Monday, January 30, 2006


Maybe not all of them, but the Bush supporters sure seem to be.

From that wonderful gal Tina at Fuzzy And Blue:

Study Proves Political Party tied to Racism

This is soooo shocking: "That study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did."

Click that link and go read. I think some people will be surprized.


Bush is to deliver his State of the Union speech tonight. He will talk about his use of illegal wiretaps and spying on ordinary US citizens.

American Progress has this on the subject:

Warrantless Domestic Spying

What Bush Will Say: "The terrorist surveillance program is necessary to protect America from attack." [1/26/05]

What You Need to Know: President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program undermines the fight against terrorists and violates the law.

LAWLESS SPYING THREATENS LEGITIMATE TERRORIST INVESTIGATIONS: When laws are broken, the legal system imposes consequences. Revelations about the National Security Agency wiretapping program throw into doubt a wide range of investigations and prosecutions in the fight against terrorism. In criminal cases that can put terrorists behind bars, judges now have to worry that evidence was based on illegal wiretaps. According to several FISA judges quoted by the Washington Post, there are serious concerns that "legally suspect information" acquired through warrantless surveillance was used to obtain FISA warrants, potentially rendering the warrants illegitimate. More broadly, convicted terrorists will be emboldened to challenge their prosecutions, perhaps giving them the opportunity to operate freely once again. [Washington Post, 12/21/05]

LAWLESS SPYING WASTES VALUABLE INVESTIGATIVE RESOURCES: According to the New York Times, a massive amount of time and resources were devoted to the warrantless domestic spying program but obtained minimal results. The FBI was bombarded with long lists of phone numbers generated by the NSA program. According to a senior prosecutor: "It affected the F.B.I. in the sense that they had to devote so many resources to tracking every single one of these leads, and, in my experience, they were all dry leads." Long after 9/11, "the N.S.A. material continued to be viewed as unproductive, prompting agents to joke that a new bunch of tips meant more calls to Pizza Hut." [New York Times, 1/17/06]

LAWLESS SPYING THREATENS THE CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES: The Bush Administration is claiming executive power far beyond our historical understanding. Among recent examples: the administration claims it can wiretap without a warrant in the United States, contrary to federal law (FISA); it can torture, contrary to international law and the recent McCain Anti-Torture Amendment; and it can hold a U.S. citizen in detention forever, with no judicial review, simply because the President labels the citizen an "enemy combatant." These positions constitute a direct attack by the executive branch on the checks and balances designed to protect our nation's democracy.

For the rest of what will Bush will talk about go read these: What Bush Will Say, What You Should Know and The Truth About Health Savings Accounts.


So much for the tax cut for the wealthy keeping the working class working.

After showing a 23% increase in profits in the forth quarter of '05 over the same quarter of '04, Kraft has decided to cut 8,000 jobs...that comes to 10% of it's workforce. Is that greed or what?

From Reuters via Yahoo News:

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Kraft Foods Inc. (NYSE:KFT - news) on Monday said it would cut up to 8,000 more jobs, or 10 percent of its work force, through 2008 as the food company, hammered by higher commodity costs and sluggish sales volume, looks to save more money.

The announcement came as the maker of Oreo cookies, Jell-O gelatin and a host of other well-known brands, posted a 23 percent increase in net income.

Kraft, like many packaged food companies, has been struggling with a range of commodity cost increases in recent years and is still being pressured by high fuel and packaging costs.

The company posted a profit of $773 million, or 46 cents a share, for the fourth quarter, compared with $628 million, or 37 cents a share, a year earlier.

Wasn't it George W. Bush who said that the tax cuts he wanted would keep people working?


I've been watching C-SPAN2 since I got home from work. I was really shocked at the Democrats who turned their backs on us and the rest of the country as well as the Constitution.

Here's a list of the Democrats who have voted for Alito's confirmation along with their email addresses:

Robert Byrd, D, WV

Kent Conrad, D, ND

Tim Johnson, D, SD

Benjamin E. Nelson D, NE

Let's all email them and ask them just why they voted the way they did, and why they turned their backs on us.

Here's the list of Senators who had not voted at the time of my posting this:

Evan Bayh, D, IN

Maria Cantwell, D, WA

Byron L. Dorgan, D, ND

Mary L. Landrieu, D, LA

John D. Rockefeller,IV, D, WV

Olimpia J. Snowe, R, ME

Let's start sending these Senators emails to ask them to vote NO For the country, our future, and the Constitution.

