fellow travellers is nigh. The time to confront our representatives wherever they may be is our right to assembly and freedom of movement. I advise everyone with some time on their hands to do so. Be firm, be informed, and stand your ground. Demand direct-answers.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January. Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring. (AP, 03.11.2007)
But there is more. AP is saying the original budget request was "$93.4 billion." Bloomberg was saying $93 billion yesterday, and another estimate had it at $96 billion (see article below). Unless you think this is insignificant, consider that Bloomberg left-off $400 million, a tidy-sum to any American, eh? It's a game to to make it appear that less is being requested and spent. The game is shaping all of our perceptions. Luckily, we have the internet.
We should be asking AP and the other wire services exactly what these programs that the Bush administration are. All we get is that they are "low-priority defense items." What would that be? If it's funding for weapons-research...not so bad, but the money shouldn't be appropriated/shifted for any reason other than redeployment. It's official: the president is unbalanced. After Abu-Ghraib, the secret CIA-prisons, the torture, the tens-of-thousands of Iraqi-casualties--the man is insane, he has lost his mind (if he ever had one).
These are costs to allowing these criminals to usurp the Executive branch in 2000. We have been in a constitutional crisis since that time, and Iraq is just one symptom. 9/11 and the rollback of all of our rights is the other, along with a rampant corruption that this nation has ever seen. The cost of cowardice is tyranny, and that's exactly what we've gotten for the last six-years. The time to stand-up and confront these people and their fellow travellers is nigh. The time to confront our representatives wherever they may be is our right to assembly and freedom of movement. I advise everyone with some time on their hands to do so. Be firm, be informed, and stand your ground. Demand direct-answers.
AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
Saturday, March 10, 2007
FOX NEWS WIMPS-OUT IN DEBATE BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY MAYOR ROCKY ANDERSON & SEAN HANNITY
"Bring me Rush Limbaugh. Bring me Michael Savage. You bring me the worst, the rudest, the most right-wing," he said. "We need to get this information out and it needs to get to the people who are actually listening." --Salt Lake City mayor, Rocky Anderson (I wish he was my mayor!)SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH--Look at the dumb frat twerp at the top-right. Does he not look like a total pussy? Anyway, Utah: Usually known for their polygamist-cults, and center to the people who knock on your doors, Salt Lake City isn't generally known for mayors like Rocky Anderson. The mayor has been calling-for the impeachment of President George W. Bush for a few-years-running now, and he isn't going to stop, even shuttling to other states with such resolutions on the table. Recently, he was challenged by Sean Hannity on Fox News to a debate--then Fox's Execs got cold-feet. That's because it would be their disaster, since Anderson actually knows what he's talking-about, and won't be the standard easy-target, straw dog Leftie they tend to argue with. He would eat-them-alive, and they know it.
But what really scares them is this: he'll have a soapbox for the truth, and that's not what Fox News is about, not when it comes to the GOP, President Bush and his administration, the costly, disintegrating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate corruption, the unequal distribution of wealth, and everything-else tied to it. It's like their nightmare of having to have Noam Chomsky on Fox, he's their anti-matter to their matter.They are shills, mouthpieces for power, and allowing the truth onto their programming is anathema to these bastards. Hannity looks like a big, fat wimp, kinda like most of the GOP-shills who blare their garbage to rednecks and the terminally-stupid...he looks devolved like his listeners (and certainly their internal-state).
However, producers of "Hannity & Colmes" said they may reschedule the debate for a future date. A Fox News Channel representative contacted KUTV.com on Friday to clarify that the network itself did not make the decision to cancel the debate between Anderson and Hannity, but rather that was a decision by the "Hannity & Colmes" program. Fox News Channel is a division of News Corp. (KUTV, 03.09.2007)
Funny how they've changed their story: first, no-reason except that "we couldn't fit it in our schedule." Then, it was, "the debate was never solid, only tentative." Next, there was "the Hannity & Colmes show cancelled the debate." Now, it's: "we may reschedule it." This is known as backwards-and-forwards pedalling (they and I just made it up).
My guess is that they're trying to figure-out how to ambush Rocky on the show. They know that since he's a politician, he knows just about all of their tactics: talking-over him, shouting, incoherent-babbling, switching-the-subject/going off-topic, quick-cuts to a commercial--but there are only so-many they can field before he's going eat-them-alive. No, this is not some "Joe Hill" (or the Indigo Girls, who suck) singing homo.
