I think we need to consider showing this movie.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Sunday, July 29, 2007
More late night reading finds...
The Whitehouse Coup
The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.
Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.BBC radio report here Be patient at the start of the report there is an unrelated story, but it's short.
After listening to this, it appears what's old is new again, in part.
The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.
Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.BBC radio report here Be patient at the start of the report there is an unrelated story, but it's short.
After listening to this, it appears what's old is new again, in part.
Dangers of a Cornered George Bush
By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank
July 27, 2007
July 27, 2007
Editor’s Note: As the nation and the world face 18 more months of George W. Bush’s presidency, a chilling prospect is that Bush – confronted with more defeats and reversals – might just “lose it” and undertake even more reckless military adventures.I highly suggest reading this article. It's very interesting, and definitely food for thought. read it here
The Martial Law threat is real
I have thought about this possibility for years. Now an article has put my fears into words, and it's well worth reading. Even now, the Bush administration can disappear anyone they want, and have done. Then another thought comes to mind, why is it that the Senate and House are not in any hurry to impeach? Do they want to leave these executive powers open for the next President?
Check out the excerpts from David Lindorf's article found on Buzzflash.
Check out the excerpts from David Lindorf's article found on Buzzflash.
From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress.
The first step, or course, was the first Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed in September 2001, which the president has subsequently used to claim -- improperly, but so what -- that the whole world, including the U.S., is a battlefield in a so-called "War" on Terror, and that he has extra-Constitutional unitary executive powers to ignore laws passed by Congress.
The 2001 AUMF was followed by the PATRIOT Act, passed in October 2001, which undermined much of the Bill of Rights. Around the same time, the president began a campaign of massive spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, conducted without any warrants or other judicial review. It was and remains a program clearly aimed at American dissidents and at the Administration's political opponents...
The other thing we saw early on was the establishment of an underground government within a government, though the activation, following 9-11, of the so-called "Continuity of Government" protocol...
It was also during the first year following 9-11 that the Bush/Cheney regime began its programs of arrest and detention without charge -- mostly of resident aliens, but also of American citizens --
Meanwhile, last October Bush and Cheney, with the help of a compliant Congress, put in place some key elements needed for a military putsch. There was the overturning of the venerable Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which barred the use of active duty military inside the United States for police-type functions, and the revision of the Insurrection Act, so as to empower the president to take control of National Guard units in the 50 states, even over the objections of the governors...
Put this together with the wholly secret construction now under way -- courtesy of a $385 million grant by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc -- of detention camps reportedly capable of confining as many as 400,000 people, and a recent report that the Pentagon has a document, dated June 1, 2007, classified Top Secret, which declares there to be a developing "insurgency" within the U.S, and which lays out a whole martial law counterinsurgency campaign against legal dissent, and you have all the ingredients for a military takeover of the United States.Bruce Fein isn't an alarmist. He says he doesn't see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. He says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever."
Fein argues that the only real defense against the looming disaster of a martial law declaration would be for Congress to vote for a resolution determining that there is no "War" on terror. "But they are such cowards they will never do that," he says.full article
That leaves us with the military.
If ordered to turn their guns and bayonets on their fellow Americans, would our "heroes" in uniform follow their consciences, and their oaths to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States? Or would they follow the orders of their Commander in Chief?
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Bush administration committing war crimes?
Well, a couple of folks think the answer is yes. Who are they? Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley, who served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987, and Robert F. Turner is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
In their article in the Washington Post on Thursday, July 26, 2007, they outline their reasons why, portions of which are excerpted below. It is about time that we realize where the administration is taking our nation, and it down to road to hell.
In their article in the Washington Post on Thursday, July 26, 2007, they outline their reasons why, portions of which are excerpted below. It is about time that we realize where the administration is taking our nation, and it down to road to hell.
But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
The Supreme Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last summer that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prescribes minimum standards of treatment for all persons who are no longer taking an active part in an armed conflict not of an international character. It provides that "in all circumstances" detainees are to be "treated humanely."
Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency."
It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in "good faith" in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.