Sunday, January 29, 2006


The Shredding of Our Civil Liberties

Searches on the New York subway

Giving the green light for racial profiling
Random searches of passengers on New York subways are an invitation to racial profiling--which had already taken place as the program got underway last week.

Another stage in the administration’s war on civil liberties

The new McCarthyism
For his second term in office, George W. Bush is making it clear that our civil liberties are on the hit list.

Modern-day witch-hunt
The voices they want to silence
Since the September 11 attacks, the right wing has organized a concerted campaign to silence the voices of left-wing academics and activists.

What’s in Washington’s Big Brother Bill?
The USA PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement at every level extraordinary new powers for domestic spying, searches, detainment and deportation.


Found this via Socialist Worker Online:

Big Brother is watching you

January 27, 2006

IN THE name of fighting the “war on terror,” the Bush administration says that it has to take steps here at home to protect us. Fighting terrorism comes before protecting civil liberties, goes the argument.

As White House strategist Karl Rove told the Republican National Committee last week, “President Bush believes if al-Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why.”

But as each new scandal about secret spying and government targeting of immigrants and peaceful protesters comes to light, it’s clearer than ever that the government’s idea of “protecting” U.S. citizens at home involves shredding our civil liberties. NICOLE COLSON looks at what’s at stake in the Bush administration’s attack on our rights.

Under the Patriot Act, it is legal for the government to:

-- Look at your private medical records, what you buy, what you study and what books you read. Section 215 of the Patriot Act gives the FBI and other law enforcement agencies access to a broad variety of personal records without having to have probable cause or obtain a search warrant. It also makes it a crime for those who are compelled to turn over records--be they business owners, doctors, librarians, etc.--to reveal that they have been forced to give up the information.

-- Search your home without telling you. Under Section 213, the government can conduct secret “sneak and peek” searches of an individual’s home or office. They can take pictures, seize property and even collect DNA samples--without ever having to tell the individual that a warrant was issued.

-- Label protesters who engage in civil disobedience as “domestic terrorists.” Under Section 802 of the Patriot Act, “domestic terrorism” is defined as any act that is “dangerous to human life,” involves a violation of any state or federal law, and is intended to influence government policy. That definition is so broad that it could apply to protesters at an antiwar march where there are minor acts of vandalism, or a civil disobedience action where protesters resist arrest.

-- Seize business and financial records. Section 505 allows the government to use National Security Letters (NSLs) to seize business and financial records--as well as, in some instances, the membership lists of organizations that provide Internet service. In November, the Washington Post revealed that the FBI now issues more than 30,000 National Security Letters each year--up from a few hundred a year before the Patriot Act.

-- Detain immigrants for a week without charges--and indefinitely on minor charges. Section 412 allows the attorney general to “certify” that an immigrant or non-citizen is a terrorist or a threat to national security--without having to show probable cause or charge or convict them of any specific crime. That person can then be detained for a week without being charged with any crime. They can be detained longer, as long as the government can find an excuse like a minor immigration violation to charge them with. And if a suspect in jail on an immigration violation cannot be deported, they can be detained indefinitely--as long as the attorney general certifies every six months that national security is at stake.

Will they outlaw peaceful protests?

PROTESTING AGAINST the Bush administration could become a lot more difficult if the latest version of the Patriot Act passes without revision.

Judging from news reports, the Secret Service’s definition of “disruptive behavior” includes anyone expressing an opinion contrary to the president’s.

Here's the link to the rest of the article:

It's a fairly long read, but well worth it if you are at all concerned about your rights and liberties guarenteed by the Constitution.


Now, I'm not a catholic...nor am I a religious man...but I always admired Pope John Paul II. He was a humanitarian who cared greatly about the injustice in the world and the plight of the downtrodden. A very caring man who seemed to be able to see through the facades of many people and politicians.

From my sweet friend Tina at Fuzzy And Blue:

PopeJPII: Feared Bush in Christian Blood Cult

Whoa. This is just yet another reason to think of JPII as a kinder, gentler & less conservative man than current Pope Benny: Did Pope John Paul II fear that Bush and his fellow Talibornagains are members of a "Christian blood-lust cult"? I for one would wholeheartedly agree that BushCo and his Neo-Convict /Religious Frighters clearly prefer death over life... but when Pope JPII questions it?... that is major.

A big hat-tip to my liberal sister Tina for all her hard work for truth, justice, and the American way. Thanks Supermom!