Anderson's armed with the truth, he's angry, and he's skilled at taking-on people in a debate. But, I don't think it's going to happen...ever. Fox News is over, done. America's Funniest Home Videos has better-ratings (it's syndicated, 24/7 like they are). I'm wondering when that show gets it's own lobbying and political party? The wimpy-wimpy, nice-nice approach of "please sir" doesn't work, that's for the drum-circle crowd (white people without rhythm, principles, or brains). It's time to kick some asses-in. Get angry.
Mayor Anderson's Statement for Impeachment: http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/mayor/speeches/2007%20publications/030107mpeachmentstatement.pdf
Friday, March 09, 2007
YANKEE GO HOME, GO BACK TO HELL
"George Bush is an asshole."
--Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL/HUMAN SOCIETY--After causing Mayan priests to have to bless the sacred site he desecrated in Guatemala (by his mere presence), George W. Bush decided to cause riots in Rio. They had to bring out the riot-vans and the shock-troops, but the Rio pigs quelled it. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez and the other South American states aligned-with Venezuela's route away from American influence held a counter-rally that was anti-imperialist in its theme. I'm hoping the moron-in-chief goes to Caracas to have a very heavy-rock lobbed at his head (connecting, and smashing his remaining-brains out) like Nixon did in the 1950s. Look at photos of the asshole from 2000, and now, and you tell me this individual hasn't aged from his six-years in the office he illegally usurped.
It would make my day if an RPG-armed FARC unit blew his syphilitic-head off, it really would. I would applaud it. This individual and his cohorts are a collective Hitler, and nobody complains when one speaks-ill of him, not even when he was alive. Sic semper tyrannis. It would please me if the flesh melted from his face, or if someone poisoned him with polonium-210--anything to make his death as agonising as possible. To see him have his fingernails torn from his hands, slowly, and televised (DVD-rights going to the highest-bidders, because he would approve) throughout the entire world would not equal the carnage that this idiot and his compatriots have unleashed on our world. It would please me if he was dead. I, and billions of other human-beings on this planet we call "earth" fell the same way. This individual must be stopped, and he's being stopped by the Iraqi-people. Cops: quit your jobs, you support an inhuman regime.
For the aspirations of freedom of all in this human society, for all those who dream of a better world, for all the murders they have propagated, for all the pain and misery they have unleashed, they deserve hell-on-earth to be their terminal-condition until they are dead. No, I am not advocating killing the president and his ilk in Congress, but if someone did, I would feel justice had been served. I would feel like most Europeans did when the Allies came in, crushing the fascists. We are facing the same enemy domestically, and George W. Bush is just a symptom. The real enemies are his bosses, the super-rich, an international class, and they must be legislated out-of-existence. If private-citizens have to defend-themselves from the shock-troops of these scum, that is their right as human-beings.
These scum are genocide-made-flesh. They are walking, shambling death, and they are gambling with out lives to preserve their power. There is no lower-form of criminality than them, not even a stick-up man, a rapist, nor a child-molester--not even a serial-killer. At least a serial-killer has the moral courage to murder their victims face-to-face. Even they are better than those who claim the right to govern us. But what they really do is enslave and exploit us. For the survival of the human race, this must end. I feel aligned with those who work for these goals, and who know that the means will often be unpopular. It's time to end the timidity in this nation, and time to bring the fight to our masters. This is the meaning of life.
--Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL/HUMAN SOCIETY--After causing Mayan priests to have to bless the sacred site he desecrated in Guatemala (by his mere presence), George W. Bush decided to cause riots in Rio. They had to bring out the riot-vans and the shock-troops, but the Rio pigs quelled it. Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez and the other South American states aligned-with Venezuela's route away from American influence held a counter-rally that was anti-imperialist in its theme. I'm hoping the moron-in-chief goes to Caracas to have a very heavy-rock lobbed at his head (connecting, and smashing his remaining-brains out) like Nixon did in the 1950s. Look at photos of the asshole from 2000, and now, and you tell me this individual hasn't aged from his six-years in the office he illegally usurped.