To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections. full article
Friday, July 27, 2007
rapture Ready: The Christians United for Israel Tour
This is creepy. However, my favorite part is when Hagee says that Moses read Deuteronomy! Listen to the beliefs in the "end times" and it is amazing how brainwashed these people are.
IMPEACH NOW
July 16, 2007
Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy
Impeach Now
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.
Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.
Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.
Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.
William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.
The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.
If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.
A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.
Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?
Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."
Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.
Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?
Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.
Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.
The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html
Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy
Impeach Now
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.
Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form of "executive orders" that are triggered whenever Bush declares a national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might expect a series of staged, or false flag, "terrorist" events in the near future.
Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.
Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern Iraq's border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush's impeachment. The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush and Cheney have fostered.
William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is "praying for a terrorist strike" to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.
The Bush administration has tried unsuccessfully to resurrect the terrorist fear factor by infiltrating some blowhard groups and encouraging them to talk about staging "terrorist" events. The talk, encouraged by federal agents, resulted in "terrorist" arrests hyped by the media, but even the captive media was unable to scare people with such transparent sting operations.
If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.
A series of staged or permitted attacks would be spun by the captive media as a vindication of the neoconsevatives' Islamophobic policy, the intention of which is to destroy all Middle Eastern governments that are not American puppet states. Success would give the US control over oil, but the main purpose is to eliminate any resistance to Israel's complete absorption of Palestine into Greater Israel.
Think about it. If another 9/11-type "security failure" were not in the works, why would Homeland Security czar Chertoff go to the trouble of convincing the Chicago Tribune that Americans have become complacent about terrorist threats and that he has "a gut feeling" that America will soon be hit hard?
Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."
Throughout its existence the US government has staged incidents that the government then used in behalf of purposes that it could not otherwise have pursued. According to a number of writers, false flag operations have been routinely used by the Israeli state. During the Czarist era in Russia, the secret police would set off bombs in order to arrest those the secret police regarded as troublesome. Hitler was a dramatic orchestrator of false flag operations. False flag operations are a commonplace tool of governments.
Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?
Only a diehard minority believes in the honesty and integrity of the Bush-Cheney administration and in the truthfulness of the corporate media.
Hitler, who never achieved majority support in a German election, used the Reichstag fire to fan hysteria and push through the Enabling Act, which made him dictator. Determined tyrants never require majority support in order to overthrow constitutional orders.
The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown. Are coming "terrorist" events of which Chertoff warns and Santorum promises the means for overthrowing our constitutional democracy?
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html
Voter cagng in PBS's NOW
PBS Now, great show with Greg Palast interviewed by David Brancaccio.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/video.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/330/video.html
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Power of Nightmares
Monday, July 16, 2007
Impeach!
I tried to add this direct from Youtube without success, so here it is now. Bill Moyers on Impeachment. It is very well done and I hope you get time to watch. IMHO, it is high time the Bush administration, all of them (Bush, Cheney, Rice) get what they deserve for stomping on our constitution.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Hold Miers and Taylor in inherent contempt, now!
Bush Orders Miers Not to Testify
LAURIE KELLMAN | July 11, 2007 11:03 PM EST |
Compare other versions »
WASHINGTON — President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons, even as a second former aide told a Senate panel Wednesday she knew of no involvement by Bush in the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors. Contempt citations against both women were a possibility.
House Democrats threatened to cite Miers if she refused to appear as subpoenaed for a Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. The White House said she was immune from the subpoena and Bush had directed her not to appear, according to Miers' lawyer. Democrats said her immunity ended when she left her White House job.
Across the Capitol, meanwhile, former White House political director Sara Taylor found out what Miers may already have known: It's almost impossible to answer some committee questions but not others without breaching either the subpoena or Bush's claim of executive privilege.
------------------------------snip
Hold them in Inherent contempt, which means.......
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
-------------snip
It means they will be tried in the House or Senate, outside of the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, which likely would not try the case as they are Bush appointees. It is the only way it can be done. Now, do the Dems have the balls to do it? I certainly hope so.