Saturday, January 28, 2006


This goes along with a post I put up on Friday, IT'S FILIBUSTER TIME FOLKS.

Buzz Flash has made it real easy to contact those Democrats who haven't yet said that they will back a filibuster of Alito's asention to the Supreme Court.

Contact Numbers in D.C. for U.S. Senators from the United States Senate Website. Let Them Hear From You. Save the Constitution, Checks and Balances, and America from a Monarchy.

Click on the link above, find your Senators...or any Senators...and email or call them and tell them to do the right thing and filibuster Alito's confirmation.

Our rights and liberties and the Constitution depend on it.


From Buzz Flash: A Declaration of Independence from those in the Democratic Party who don't care enough to protect OUR Constitution.

Harry Reid, What Will be Your Excuse for Defeat Next Time? The Democratic Leadership in the Senate May Not Fight for the Constitution, But We Will.

January 28, 2006


Harry Reid, what will be your excuse for defeat next time?

For 5 years, we have taken some potshots at some people in the Democratic Party, as we should. But, generally, we stood in support of the Dem Party leadership because when you have had a choice between a party that -- in general -- claims to work for the common good and -- on the other hand -- a dictatorship run by incompetent law-breaking, torturing elitists, you go with the former.

Besides, we cherish the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy -- and the politically reborn Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

But we aren't going to give the benefit of the doubt to the current Congressional Democratic leadership anymore. We have had enough excuses.

And through Tom Daschle's repeated capitulations to Bush -- his occasional criticisms followed by quick apologies or retreats -- and now the same from Harry Reid, we were still promised that the Dems were only giving ground to the most heinous legislation and betrayals of the Constitution from the White House -- time after time -- in order to hold their fire to prevent the Supreme Court from being radicalized into a partisan right wing arm of the extremist Republican Party.

But now that time has nearly come and gone -- and Harry Reid, the highest ranking Democratic officer holder in America -- shrugs his shoulders and says that there is nothing he can do to prevent a man who believes that a Republican president is entitled to dictatorial powers, that there is nothing that Harry Reid can do to prevent such a man from being seated on the Supreme Court.

We have been betrayed by our own party.

From now on, our first and only priorities are citizen patriots who stand up for the Constitution, Democracy, Voting Rights, Justice, Honesty, Accountabilty -- Winning.

We have had enough excuses and "retreats to fight another day" to know that the Democratic leadership doesn't have the gut check to restore America to its Constitutional balance of powers, resist the Republican juggernaut to return us to a pre-Civil War era, the illegalities in the White House, exposing the truth behind the Republican lies, framing the issues at stake, supporting the likes of John Murtha who is speaking out for the military -- for Christ's sake -- in opposition to a ruinous war that is degrading our armed forces, and, most importantly, to do battle. To fight the good fight, and to win. The Democratic leadership is too busy wandering around dazed and confused to accomplish these tasks.

Their rare temporary win on Social Security is only testament to what they could do if they acted with strength, passion and conviction more than once or twice in five years.

From now on, it's up to us. Yes, by all means continue to bombard senators with phone calls demanding that they defend the Constitution and support the filibuster. (We have several headlines on BuzzFlash that link to senate office and fax numbers. Here is one from Democrats.Com:

Remember, it's your government. These people are elected by you and their salaries and perks are paid with your hard-earned tax dollars.

But, also remember this, we, the citizens of America with passionate commitment, are the last hope. We will fight for America and our rule of law -- as Harry Reid won't, and Tom Daschle, before him, didn't.

We are tired of being shown speeches that criticize Bush. That is not putting up a fight. That is providing an alibi.

Hasta la vista to the likes of Joe Biden. We are holding Bush accountable and we are holding the Dems who function as enablers accountable, the Dems who shrink from a fight and then hold forth with political babble on Sunday morning talk shows.

You know why half the public still thinks Bush is strong on national security when he is really undermining our nation at every turn and putting our lives at risk with his dreadfully misguided policies?

There are two reasons: the Democratic leadership doesn't know or doesn't care to expose how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld endanger our national security (and we're not talking about press releases from Harry Reid here as being sufficient); and half of the American public doesn't care that Cheney and Bush were cowards during the Vietnam War. Why? Because Cheney and Bush are Sons of Bitches now -- and half of America wants a Son of a Bitch in the White House when they are living in a state of fear, because the Democrats are too scared to challenge the Bush lies about his failed "war on terror."