It would make my day if an RPG-armed FARC unit blew his syphilitic-head off, it really would. I would applaud it. This individual and his cohorts are a collective Hitler, and nobody complains when one speaks-ill of him, not even when he was alive. Sic semper tyrannis. It would please me if the flesh melted from his face, or if someone poisoned him with polonium-210--anything to make his death as agonising as possible. To see him have his fingernails torn from his hands, slowly, and televised (DVD-rights going to the highest-bidders, because he would approve) throughout the entire world would not equal the carnage that this idiot and his compatriots have unleashed on our world. It would please me if he was dead. I, and billions of other human-beings on this planet we call "earth" fell the same way. This individual must be stopped, and he's being stopped by the Iraqi-people. Cops: quit your jobs, you support an inhuman regime.
For the aspirations of freedom of all in this human society, for all those who dream of a better world, for all the murders they have propagated, for all the pain and misery they have unleashed, they deserve hell-on-earth to be their terminal-condition until they are dead. No, I am not advocating killing the president and his ilk in Congress, but if someone did, I would feel justice had been served. I would feel like most Europeans did when the Allies came in, crushing the fascists. We are facing the same enemy domestically, and George W. Bush is just a symptom. The real enemies are his bosses, the super-rich, an international class, and they must be legislated out-of-existence. If private-citizens have to defend-themselves from the shock-troops of these scum, that is their right as human-beings.
These scum are genocide-made-flesh. They are walking, shambling death, and they are gambling with out lives to preserve their power. There is no lower-form of criminality than them, not even a stick-up man, a rapist, nor a child-molester--not even a serial-killer. At least a serial-killer has the moral courage to murder their victims face-to-face. Even they are better than those who claim the right to govern us. But what they really do is enslave and exploit us. For the survival of the human race, this must end. I feel aligned with those who work for these goals, and who know that the means will often be unpopular. It's time to end the timidity in this nation, and time to bring the fight to our masters. This is the meaning of life.
BEFORE BUSH II: SOMETHING-ELSE THE FBI IS KNOWN FOR...
"I believe I'm going to die doing the things I was born to do. I believe I'm going to die high off the people. I believe I'm going to die a revolutionary in the international revolutionary proletarian struggle."--Fred Hampton, 1969.
The photo to the top of this sentence is of Fred Hampton. He was poised to be the Illinois head of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense, a charismatic speaker that only comes-around each generation (if that). For this reason, he was targeted by the FBI for "neutralization." At that time, Black Americans were so profoundly harassed by police-brutality and lawless vigilante racists that they had to form such groups, first in the South, later in Oakland, then spreading throughout the continental United States. The BPP grew at a geometric-pace, alarming racists in the power-structure of America. In-response, racist FBI director J. Edgar Hoover began using tactics formerly utilized against the Left (illegal ones) towards the Black Power movement.
The umbrella-term for this program that included Latino rights groups, environmentalists, Boy Scout troops (not making-this-up), unions, gay-rights groups, churches, the anti-war movement, private-citizens, rock groups, communists, socialists, the KKK, the John Birch Society, civil rights activists, writers, university professors, movie stars and celebrities, PTA groups, the American Indian Movement, SCLC, SNCC, CORE, and many-many others, was called "COINTELPRO" ( a shortening of "counterintelligence program").
People actually died, and the programs were viewed as counterinsurgency within the culture of the FBI. However, it wasn't all Hoover's fault. None of this could have happened without the direction and/or approval of the Executive. Congress also looked other way. Today's news about misdeeds by the FBI under the Patriot Act are nothing-new with the FBI, the Executive branch, or congressional-inaction on such unconsititutional activities. Don't expect it to end without a lot of pressure on the politicos.
But the program against Black liberation movements began under Lyndon Johnson's administration in-reaction to the civil rights movement and the rioting that began in 1965 in Watts, and culminated in the riots of 1967 in Detroit, and the rioting that was nationwide after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King jr.--under Nixon, COINTELPRO accelerated and culminated in such assassinations as that of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, both up-and-coming leaders of the Illinois chapter of the Panthers. What did the FBI do? They infiltrated the Illinois BPP chapter in Chicago with numerous informants, nearly all-of-whom had criminal records, frequently for violent-crimes.