LAURIE KELLMAN | July 11, 2007 11:03 PM EST |
Compare other versions »
WASHINGTON — President Bush ordered former counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional summons, even as a second former aide told a Senate panel Wednesday she knew of no involvement by Bush in the dismissals of eight federal prosecutors. Contempt citations against both women were a possibility.
House Democrats threatened to cite Miers if she refused to appear as subpoenaed for a Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday. The White House said she was immune from the subpoena and Bush had directed her not to appear, according to Miers' lawyer. Democrats said her immunity ended when she left her White House job.
Across the Capitol, meanwhile, former White House political director Sara Taylor found out what Miers may already have known: It's almost impossible to answer some committee questions but not others without breaching either the subpoena or Bush's claim of executive privilege.
------------------------------snip
Hold them in Inherent contempt, which means.......
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
-------------snip
It means they will be tried in the House or Senate, outside of the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, which likely would not try the case as they are Bush appointees. It is the only way it can be done. Now, do the Dems have the balls to do it? I certainly hope so.
Bush adminstration fails the troops again
Pentagon criticized for armor contracts
By RICHARD LARDNERandANNE FLAHERTYWed Jul 11, 7:10 PM ET
The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on time, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.
The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion awarded since 2000 to Force Protection Inc. and Armor Holdings Inc.
The contracts were issued without the normal competition for government work because the military determined these companies were the only ones capable of supplying the vehicles fast enough to meet the demands of deployed troops.
Yet the inspector general's report concluded otherwise.
Overall, Force Protection of Ladson, S.C., received 11 contracts from the Army and Marine Corps worth $417 million for a variety of vehicles, including its Buffalo and Cougar mine-resistant trucks.
Force Protection failed to meet all delivery schedules, according to the report, and acquisition officials knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied some of the vehicles in a more timely fashion. The report does not provide the names of those possible alternative sources
By RICHARD LARDNERandANNE FLAHERTYWed Jul 11, 7:10 PM ET
The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on time, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.
The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion awarded since 2000 to Force Protection Inc. and Armor Holdings Inc.
The contracts were issued without the normal competition for government work because the military determined these companies were the only ones capable of supplying the vehicles fast enough to meet the demands of deployed troops.
Yet the inspector general's report concluded otherwise.
Overall, Force Protection of Ladson, S.C., received 11 contracts from the Army and Marine Corps worth $417 million for a variety of vehicles, including its Buffalo and Cougar mine-resistant trucks.
Force Protection failed to meet all delivery schedules, according to the report, and acquisition officials knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied some of the vehicles in a more timely fashion. The report does not provide the names of those possible alternative sources
Sunday, July 08, 2007
pink bubbles for a wedding
It was a hot, steamy Sat. but, it was 07/07/07, an auspcious day for a wedding.
So, the "bubble girls" set out to impersonate flower girls for the wedding. All that was required were matching outfits, bubble guns, and moxy!
At the appointed hour, they moved out, shooting bubbles, and laughing.
Soon they arrived in their appointed location, followed by the remainder of the bridal party. It was a piece of cake!
The rain held off, but lurking in the San Antonio Botanic Gardens were lovely slippery areas of grass and mud, which they promptly got into and soon were splotched in mud, but they were still smiling. Their mission was accomplished!
So, the "bubble girls" set out to impersonate flower girls for the wedding. All that was required were matching outfits, bubble guns, and moxy!
At the appointed hour, they moved out, shooting bubbles, and laughing.
Soon they arrived in their appointed location, followed by the remainder of the bridal party. It was a piece of cake!
The rain held off, but lurking in the San Antonio Botanic Gardens were lovely slippery areas of grass and mud, which they promptly got into and soon were splotched in mud, but they were still smiling. Their mission was accomplished!
Friday, July 06, 2007
Why we need national healthcare
As an RN with a husband who is a Respiratory Therapist, we support national health care. We have seen and will continue to see the heartbreaking problems that occur to those who have health insurance, that blocks access to care, and the results of what happens when access to care is denied to those without insurance. This is a middle class issue. It's not just about the poor. Can you afford to pay the deductibles should you have a major illness? Likely not. Please watch the movie, and then email your representatives, write a letter to the editor, do SOMETHING!