Franklin Roosevelt said, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself." The Republicans say, "Live in a state of fear and vote for us." The Democratic leadership sits on their haunches and lets the political shakedown go unchallenged -- and Roosevelt died more than 60 years ago, so we can't bring him back to set the Party straight.

No one cares about politicians who talk about strength and then roll over like doormats whenever the highly vulnerable and corrupt Republicans intimidate them. If the Democrats want to be perceived as strong, then stop backing down from almost every fight in the Senate. Not one Democrat in the Senate -- not one -- should be leaving Kerry and Kennedy hanging in the win.

This should not be a symbolic filibuster. This should be a filibuster to keep the Supreme Court as one independent branch as specified in the Constitutional balance of powers, not as an extension of the monarchal, dynastic goals of Bush and his one-party government.

If you can't beat a White House that should be in jail instead of occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then you are not perceived as strong. You are perceived as weak, and rightfully so.

The excuses are over. We'll finish up what Howard Dean tried to start (and is continuing at the DNC largely without the support of the Democratic Congressional leadership). We'll have to take back our party before we can get back our Constitution.

Odd, isn't it, the DLC Democrats spend more time fighting off patriotic, grassroots Dems than they do fighting the Republicans. They capitulate to the GOP, but battle their own base. What idiots!

So, on Monday morning, don't stop calling your senators. They still legally represent us -- and we aren't giving up on a filibuster, even if it looks grim. The Republicans always talk up their vote, even when they are losing and create an air of inevitability. That's what they did to pull George Bush through the Florida vote in 2000, long enough to fool the public and get him illegitimately installed as President.

Harry Reid and his predecessor, however, talk down their vote, thus signaling defeat before a vote has even been taken.

We say to the Democratic Congressional leadership, "Enough!"

The time for excuses is over. If the Democratic leadership wants a battle, they got one -- from the patriots of America.

The Constitution comes first. We'll fight through the entrenched Washington Dems if we have to.

We believe in the Spirit of 1776 and the legacy of the American Revolution.

We believe it's worth battling for.


BuzzFlash Afternote: The vote for cloture will probably be on Monday. The White House wants Bush to triumphantly announce Alito's confirmation during his State of the Union Address on Tuesday. It's all part of the big Republican show.

Friday, January 27, 2006


Two items from Alternate Brain I'm passing along to all my readers who may not have seen them yet. One from Gordon, and the other from Fixer.

First from Gordon:

Stop Alito; Support the Filibuster

...and from Fixer:

Filibuster Alito

My senators support it, Gord's too. What about yours? If they don't, start calling.

If you haven't signed the petition yet, please do so. Our liberties are at risk.

If you haven't called your Senator yet, please call. They need to hear from you. Hell, even call your Republican Senators and let them know where you stand. It just might be a wake-up call for them.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006


Not too long ago we heard about a "brilliant" idea from the, I meant brain, sorry, fingers slipped on the keys (tee hee)....of Bush to bomb Aljazeera in Qatar. I believe this had to do with the stance said media takes on the war in Iraq and the videos they have shown from Osama, al Qaeda, and the hostage takers.

Bush, his (mis)administration, and Blair denied that they ever talked about doing a bombing run on Aljazeera. Hell, even Scooter the Dunce McClellan said it was "outlandish and inconceivable"....and if you can't believe Scooter, who can you believe. LOL

Well, if it was never discussed, just why is this happening now.

Aljazeera memo: UK men in court
Tuesday 24 January 2006 11:43 AM GMT

Blair (L) and Bush reportedly discussed Aljazeera in April 2004

Two British men have appeared in court on charges of leaking a government memo in which George Bush, the US president, reportedly discussed bombing the headquarters of Aljazeera.

Civil servant David Keogh, 49, and Leo O'Connor, 42, a lawmaker's former researcher, were charged in November with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

During a brief hearing at London's Central Criminal Court on Tuesday, judge Brian Barker set 25 April for their next pre-trial hearing. Both men are free on bail as they await trial.

Keogh, a former communications officer at the Cabinet Office, faces two charges under Section 3 of the Officials Secrets Act of making a "damaging disclosure of a document" without lawful authority.

O'Connor, who worked for former governing Labour Party lawmaker Tony Clarke, is charged with receiving the document.

Maximum sentence

They each face a maximum sentence of two years in prison.

O'Connor indicated at an earlier hearing that he intended to plead not guilty. Keogh has not entered a plea.

Details of the alleged document were reported by the Daily Mirror, which claimed the memo revealed details of a conversation between Bush and Tony Blair, the British prime minister, at the White House on 16 April 2004.