They were offered a deal: give us information on the Panther hierarchy, or go to jail. The FBI had no-problem finding informants, and one William O'Neal was their lynchpin in undermining the leadership of Fred Hampton, the Chicago chapter leader who was poised for the role of Illinois-BPP head. It's thought that O'Neal was psychopathic, and part of the design of using him was to discredit the Panthers through the crimes of provocateurs, an old anti-labor tactic:
Informant William O'Neal infiltrated the Chicago Panther chapter, rising to become chief of security for Illinois party leader Fred Hampton. It was O'Neal who drew the floor plans for the police raid of Dec. 4, 1969, in which Chicago cops killed Hampton and Mark Clark. While security chief for the Chicago Panthers, O'Neal "also devised an 'electric' chair that members were told would be used for traitors and informers," according to a 1982 New York Times article. After his work with the FBI, O'Neal was an informant for a Chicago cop who was charged with killing a drug dealer. It turns out that in the latter case, O'Neal snitched first and snitched best. (Baltimore Sun, 10.28.2006)
O'Neal's behavior was typical of FBI-informants during the late-1960s, early-1970s. It's thought that he slipped a drug (a barbiturate) into a drink of Hampton's the night of the raid. The Chicago and Illinois State Police unit shot 99-times through the walls of Hampton's and Clark's apartment (with none fired at police by the victims), and it was hoped that Hampton could be shot-to-death in his bed while asleep. O'Neal had provided the floor-plan of the apartment to the FBI, who then-in-turn, provided it to the tactical unit's raiders. He committed-suicide in early-1990s, throwing himself into-the-path of an oncoming-car in traffic, so he must have had a conscience.
It was at 4 a.m. on December 4th, 1969 that the raid commenced. Shooting through the walls with a Thompson .45 machine-gun, and several other high-caliber weapons, Hampton was wounded in his sleep, while Clark awakened and grabbed his shotgun. His death-grip from being wounded discharged the weapon, and was later misused as evidence that "the Panthers shot first," a bald-lie. This exchange was heard by Deborah Johnson--Fred Hampton's pregnant girlfriend--after the police unit entered the apartment:
That's Fred Hampton...Is he dead?
Bring him out.
He's barely alive he'll make it.
[at this point, two-shots fired from a gun were heard by those present]
He's good and dead now.
An autopsy found that Hampton had received two shots-to-the-head, both point-blank. Johnson was also wounded in the raid, and heard the exchange along-with Harold Bell, the other Panther survivor.
Fred Hampton was not an advocate of going-out and shooting-down cops unprovoked. This is a lie propagated by the same racist-forces that murdered him--he was for self-defense. If you were illegally-attacked by the police, you would also be in-your-right to shoot-back. He and the Illinois BPP created Free Breakfast for Children programs, educational-programs, gang-truces in Chicago, and the coining of the concept and term "Rainbow Coalition" that is still used by Rev. Jesse Jackson today.
This was because municipal, state, and federal authorities would not do these things. Instead, by murdering Hampton and Clark, they allowed Jeff Fort's Blackstone Rangers (aka Black P. Stones, and even Blackstone nation) gang to sell drugs in Chicago for several-years afterwards, with Fort basically running his own little kingdom from a limo. Fred Hampton never hurt anyone, and was only attempting to help Blacks in Illinois--and specifically--the ghettos of Chicago at a time when Blacks were being attacked by violent racist-cops. Fred Hampton was 21 when he was assassinated by America's Gestapo. Don't expect it to change unless we all demand it vociferously. It's time to mothball the FBI and our intelligence community, and the beginning of law-enforcement and information-gathering institutions who really do have the interests of the public in-mind, not that of unaccounatble power and wealth.
Portland IMC: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/350173.shtml
"The Black Messiah Murders" (film site) :
http://www.mockingbirdfilms.com/bmm/sect_3.html
Fred Hampton's FBI File: http://foia.fbi.gov/hampton_fred/hampton_fred_part01.pdf
The Lawsuits: http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:j2dIdHwfeSwJ:www.peopleslawoffice.com/Hampton-brief-long.doc+%22That%27s+Fred+Hampton.%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us
Thursday, March 08, 2007
NEW CONGRESS BATTLING HIDDEN PATRIOT ACT PROVISION: THE WAR OVER US ATTORNEY FIRINGS
"To replace seven United States attorneys all at once is not exactly a discreet thing to do." --GOP Sen. Arlen Specter today, wishing-aloud that the Bush administration had been more "discreet."
WASHINGTON D.C.--It's on. Congress is looking to end provisions in the last renewal (hopefully the last ever) of the Patriot Act added at the tail-end of the do-nothing 109th Congress. The battle is over presidential powers and their encroachment of the authority and powers of Congress. It's obvious there has been overstepping here by the Executive branch, and the remedies are being considered in a bipartisan-thrust today.