"SiCKO Brings to Life the RN's Everyday Experience"
-Michael Moore
Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko” brings to cinematic life and details in unsparing and vivid imagery the everyday experience of all nurses as they care and advocate for their patients in the confines of a health care industry that long ago abandoned its caring mission in favor of the pursuit of profit at any cost. Nurses experience first hand the pain and terror of every patient and their families as they are forced to confront a callous and uncaring health care industry when at their most frail and vulnerable, and the inevitable personal tragedies when they can't receive needed care due to escalating costs and the ‘care containment’ damage endemic to the industry’s medicine-by-spreadsheet credo. It is nurses, of course, who are there to bear witness to these horrendous moments every day of every shift in every hospital across the U.S., and who are often the last and best hope for these patients and families.
"SiCKO Brings to Life the RN's Everyday Experience"
-Michael Moore
Michael Moore’s latest film, “Sicko” brings to cinematic life and details in unsparing and vivid imagery the everyday experience of all nurses as they care and advocate for their patients in the confines of a health care industry that long ago abandoned its caring mission in favor of the pursuit of profit at any cost. Nurses experience first hand the pain and terror of every patient and their families as they are forced to confront a callous and uncaring health care industry when at their most frail and vulnerable, and the inevitable personal tragedies when they can't receive needed care due to escalating costs and the ‘care containment’ damage endemic to the industry’s medicine-by-spreadsheet credo. It is nurses, of course, who are there to bear witness to these horrendous moments every day of every shift in every hospital across the U.S., and who are often the last and best hope for these patients and families.
it's official, 40 days and 40 nights of rain
Now that we are so soggy, we need something to bring smiles to our faces.
Here it is:
Here it is:
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Hold Cheney in "Inherent Contempt"
Inherent contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Statutory proceedings
Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia[2]; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalties are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiated the contempt citation has expired.
The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. While the law pronounces the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, dispute exists over whether the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)
Go here and make your voice heard.
P.S. You can add your own message to the petition if you want to. Please look up "INHERENT CONTEMPT" and urge Congress to consider using it instead of Contempt of Congress.
Inherent Contempt is LEGAL, the SCOTUS has upheld it as a Judicial, Congressional right. It by-passes the US Attorney's office...aka...Alberto Gonzales.
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)
Statutory proceedings
Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia[2]; according to the law it is the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.
The criminal offense of "contempt of Congress" sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. Those penalties are enforced upon conviction, even if the Congress which initiated the contempt citation has expired.
The statutory procedure has generally been used by Congress since 1935. While the law pronounces the "duty" of the U.S. Attorney is to impanel a grand jury for its action on the matter, dispute exists over whether the Congress can properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action, as the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports to the President. (The Courts have been reluctant to decide this question, claiming it is a "political question" for resolution by the elected branches of government.)
Go here and make your voice heard.
P.S. You can add your own message to the petition if you want to. Please look up "INHERENT CONTEMPT" and urge Congress to consider using it instead of Contempt of Congress.
Inherent Contempt is LEGAL, the SCOTUS has upheld it as a Judicial, Congressional right. It by-passes the US Attorney's office...aka...Alberto Gonzales.
Our anniversary was covered by independent news!
Obama Turning Passive Supporters into True Believers
This is Not 2004
By TOMBARI BONKOO
Takeaways
The buzz around Mr. Obama may not fade away as the media forecasted
Passive supporters turning into believers
Obama has won the first battle that ended Dean's campaign in 2004--Fear
The buzz around the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for the presidency may not fade away anytime soon, as his passive supporters are now turning into believers. Yesterday, under the steamy heat of San Antonio Texas, a lady named Sally and her husband of 35 years celebrated their wedding anniversary by volunteering for Senator Obama's "San Antonio Kickoff" event.
The event which is estimated to have a whopping audience of over 1,000, dutifully stood under the humid heat just to hear from a presidential candidate that they so believe in.