According to the newspaper, Blair argued against Bush's suggestion of bombing Aljazeera's headquarters in Doha, Qatar. The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's suggestion was serious or not.

Blair has said he had no information about any proposed US action against Aljazeera, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the newspaper's claims "outlandish and inconceivable".

O'Connor's lawyer, Neil Clark, on Tuesday said that he had seen the memo and that it did not violate national security.

"I suspect it has more to do with saving the face of others abroad," he said.

I think they got caught with their pants down and couldn't cover it up. What do you think?


Via Buzz Flash:

Monday, January 16, 2006


I still remember Walter Cronkite's words from 1968....the ones he used when he had the balls to say that we couldn't win in Vietnam.

Now, the elder journalist is saying the same thing about Iraq.

From Tina at Fuzzy And Blue:

Cronkite: Time for U.S. to leave Iraq

By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterSun Jan 15, 6:47 PM ET

Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.

"It's my belief that we should get out now," Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.

Now 89, the television journalist once known as "the most trusted man in America" has been off the "CBS Evening News" for nearly a quarter-century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them.

Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.

Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

The best time to have made a similar statement about Iraq came after Hurricane Katrina, he said.

"We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States," he said. "Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home."

Iraqis should have been told that "our hearts are with you" and that the United States would do all it could to rebuild their country, he said.

"I think we could have been able to retire with honor," he said. "In fact, I think we can retire with honor anyway."

Cronkite has spoken out against the Iraq war in the past, saying in 2004 that Americans weren't any safer because of the invasion.

Cronkite, who is hard of hearing and walks haltingly, jokingly said that "I'm standing by if they want me" to anchor the "CBS Evening News." CBS is still searching for a permanent successor to Dan Rather, who replaced Cronkite in March 1981.

"Twenty-four hours after I told CBS News that I was stepping down at my 65th birthday I was already regretting it and I've regretted it every day since," he said. "It's too good a job for me to have given it up the way that I did."


From Capitol Hill Blue:

The 'I-word' comes out of the closet
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the sometimes-maverick Republican who has been a thorn in more than one GOP President’s side, brought out the word that’s been whispered in the Congressional cloakrooms and behind closed doors by other members of his party for several weeks now. Impeachment.
The Rant Jan 16, 2006, 05:35


Specter: Bush could face impeachment
The powerful Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee admitted Sunday President Bush could face impeachment over his authorization for spying on Americans by the National Security Agency.
Capitol Hillbillies Jan 16, 2006, 04:24

Both are worth the read.


We miss ya.

We still need you and your ideals.

Some people...Bush for one...still don't get it.

From our friends at Buzz Flash:

Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King: "I Have a Dream."

...and from Capitol Hill Blue:

Martin Luther King helped define America
The United States, perhaps unique in the world, is a nation of documents that are peculiarly significant to our identity, because we were founded on written principles that each generation must explore and amplify.
Ain't This America. . . Jan 16, 2006, 00:55


Heed Dr. King's Words, Atlanta Mayor Urges (AP)

Isaac Newton Farris, Jr., president and CEO of The King Center, left, and Christine King Farris, treasurer of The King Center, sing during the 38th Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Commemorative Service at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Monday, Jan. 16, 2006. (AP Photo/Ric Feld)AP - The mayor of Atlanta called Monday for "bold, audacious" action to make sure society really heeds the message of the Rev. Martin Luther King, and urged listeners gathered to mark his holiday not to forget the victims of Hurricane Katrina.


Sen. John McCain was on CBS' "Face The Nation" yesterday doing his Bush Bitch routine again. This time it was about nuking Iran before they have a chance to build any nuclear weopons.

"That is the last option. Everything else has to be exhausted. But to say under no circumstances would we exercise a military option, that would be crazy," Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona said.

Maybe Iran is developing nuclear arms, then again maybe they aren't. I don't know. What I do know though is that this sounds alot like Saddam = WMD's = 9/11.

There are Democrats jumping on the bandwagon with McCain, one being Sen. Evan Bayh of Illinois.

Bayh, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there are sensitive elements of Iran's nuclear program, which, if attacked, "would dramatically delay it's development".

"But that should not be an option at this point. We ought to use everything else possible keep from getting to that juncture," he said on CNN's Late Edition.

McCain is concerned that a strike against Iran could push the price of oil up...gee, isn't that big of him to be concerned now.