As a start, lawmakers are revisiting a last-minute provision added to last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the request of the Justice Department. It gives the president authority to replace a US attorney without going back to the Senate for confirmation. At the time, no lawmaker noticed. But dramatic testimony Tuesday from fired attorneys, who appeared only after Congress began issuing subpoenas, is fueling a push to strike the provision.
(Christian Science Monitor, 03.08.2007)
Did I say I was impressed with this new Congress? I'll say it again: I'm impressed. Congress and the Executive are coequal branches of government in our system--our Constitution. The 109th Congress and the Bush administration has violated the Constitution of the United States by including this one sentence provision in the last renewal of the Patriot Act. This is a step towards forcing George W. Bush and his entire administration out-of-office, and we have ample-time to do it in.
Democrats are proposing a bill that will eliminate this provision permanently. Even Senator John Kyl (R-Az) is supportive. This actually extends back to February 16th of this year when the bill was first-proposed, but Kyl fears that federal courts will get the power to appoint US Attorneys rather than the president. This places him squarely in the Bush/Cheney camp on presidential powers:
The battle over seven dismissed U.S. attorneys took a sharp partisan turn yesterday, with Senate Republicans vowing to hold up a bill revoking the Justice Department’s power to indefinitely appoint prosecutors until Democrats give ground on amendments. Democratic leaders attempted to pass the U.S. attorneys bill unanimously, citing GOP support for reversing a provision in last year’s Patriot Act that has allowed Justice to remove the seven attorneys — several in the midst of public corruption cases — without sending the Senate new nominees.
(TheHill.com, 02.16.2007)
But events have changed the context of February, with the testimony of the former US Attorneys, most-particularly that of David C. Iglesias. This is forcing-the-hand of the GOP in the Senate, and leaving them no real alternative except to follow the changing-winds. As usual, the GOP wants amendments that gut or impair the bill, and the Democratic-majority hasn't been having it. This bill likely would have passed with bipartisan-support in February were it not for senators like Kyl, and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).
But what is so bizarre about all of this is that GOP senators are claiming they didn't know the provision was in the legislation. Perhaps we could ask Dennis Hastert this, because somebody inserted-it into the language of the bill. The question is this: what is the name of this individual? Name please! We know it originated from the Bush administration--the likely-culprit being Vice President Cheney. We could have a hint in Kyl: he's the one blocking the new bill that will remove the provision.
Christian Science Monitor's Scoop: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070308/ts_csm/aattorneys
TheHill.com: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/u.s.-attorney-bill-stalls-amid-gop-objections-dem-threats-2007-02-16.html
WASHINGTON D.C.--It's on. Congress is looking to end provisions in the last renewal (hopefully the last ever) of the Patriot Act added at the tail-end of the do-nothing 109th Congress. The battle is over presidential powers and their encroachment of the authority and powers of Congress. It's obvious there has been overstepping here by the Executive branch, and the remedies are being considered in a bipartisan-thrust today.
As a start, lawmakers are revisiting a last-minute provision added to last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the request of the Justice Department. It gives the president authority to replace a US attorney without going back to the Senate for confirmation. At the time, no lawmaker noticed. But dramatic testimony Tuesday from fired attorneys, who appeared only after Congress began issuing subpoenas, is fueling a push to strike the provision.
(Christian Science Monitor, 03.08.2007)
Did I say I was impressed with this new Congress? I'll say it again: I'm impressed. Congress and the Executive are coequal branches of government in our system--our Constitution. The 109th Congress and the Bush administration has violated the Constitution of the United States by including this one sentence provision in the last renewal of the Patriot Act. This is a step towards forcing George W. Bush and his entire administration out-of-office, and we have ample-time to do it in.
Democrats are proposing a bill that will eliminate this provision permanently. Even Senator John Kyl (R-Az) is supportive. This actually extends back to February 16th of this year when the bill was first-proposed, but Kyl fears that federal courts will get the power to appoint US Attorneys rather than the president. This places him squarely in the Bush/Cheney camp on presidential powers:
The battle over seven dismissed U.S. attorneys took a sharp partisan turn yesterday, with Senate Republicans vowing to hold up a bill revoking the Justice Department’s power to indefinitely appoint prosecutors until Democrats give ground on amendments. Democratic leaders attempted to pass the U.S. attorneys bill unanimously, citing GOP support for reversing a provision in last year’s Patriot Act that has allowed Justice to remove the seven attorneys — several in the midst of public corruption cases — without sending the Senate new nominees.