They were not disappointed as Mr. Obama fired them up with his trademarked message of uniting, turning the page, bringing the government back to the people, ending the war in Iraq and ending the unwarranted divide in the country.
Sally and her husband participated fully in making sure the senator received a warm welcome. They are both members of a group called "Alamobama," a group in South Texas that are not staffed by the Obama campaign, but are coordinating the Obama movement in San Antonio.
Both Sally and her husband stood under the steamy heat directing cars to their respective parking areas. They were both pleased by the messianic message of Senator Obama. In the word of Sally, "We worked as volunteers at the event with AlamObama. It was our 35th wedding anniversary, but nevertheless, we decided that this event and our participation in it, was more important than a fancy dinner out, or anything else." She continued: "He gave us great hope for the future...we will continue to work for the campaign, hot weather or not. We need a man in office who sees hope."
Many pundits in Washington are saying that the buzz around Obama's candidacy may soon fade away, but throughout the country-from Washington to Texas, the buzz is even turning into multitude of believers, who may no longer be persuaded from supporting the man they see as their savior. It is not easy for a couple of 35 years to forfeit their wedding anniversary and stand under a humid heat for a presidential candidate. But that was the situation in San Antonio yesterday.
During Mr. Obama's speech at the United Church of Christ Synod in Hartford, after his message titled "God is still Speaking," he shows his sense of humanity by first thanking the sign language translator and acknowledges the deaf members in the audience-character that may not be seen by most of the politicians.
At yesterday kickoff event in San Antonio, Mr. Obama humanly congratulates Sally and her husband on their 35th anniversary. In the word of Sally, "He spent time talking to us and shaking hands. In the process, when I told him that we felt honored to spend our 35th wedding anniversary with him, he signed my shirt and congratulated us on our 35 years of marriage."
Yes, sometime politicians do whatever it takes to get the attention of voters, but Obama is not one of those mindless and robotic politicians that are familiar to us today. He is such a peculiar and decent politician that may end be the needed hope for America.
Sally and her husband were not alone, there were hundreds of others who attended the event that shares the same hope and comfort in the man they so love. Pollsters and members of the elites media compared his aura at this early stage of the campaign with that of Howard Dean, but they don't know that during the 2004 election, the Republicans were good at using patriotism as a weapon against anyone that question the war in Iraq-the media and the Democrats consciously or unconsciously bought into the plan-a strategy that ended Howard Dean's campaign.
In this year election, many voters are hungering for change. They want to be hopeful and not fearful as it was in 2004. This presidential election is about change-moving past self-complacency to inspired compassion.
Senator Obama in his speech to the hungering crowd, pledged to work side-by-side with the rest of the world on issues like poverty, economic development in Latin America, nuclear proliferation and the genocidal violence in Darfur.
He also spoke about the war in Iraq. Obama said, "There is one thing that we can still get right in the Iraq war-to bring our young brave men and women home. They have done every single thing that we asked of them, with bravery and valor, they should not have to beg when they come home to get the services they need."
The crowd went crazy-encoring their supports-by thunderous applauses. link
This is Not 2004
By TOMBARI BONKOO
Takeaways
The buzz around Mr. Obama may not fade away as the media forecasted
Passive supporters turning into believers
Obama has won the first battle that ended Dean's campaign in 2004--Fear
The buzz around the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for the presidency may not fade away anytime soon, as his passive supporters are now turning into believers. Yesterday, under the steamy heat of San Antonio Texas, a lady named Sally and her husband of 35 years celebrated their wedding anniversary by volunteering for Senator Obama's "San Antonio Kickoff" event.
The event which is estimated to have a whopping audience of over 1,000, dutifully stood under the humid heat just to hear from a presidential candidate that they so believe in.
They were not disappointed as Mr. Obama fired them up with his trademarked message of uniting, turning the page, bringing the government back to the people, ending the war in Iraq and ending the unwarranted divide in the country.
Sally and her husband participated fully in making sure the senator received a warm welcome. They are both members of a group called "Alamobama," a group in South Texas that are not staffed by the Obama campaign, but are coordinating the Obama movement in San Antonio.