"If the price of oil has to go up then that's a consequence we would have to suffer," he said.

Oh well so much for cheap gas for those big SUV's and Limos.

Get ready folks, they're going to expand the "War for Oil and Profit."

Thanks to Aljazeera News for the story. Click link for the Full Story.


Fixer at Alternate Brain had a post up this morning titled "Where are we?" that set me to thinking about all the opportunities the Republicans/neocons have placed at the Democrats feet during the past five years which they...the Dems... could have used to stop the Republicans/necons in their tracks. The more I thought about it, the more pissed off I got.

Let's review just a few of the items the Dems have or have had in their stockpile of ammunition.

Let's start with the 2000 election. The Supreme Court was allowed to decide for us who would be the president. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power or Constitutional right to make this decision...but the Dems sat there like good dogs.

How about 9/11? The Bush administration had information of a planed terrorist attack on the us and did nothing. In fact, I believe that the Bush administration and PNAC helped the "New Pearl Harbor" along. See - Exposing the Project for the New American Century and PNAC for more on PNAC.

I'd like to pause here for a moment and mention something the Bush administration did which I agree principle. least they got the name of the country right. What they said they were going to do there and what they did do there are two different things. Bush said "...we're going to hunt down bin Laden and capture him and bring him to trial." Well, he's still out there and nobody knows where he is. Kind of like taking your car in for an overhaul and getting an air filter instead. (Fixer and Gordon, sorry for the cheap analogy.)

Then we have the Patriot Act. One hundred Senators...of which almost half are Dems...and only ONE votes against it. Were the Dems whipped into such a Patriotic frenzy that their brains couldn't think about the repercussions it would have on the Bill of Rights?

Katrina came along and gave the Dems another chance to expose the Bush administration and the Repug/neocons for their ineptitude and gross negligence. Another opportunity right down the tubes.

The economy. What can I sucks, it has sucked for five years, and it will continue to suck. Don't see anybody in Congress trying to help either.

They could have stopped the Bankruptcy Bill from getting to Bush's desk....but sadly no, couldn't agree to disagree with the Repugs.

Now we have illegal wiretaps, an impeachable this is the first from the Bush administration. See how quickly the Senate jumps and starts impeachment procedings? Oh, wait, I'm mistaken. They're still sitting on their hands. Chicken-shits! Get up you pussies and fight back! Hell, according to the new Zogby poll 52% of America would like the Senate to investigate impeachment. (See this for more: American public supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping us illegally) The people want you to get off your dead asses and do something about this corrupt administration.

But no. They'll just continue to sit there and do nothing until the Bush administration, the Republican leadership, and the rest of the neocons finish destroying this country.

From Fixer:
"Note to Dems: You're the only ones in a position to do something about the Repubs. If you don't want to fight for our country, just let us know. I'll put my house up for sale now and head off to Europe. I might be willing to fight to the death for this nation, but I'm not willing to commit suicide for it. I'm tired of being your cannon fodder when you won't even give us close air support, let alone covering artillery. I'm sure I speak for a lot of progressive bloggers who have just about had it with you."

If the Dems won't do anything about this we can. There's two ways. We need to pick the correct one.

Sunday, January 15, 2006


The Republicans screamed for the impeachment of Pres. Clinton when they found out he lied about getting a hummer. Most of the public couldn't have cared less.

Bush has lied to Congress to get us into a war...which is treason an impeachable offense...but now he has added illegal wiretapping to it. And Congress sits on it's collective dead ass. Meanwhile, the public thinks impeachment is the right thing to do.

From our friends at Buzz Flash:

American public supports impeaching Bush for wiretapping us illegally

"By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll commissioned by, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,216 U.S. adults from January 9-12.

The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error."


"Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 66% of Democrats favored impeachment, as did 59% of Independents, but only 23% of Republicans. By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%), but not by Conservatives (33%) or Very Conservatives (28%)."

The whole post is worth the read.

The public has spoken!

Saturday, January 14, 2006


In 1940, Hollywood produced a movie staring Charlie Chaplin which was titled "The Great Dictator". It was a put down on Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Gremany. I'm sure most of you....except for those under let's say 30....have heard of it, and some of those may have even had a chance to see it. I think I was around 10 the first time I had the opportunity to watch the film. It was a funny movie....showed a bumbling fool as an all powerful dictator.

Even with as funny as that movie was, the 1930's and 1940's in Germany were not....and we are heading in that direction. Everything that Bush and his cronies, the Republican leadership, and the rest of the neocons have done over the past 25 years have been done to lead this country towards this end. Those who designed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) have had the biggest hand in this.