(TheHill.com, 02.16.2007)
But events have changed the context of February, with the testimony of the former US Attorneys, most-particularly that of David C. Iglesias. This is forcing-the-hand of the GOP in the Senate, and leaving them no real alternative except to follow the changing-winds. As usual, the GOP wants amendments that gut or impair the bill, and the Democratic-majority hasn't been having it. This bill likely would have passed with bipartisan-support in February were it not for senators like Kyl, and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky).
But what is so bizarre about all of this is that GOP senators are claiming they didn't know the provision was in the legislation. Perhaps we could ask Dennis Hastert this, because somebody inserted-it into the language of the bill. The question is this: what is the name of this individual? Name please! We know it originated from the Bush administration--the likely-culprit being Vice President Cheney. We could have a hint in Kyl: he's the one blocking the new bill that will remove the provision.
Christian Science Monitor's Scoop: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070308/ts_csm/aattorneys
TheHill.com: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/u.s.-attorney-bill-stalls-amid-gop-objections-dem-threats-2007-02-16.html
A Great Arizona Blog (I pity him living-amongst such idiots. I can relate...) : http://liberaldesert.blogspot.com/2007/03/servant-must-eat-masters-cooking.html
POSTER FOR ARGENTO'S "THE THIRD MOTHER"
Wow! A May 11th release from Medusa films in Italy!! Who knows if it's going to get distribution in the United States? Yes, we suck...Hollywood cannot withstand the competition of real filmmaking. Let's face it: you put Udo Kier in a motion picture, and it's 20% more-interesting than it was before. But then, you have the seductive Asia Argento, the return of Goblin for the score--and maybe even a cameo by Suspiria's Jessica Harper--and you could well have an international hit. According to Argento, this film is about our "tortured era," though don't expect much political commentary from it. This is a wonderful return to the supernatural for Il Maestro, exactly 30-years since Suspiria. Horror is truly back, and she's pissed.
HAXAN (1922) review
It's still hard to imagine that this film was produced in the early-1920s! Haxan shows us the vitality of Swedish film at this time--and what a time. We can bemoan the quality of commercial filmmaking today, but it should be understood that the period after WWI was unique in the history of the medium. There was still new territory to be charted, and a lot had yet to be done. Watch this film, and you will see the source (along with Murnau's seminal, 'Nosferatu' of the same year) of a LOT of contemporary horror-imagery. The Great War unleashed a flood of graphic-imagery, most of it inspired by the carnage of the battlefields. Indeed, the public of those-days had more exposure to the horrors-of-war than we do today. Many of the popular images of witches, vampires, ghosts, demons and horror-film monstrosity comes from this era, and Haxan is surely a significant-contributor to this reservoir.The witchhunt is a feature of most primitive, backward peasant and tribal-societies. Culturally, America fits this mould. This film is still an excellent introduction to the history of witchcraft-persecution in the West, and it's extremely watchable, even entertaining. Films like Haxan retain their power when the incarceration of the West Memphis 3 is still possible; meanwhile, the likely-murderer plays-to the iconography, obtaining a free-pass from his community. Why does human-society require sacrifices? Whatever happened in West Memphis, Arkansas when those children were murdered, it was done to satisfy some urge in the human-mind for this sacrifice to the patriarch. It brings-to-mind the Old Testament. Moloch must be fed, just as Saturn ate his own children.
Witchhunts are still with us in America, and we are a nation of Puritans. Benjamin Christensen made Haxan in 1922 as an appeal-to-reason. His thesis was that the majority of the notions of these panics came from social-conditions, mental-illness and anxiety (primarily of the sexual-variety). This connects the film thematically with 'The Devils'. We can look at these stories as distant and quaint, but they are not. Similar conditions can arise, and it was Christensen's aim to nip the witch-panics in-the-bud. Today, we call it 'satanic panic.'