Both Sally and her husband stood under the steamy heat directing cars to their respective parking areas. They were both pleased by the messianic message of Senator Obama. In the word of Sally, "We worked as volunteers at the event with AlamObama. It was our 35th wedding anniversary, but nevertheless, we decided that this event and our participation in it, was more important than a fancy dinner out, or anything else." She continued: "He gave us great hope for the future...we will continue to work for the campaign, hot weather or not. We need a man in office who sees hope."
Many pundits in Washington are saying that the buzz around Obama's candidacy may soon fade away, but throughout the country-from Washington to Texas, the buzz is even turning into multitude of believers, who may no longer be persuaded from supporting the man they see as their savior. It is not easy for a couple of 35 years to forfeit their wedding anniversary and stand under a humid heat for a presidential candidate. But that was the situation in San Antonio yesterday.
During Mr. Obama's speech at the United Church of Christ Synod in Hartford, after his message titled "God is still Speaking," he shows his sense of humanity by first thanking the sign language translator and acknowledges the deaf members in the audience-character that may not be seen by most of the politicians.
At yesterday kickoff event in San Antonio, Mr. Obama humanly congratulates Sally and her husband on their 35th anniversary. In the word of Sally, "He spent time talking to us and shaking hands. In the process, when I told him that we felt honored to spend our 35th wedding anniversary with him, he signed my shirt and congratulated us on our 35 years of marriage."
Yes, sometime politicians do whatever it takes to get the attention of voters, but Obama is not one of those mindless and robotic politicians that are familiar to us today. He is such a peculiar and decent politician that may end be the needed hope for America.
Sally and her husband were not alone, there were hundreds of others who attended the event that shares the same hope and comfort in the man they so love. Pollsters and members of the elites media compared his aura at this early stage of the campaign with that of Howard Dean, but they don't know that during the 2004 election, the Republicans were good at using patriotism as a weapon against anyone that question the war in Iraq-the media and the Democrats consciously or unconsciously bought into the plan-a strategy that ended Howard Dean's campaign.
In this year election, many voters are hungering for change. They want to be hopeful and not fearful as it was in 2004. This presidential election is about change-moving past self-complacency to inspired compassion.
Senator Obama in his speech to the hungering crowd, pledged to work side-by-side with the rest of the world on issues like poverty, economic development in Latin America, nuclear proliferation and the genocidal violence in Darfur.
He also spoke about the war in Iraq. Obama said, "There is one thing that we can still get right in the Iraq war-to bring our young brave men and women home. They have done every single thing that we asked of them, with bravery and valor, they should not have to beg when they come home to get the services they need."
The crowd went crazy-encoring their supports-by thunderous applauses. link
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Excerpt from Truthout
Despite these serious crimes, Libby will spend less time in prison than Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart and Susan MacDougal. The same Republicans who championed the impeachment of Bill Clinton now celebrate Libby's liberation from the consequences of the very same acts they accused Clinton of committing.
Beyond Bush's two-faced blather about potential pardons are details and possibilities of vast complexity.
By commuting the prison sentence, Bush left Libby's 5th Amendment rights intact. Thus, any Congressional committee or prosecutor wishing to call him to testify will have to immunize him from any potential legal repercussions arising from his testimony. If Bush chooses to fully pardon Libby, those 5th Amendment protections will go right out the window.
Libby has repeatedly stated his intention to go on with the appeals process so he can clear his name. If he does this and an appeal is granted, Patrick Fitzgerald will suddenly be back in business, because a granted appeal opens the way for a whole new trial. Libby, if granted this appeal, may well be tried and convicted all over again.
Appeals are commonly granted only if a mistake was made during the initial trial, a difficult standard to meet, which is why most appeals are not granted. Should Libby's team decide to base their appeal on the spurious claim that Patrick Fitzgerald was not properly authorized to prosecute the case to begin with, however, the playing field would be changed dramatically because Fitzgerald would no longer be in a position to retry the case. If the appeals court grants an appeal based on this argument, one would be forced to wonder if that court acted in collusion with the administration.
Hovering above all this is one all-encompassing question: did George W. Bush commit a dead-bang impeachable offense by commuting Libby's sentence?