At the bottom of this post you will find some links to information on PNAC and what their goal is.

...but first I have this from Doug Thompson at Capitol Hill Blue:

The Rant
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government

President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.

Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.

These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.

Now, click the link above and go read the rest of the column.

Here's the rest of the links I mentioned earlier. Check 'em out. They explain alot about the neocon plan for our country as well as the rest of the world. - Exposing the Project for the New American Century

Project for the New American Century (PNAC)


The Project for the New American Century

Tuesday, January 10, 2006


We in Wisconsin have at least one politician in Washington who is trying to help.

Just in from the Progressive Daily Beacon:

Feingold Forces Alito to Concede He Lied About Vanguard Failure
by August Keso, January 10th, 2006

(5:24PM Eastern, January 10, 2006) Russ Feingold, the only Senator to truly probe Alito's responses, forced Alito to admit that his failure to recuse himself from the Vanguard case was not due to a computer glitch. CNN, which has been doing its best, as are all the nation's media, to ensure Alito is shown in the best possible light, almost immediately left the hearing for a commercial break.

Go get 'im, Russ!!!


Monday, January 09, 2006


Here's a little more on the subject of Bush having the NSA wiretap and spy on us.

The FISA Farce
by James Bovard
Future of Freedom Foundation

President Bush proudly announced last month that he is violating federal law. He declared that in 2002 he ordered the National Security Agency to begin conducting warrantless wiretaps and email intercepts on Americans. He asserted that the wiretaps would continue, regardless of the law.

Bush claims that he must ignore the law because the secret federal court created to authorize such wiretaps moves too slowly to protect U.S. national security. Amazingly, his claim has been treated with respect, if not deference, by much of the nation’s media. Much of the media has groveled to his claim the same way that the special court grovels to federal agencies.

In 1978, responding to scandals about political spying on Americans in the name of counterespionage, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA created a new “court” to oversee federal surveillance of foreign agents within the United States.

...and this from Leonard Pitts Jr., whose column I always read until the newspaper I read it in made a big swing to the right and discontinued printing anything worthwhile from the liberal viewpoint.

Fear and Loathing of Freedom in the White House
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
Detroit Free Press

Another president, perhaps.

Maybe then it would be easier to look the other way, give a tacit nod to the abrogation of constitutional freedoms as a wartime necessity. After all, Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War and history does not begrudge him for it, given that he faced an enemy massed almost literally within sight of the White House.

But this is not President Lincoln we're talking about. It's not even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, succumbing to post-Pearl Harbor hysteria and interning thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

No, we're talking about President George W. Bush -- King George, if you will -- and last month's New York Times bombshell that a few months after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on phone calls and e-mails of hundreds if not thousands of U.S. citizens.

Go read 'em both, they're well worth the time.


I got a heads-up from one of my readers, Bjoern at Silly Adventures, about an article that went along with my post MORE ON BUSH TORTURE. I went looking for it and found this from David Cole:

The New York Review of Books: What Bush Wants to Hear

Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush's legal policies in the "war on terror" than John Yoo. This is a remarkable feat, because Yoo was not a cabinet official, not a White House lawyer, and not even a senior officer within the Justice Department. He was merely a mid-level attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel with little supervisory authority and no power to enforce laws. Yet by all accounts, Yoo had a hand in virtually every major legal decision involving the US response to the attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice was virtually always the same— the president can do whatever the president wants.

Yoo's most famous piece of advice was in an August 2002 memorandum stating that the president cannot constitutionally be barred from ordering torture in wartime—even though the United States has signed and ratified a treaty absolutely forbidding torture under all circumstances, and even though Congress has passed a law pursuant to that treaty, which without any exceptions prohibits torture. Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the president the "Commander-in-Chief," no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the president would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished.

This is another one of those MUST READS, kids. Tells alot about what Bush and his cronies think they can get away with. Thanks for the heads-up, Bjoern.

Sunday, January 08, 2006


This is a must read, kids.

From Information Clearing House:

Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

By Philip Watts

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles. Continued

Saturday, January 07, 2006


More from Uruknet Info:



When: 1:30 pm, January 10, 2006
Where: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC

Contact: Larry Everest or Janet Yip: 212-941-8086 or email:

A bill of indictment will be delivered to the White House in Washington, DC on Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2006 at 1:30PM charging the President of the United States and other named individuals in his administration with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

A press conference will take place in Lafayette Park following delivery of the indictments to the White House. Present to answer questions will be Retired CIA Analyst Ray McGovern and others Commission participants. The indictments will also be delivered to the Department of Justice.

