Sat 31 Mar 2007
I knew it was coming. I just didn’t know exactly when. Or who would “pull the trigger”. But I should have.
Tonight, for me at least, television as a distinct medium died. I have vague childhood recollections of watching a president discuss a war on the recently-obtained new technological marvel TELEVISION.
The president was named Harry, the war, in some place called “Korea”. As I watched, not fully grasping the meaning of what was being said, I remember a sense of distrust in the impression I got. Deja vu, the first time.
I haven’t watched “TV” in a while—the internet is just too absorbing. And INTERACTIVE!!
But it’s different now… television is dead. John Perry just killed it. (more…)
Thu 29 Mar 2007
“Rich Aucoin is a small-government campaigner living in Massachusetts.He was the Libertarian candidate for Lieutenant Governor in 2002…” says the “Filibuster for Peace” website.
Along with John V. Walsh and Kevin Zeese , he’s created the “Filibuster for Peace” website.
As we’ve noted before, without funding there can be no war. Perhaps the senators from your state are undecided. Go to the “Filibuster for Peace” site and sign the petition asking senators to filibuster against Iraq war funding. You’ll never know for sure, were a funding bill to fail to get through congress, whether your signature on this concise, clearly stated request made a difference, but on the other hand, you won’t know it didn’t.
You’ll find the petition here:
Fri 23 Mar 2007
Well, the so-called “progressives” in congress have exposed themselves for what they really are; the left wing of the war party.
Democrats Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and Diane E. Watson have lent their support to the latest Iraq war funding bill.
These three were the nominal “leaders” of the anti-war faction in congress.
According to a POLITICO report, by Josephine Hearn, quoted at afterdowningstreet.org
‘“After two grueling weeks of meetings, progressive members of Congress brought forth an agreement that provided the momentum to pass a supplemental spending bill that, for the first time, establishes a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq,” the four California congresswomen said in a statement.’
Yes, it “establishes” a timeline, but as the traitorous three well know, it also gives the so-called “president” the authority to waive it’s provisions. (more…)
Thu 22 Mar 2007
In a press briefing Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow addressed the accusation (from Senator Feinstein) that the White House is in a “bunker mentality”.
“I can’t think of anything that’s further from the truth. Here you have the White House having made an offer to Capitol Hill that’s designed to do one thing, which is to enable the House and Senate, in reviewing decisions made on U.S. attorneys, to get at the truth, and the whole truth…”
The subject was the recent controversy over the firing of seven U.S. attorneys, apparently politically motivated. But if the White House is so eager to provide the truth, then why the aversion to testimony under oath?
Time Magazine”s Reynolds Holding offers an the answer:
“The (White House counsel Fred) Fielding offer would allow those officials to speak with Congress, though not on the record or under oath. A federal statute makes lying to Congress illegal, even when no oath is taken, says Professor Michael Dorf of Columbia Law School, but some have suggested that the absence of a record would make proof of lying difficult.” (more…)
Fri 16 Mar 2007
Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave a speech at the House of Representatives Thrusday. In it, he expressed affirmations of rule of law:
“This House cannot avoid its constitutionally authorized responsibility to restrain the abuse of Executive power.”
“The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Charter, a constituent treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter states, “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.”
“Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes such treaties the Supreme Law of the Land.”
He stated the obvious, that most in his position have lacked the courage to acknowledge:
“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.”
It cannot be over-emphasized that Kucinich is refering to the initiation of force, not the use of force as an in-kind response.
He was objecting to “…the House Appropriations Committee remov(ing) 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.”
The mere fact that such legislation was under consideration, or that Kucinich finds it necessary to object to it’s deletion, exhibits the advanced state of decay of rule of law in Washington today. (more…)
Thu 15 Mar 2007
Notes from yesterday/today’s news, and their implications for where the United States’ federal government should stand with it’s citizens.
Asked by ABC News if she thought homosexuality is immoral, Senator Clinton responded,”Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.”
This from she who aspires to the title, “Leader of the Free world”? No, madam Senator, it is for YOU to provide moral leadership. You can start by at least matching General Pace’s honesty.
Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is said to have confessed to that and involvement in various other terrorist plans.
Given the nature of the venue of the alleged “confession”, what basis do we have for accepting it? (more…)
Tue 13 Mar 2007
The Chicago Tribune reports on a discussion between their staff and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace:
“He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.”
I bring this up to illustrate the fundamental difference between “conservatives”, as General Pace may taken, and Libertarians.
This is a difference that is frequently obscured when the two groups are in agreement on given issues. Some good examples are brought to light by the recent ambivalance of religious conservatives toward former N.Y. Mayor Giuliani’s presidential candidacy.
While they are attracted to his “strong leadership” image and his support for the war against the people of Iraq, They are put off by libertarian remarks such as “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,”
But why are there differences? Fundamentally, there is really only one difference, the basis of belief. (more…)
Mon 12 Mar 2007
Got an e-mail from Esteemed Admin last week:
“Have you read about MEMOGATE?
Especially if you have my keen sense of pathos, as I do. In case you weren’t aware, “Memogate”, is a memo from LP Executive Director, Shane Cory to the Libertarian National Committee. It recounts Jacqueline Passey’s rather unflattering commentary on a debate of Libertarian Party Presidential candidates. (more…)
Fri 9 Mar 2007
Our so-called “president” arrived in Brazil Thrusday. The CNN website tells me:
“No protesters were visible on Bush’s route to the city from the airport”.
“And in the southern city of Porto Alegre, more than 500 people yelled, “Get out, imperialist!” as they burned an effigy of Bush…”
But the main focus of the protesters is the ongoing crime against the people of Iraq , as some demonstrators carried pictures of that nation’s toppled and executed dictator, Saddam Hussein. Polls show most Iraqis believe they were better off under his reign.
As has been pointed out here , Hussein conducted himself in his final momments in a manner it would be difficult to expect from bush.
A photo of protesters shows a picture of bush with a Hitlerian moustache; the caption—”Bush persona non grata” with a swastika in place of the letter “S”.
“No protesters were visible on Bush’s route to the city from the airport”. (more…)
Thu 8 Mar 2007
As we noted yesterday, NASA complains of being short, despite their annual budget of approximately $12.681 billion , of $1 billion to search for objects in space that could have a devastating impact on the earth.
Perhaps a little cost-cutting could help free up some funds.
Back in 2004, Dumb Quixote de la Casa Blanca proclaimed a “new course for America’s space program”"…by proposing manned exploration of the moon within a generation and of Mars sometime after that.”
“The price could soar, too, to about $170 billion, according to a NASA document. But Bush spoke mostly of the challenge he saw ahead.” Said Knight Ridder News at the time.
Instead of “manned exploration of the moon”, NASA should consider sending women. (more…)
— Next Page »