The aftermath of WWI wasn't exactly a rational period, and so the director took the approach of expressionism to convey the mindset of the Medieval. It's as if the daemonic was released from the depths of the mind from the cataclysms of the trenches. James Whale was hardly alone in being affected by the Great War--all of Western civilization was. But, the compositions in Haxan are extraordinary, and are often drawn-from woodcuts and other art from each given-period. Christensen even inserts close-shots of actual engravings from museum collections, juxtaposed with his realizations of witches' sabbaths! His use of colored-tinting is effective in establishing the atmosphere of each tableau. But it isn't all grim, there are a lot of moments of hilarity. One of the funniest is when the director does a cameo as a horny-Devil, which makes Haxan a must-see. The depiction of the witch flying on her broomstick is reminiscent of the flying-scenes in Murnau's 'Faust' (1926), and shows that the optical-printing of the time was solid.
The Criterion edition is superb, you can do no better as it contains the Anthony Balch/William S. Burroughs cut of the film with the Burroughs-narration. Also, the image-quality of the 1922-cut is astounding, and must come from the camera-negative, a real treat. 1920s film-technology, we find, was very good in the right hands. One can even watch a film like this--or other equally-pristine films--and see that this was not so long-ago. In many-respects, we have changed very-little since the 1920s in America! With 'Satanic panics', 'recovered-memories', 'alien-abductions' and other social-panics, we can see the roots of such reactions (and the iconography) resurfacing even today. A must-have for Halloween parties! (Revised version from September of 2006)
IMPRESSIVE: DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY INCLUDES WITHDRAWAL TIMETABLE IN $100 BILLION BILL FOR IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN
WASHINGTON D.C.--This is truly impressive, I must say. They're acting as an opposition-party should in a democracy, and this is from someone who doesn't consider themselves a Democrat (though I vote for them, usually). Is the timing-of-withdrawal political? Of course, and that's OK. Every move this administration and the former GOP-majority made was politically-motivated. That's politics folks, get over it.
This is how the system is supposed to work--it has to be adversarial in a democracy, it has to ugly and contentious for it to work and for all of us to have our liberties. We cannot always get-along and lockstep. Frequently, the desire for unity is anti-democratic, but this is ending. Finally, belatedly, this is ending. And so is the GOP's monopoly on public-opinion that they're "strong on security." This is a dead-contention.
The best-part of the bill is that if Al-Maliki's government doesn't start delivering and show some coherency and independence, then the withdrawal commences earlier than Fall of 2008! Thank you God, thank you Jesus! This war is destroying the soul of America, and it has to end soon. We're seeing the first-steps, this is so heartening. It's beginning to feel like Spring in America, a new day. We can thank the Iraqi people for holding-out, for wearing this criminal administration down.
If we had won this war early-on (truly won it), we would have almost no-rights in this nation today. Their power would have been almost unapproachable. Remember: the Bush administration and the GOP attempted to seize total power. Harsh-penalties and reforms as law have to be enacted, and we might have to dismantle them as a party, splintering them into a "thousand points of light." Pun-intended. There is a lot of work to do, and this Congress is proving that it is ready to do this work.
This is how the system is supposed to work--it has to be adversarial in a democracy, it has to ugly and contentious for it to work and for all of us to have our liberties. We cannot always get-along and lockstep. Frequently, the desire for unity is anti-democratic, but this is ending. Finally, belatedly, this is ending. And so is the GOP's monopoly on public-opinion that they're "strong on security." This is a dead-contention.
The best-part of the bill is that if Al-Maliki's government doesn't start delivering and show some coherency and independence, then the withdrawal commences earlier than Fall of 2008! Thank you God, thank you Jesus! This war is destroying the soul of America, and it has to end soon. We're seeing the first-steps, this is so heartening. It's beginning to feel like Spring in America, a new day. We can thank the Iraqi people for holding-out, for wearing this criminal administration down.
If we had won this war early-on (truly won it), we would have almost no-rights in this nation today. Their power would have been almost unapproachable. Remember: the Bush administration and the GOP attempted to seize total power. Harsh-penalties and reforms as law have to be enacted, and we might have to dismantle them as a party, splintering them into a "thousand points of light." Pun-intended. There is a lot of work to do, and this Congress is proving that it is ready to do this work.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE LIBBY TRIAL VERDICT
Simple: "We cannot tolerate perjury...if you don't tell the truth, we cannot make the judicial system work," said US Attorney and prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald yesterday. That's it. Libby lied to a federal grand jury. That's a crime. There is no more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)