Beyond Bush's two-faced blather about potential pardons are details and possibilities of vast complexity.
By commuting the prison sentence, Bush left Libby's 5th Amendment rights intact. Thus, any Congressional committee or prosecutor wishing to call him to testify will have to immunize him from any potential legal repercussions arising from his testimony. If Bush chooses to fully pardon Libby, those 5th Amendment protections will go right out the window.
Libby has repeatedly stated his intention to go on with the appeals process so he can clear his name. If he does this and an appeal is granted, Patrick Fitzgerald will suddenly be back in business, because a granted appeal opens the way for a whole new trial. Libby, if granted this appeal, may well be tried and convicted all over again.
Appeals are commonly granted only if a mistake was made during the initial trial, a difficult standard to meet, which is why most appeals are not granted. Should Libby's team decide to base their appeal on the spurious claim that Patrick Fitzgerald was not properly authorized to prosecute the case to begin with, however, the playing field would be changed dramatically because Fitzgerald would no longer be in a position to retry the case. If the appeals court grants an appeal based on this argument, one would be forced to wonder if that court acted in collusion with the administration.
Hovering above all this is one all-encompassing question: did George W. Bush commit a dead-bang impeachable offense by commuting Libby's sentence?
Monday, July 02, 2007
A Texan's review of the movie "Sicko"
Sicko Spurs Audiences Into Action
By Josh Tyler: 2007-07-01 17:15:27
Long time readers of this site no doubt know that I live in Texas. As everyone knows there's no more conservative state in the Union than here. And I don't just live in Texas; I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. Dallas isn't some pocket of hippy-dippy behavior. This isn't Austin. Dallas is the sort of place where guys in cowboy hats still drive around in giant SUV's with "W" stickers on the back windshield, global warming and Iraq be damned. It's probably the only spot left in America where you stand a good chance of getting the crap kicked out of you for badmouthing the president.
So when I went to see Sicko for a second time this afternoon, I wasn't sure what to expect from the audience. I wasn't watching it downtown, where the city's few elitist liberals congregate and drink expensive lattes. I went to a random mall in the mid-cities, where folks were likely to be just folks. As I sat down, right behind me entered an obligatory, cowboy hat wearing redneck in his 50s. He announced his presence by shouting across the theater in a thick Texas drawl to his already seated wife "you owe me fer seein this!"
Sicko started; the stereotypical Texas guy sat down behind me and never stopped talking. He talked through the entire movie. and I listened. The first ten to twenty minutes of the film he spent badmouthing Moore to his wife and snorting in disgust whenever MM went into one of his trademark monologues. But as the movie wore on his protestations became quieter, less enthusiastic. Somewhere along the way, maybe at the half way point, right before my ears, Sicko changed this man's mind. By the forty-five minute mark, he, along with the rest of the audience were breaking into spontaneous applause. He stopped pooh-poohing the movie and started shouting out "hell yeah!" at the screen. It was as if the whole world had been flipped upside down. This is Texas, where people support the president and voting democratic is something only done by the terrorists. Michael Moore should be public enemy number one.
By the time the movie was over, public enemy number one had become George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy all rolled together. When the credits rolled the audience filed out and into the bathrooms. At the urinals, my redneck friend couldn't stop talking about the film, and I kept listening. He struck up a conversation with a random black man in his 40s standing next to him, and soon everyone was peeing and talking about just how fucked everything is.
I kept my distance, as we all finished and exited at the same time. Outside the restroom doors. the theater was in chaos. The entire Sicko audience had somehow formed an impromptu town hall meeting in front of the ladies room. I've never seen anything like it. This is Texas goddammit, not France or some liberal college campus. But here these people were, complete strangers from every walk of life talking excitedly about the movie. It was as if they simply couldn't go home without doing something drastic about what they'd just seen. My redneck compadre and his new friend found their wives at the center of the group, while I lingered in the background waiting for my spouse to emerge.