Named in the indictment are;
President of the United States George W. Bush,
Vice President Richard Cheney,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
US Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez,
US Army Major General Geoffrey Miller,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and others

These indictments result from preparatory work and testimony presented at in New York City on October 21 and 22, 2005 at the opening session of The International Commission of Inquiry On Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration, alleging illegal acts carried out or approved by the above named individuals in relation to, or in the conduct of, the following;

1) Wars of Aggression, particular reference to Iraq and Afghanistan; 2) Torture and Indefinite Detention; 3) Destruction of the Global Environment, particular reference to systematic policies; contributing to the effects of global warming; 4) Attacks on Global Public Health and Reproductive Rights, particular reference to the genocidal effects of forcing international agencies to promote "abstinence only" in the midst of a global AIDS epidemic; and 5) Bush Administration's lethal response to Hurricane Katrina

The concluding sessions of the International Commission of Inquiry will be at the Riverside Church and the Columbia University Law School in New York on January 20-22. The Commission was organized by the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience and is endorsed by: Center for Constitutional Rights, National Lawyers Guild, After Downing Street.Org and many other prominent individuals and organizations, including Former Sen. James Abourezk, former British MP Tony Benn, authors Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn and Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and actor Edward Asner.

The above-named defendants are invited to appear or to send representatives to speak in their defense before a panel of distinguished jurors. This is the first opportunity in the USA for a complete public hearing of the charges and the evidence and testimony supporting them.

Charter, full indictments, standards for judgment, and audio and video coverage of the first session:

Click the links for The Charter and the Indictments.


From Uruknet Info:

Questions & Answers for the confused and bewildered

Allen L Roland, Ph.D


January 6, 2006

Here are some questions and answers designed to help you understand the workings of the new and streamlined Cheney/Bush Imperial presidency .
This would seem humorous if it were not so dam close to the truth .

Allen L Roland

A Brief Primer... Designed to Help You Understand the Workings of Our New, Streamlined American System of Government

(Thanks to Crooks and Liars Update, Jan 3, 2006
by Jon Carroll )

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost legal apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?
Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?
No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?
The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?
It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?
It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?
The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?
The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?
The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?
Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?
Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?
No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?
It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism.
The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?
Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?
The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant.
"Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?
That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?
No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?
Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on Conscious talk radio


Found this on Yahoo News.
Anybody living in the snow belt here will be able to imagine what this would be like.

A woman digs to create a pathway through heavy snow which has piled up to over three metres in the northern Japanese town of Tsunan January 6, 2006. REUTERS/Kyodo

Put your own caption in comments. Maybe I'll pick out the choice...and let ya vote on 'em. Then again, maybe not....who knows ;^)


From one of the local boob-tube connections:

Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas
AP Image

Embattled DeLay Won't Seek House Leadership

List Of Republicans Calling For New House Leadership Growing

POSTED: 6:25 am CST January 7, 2006
UPDATED: 12:13 pm CST January 7, 2006
Officials say Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has decided to give up his post as House Majority Leader.

The two officials said DeLay is preparing a letter informing fellow House Republicans of his decision, which clears the way for new leadership elections.

The officials spoke only on condition that their names not be used.

DeLay is battling campaign finance charges in his home state of Texas, and he was forced to temporarily step aside as majority leader last fall.

He has maintained his innocence and had said he intended to resume his leadership post once cleared of the charges. But he's been facing growing pressure from Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert had earlier signaled he Wouldn't stand in the way of Republicans who want elections for a permanent leader to replace Tom DeLay.

Two Republican lawmakers are circulating a petition calling for new leadership elections.

Rep. Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., said Friday the House needs a new majority leader to restore "trust and confidence."

Another Republican congressman said lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea could lead to further questions about DeLay's legal challenges.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., told The Associated Press that DeLay's situation "doesn't seem to be reaching clarity."


Via Fixer at Alternate Brain:

"A great post I came across on An Athiest Soldier:

Wilson Kolb suggested the following:

You should do a posting about whether or not the military is one big nest of Republicans, other than a few scattered people like yourself. I'm curious as to whether the whole thing is as redneck as we've all been led to believe by the rightwingnut milblogs. Are the soliders really THAT propagandized?

My Answer:


Click the link and go read how our troops think.