The talk gradually centered around a core of 10 or 12 strangers in a cluster while the rest of us stood around them listening intently to this thing that seemed to be happening out of nowhere. The black gentleman engaged by my redneck in the restroom shouted for everyone's attention. The conversation stopped instantly as all eyes in this group of 30 or 40 people were now on him. "If we just see this and do nothing about it," he said, "then what's the point? Something has to change." There was silence, then the redneck's wife started calling for email addresses. Suddenly everyone was scribbling down everyone else's email, promising to get together and do something. though no one seemed to know quite what. It was as if I'd just stepped into the world's most bizarre protest rally, except instead of hippies the group was comprised of men and women of every age, skin color, income, and walk of life coming together on something that had shaken them deeply, and to the co
In all my thirty years on this earth, I have never ever seen any movie have this kind of unifying effect on people. It was like I was standing there, at the birth of a new political movement. Even after 9/11, there was never a reaction like this, at least not in Texas. If Sicko truly has this sort of power, then Michael Moore has done something beyond amazing. If it can change people, affect people like this in the conservative hotbed of Texas, then Sicko isn't just a great movie, seeing it may be one of the most important things you do all year.
Progressivegrannie's comment.....You will laugh, cry and cheer. It's a great movie and not to be missed!
By Josh Tyler: 2007-07-01 17:15:27
Long time readers of this site no doubt know that I live in Texas. As everyone knows there's no more conservative state in the Union than here. And I don't just live in Texas; I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex. Dallas isn't some pocket of hippy-dippy behavior. This isn't Austin. Dallas is the sort of place where guys in cowboy hats still drive around in giant SUV's with "W" stickers on the back windshield, global warming and Iraq be damned. It's probably the only spot left in America where you stand a good chance of getting the crap kicked out of you for badmouthing the president.
So when I went to see Sicko for a second time this afternoon, I wasn't sure what to expect from the audience. I wasn't watching it downtown, where the city's few elitist liberals congregate and drink expensive lattes. I went to a random mall in the mid-cities, where folks were likely to be just folks. As I sat down, right behind me entered an obligatory, cowboy hat wearing redneck in his 50s. He announced his presence by shouting across the theater in a thick Texas drawl to his already seated wife "you owe me fer seein this!"
Sicko started; the stereotypical Texas guy sat down behind me and never stopped talking. He talked through the entire movie. and I listened. The first ten to twenty minutes of the film he spent badmouthing Moore to his wife and snorting in disgust whenever MM went into one of his trademark monologues. But as the movie wore on his protestations became quieter, less enthusiastic. Somewhere along the way, maybe at the half way point, right before my ears, Sicko changed this man's mind. By the forty-five minute mark, he, along with the rest of the audience were breaking into spontaneous applause. He stopped pooh-poohing the movie and started shouting out "hell yeah!" at the screen. It was as if the whole world had been flipped upside down. This is Texas, where people support the president and voting democratic is something only done by the terrorists. Michael Moore should be public enemy number one.
By the time the movie was over, public enemy number one had become George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy all rolled together. When the credits rolled the audience filed out and into the bathrooms. At the urinals, my redneck friend couldn't stop talking about the film, and I kept listening. He struck up a conversation with a random black man in his 40s standing next to him, and soon everyone was peeing and talking about just how fucked everything is.
I kept my distance, as we all finished and exited at the same time. Outside the restroom doors. the theater was in chaos. The entire Sicko audience had somehow formed an impromptu town hall meeting in front of the ladies room. I've never seen anything like it. This is Texas goddammit, not France or some liberal college campus. But here these people were, complete strangers from every walk of life talking excitedly about the movie. It was as if they simply couldn't go home without doing something drastic about what they'd just seen. My redneck compadre and his new friend found their wives at the center of the group, while I lingered in the background waiting for my spouse to emerge.
The talk gradually centered around a core of 10 or 12 strangers in a cluster while the rest of us stood around them listening intently to this thing that seemed to be happening out of nowhere. The black gentleman engaged by my redneck in the restroom shouted for everyone's attention. The conversation stopped instantly as all eyes in this group of 30 or 40 people were now on him. "If we just see this and do nothing about it," he said, "then what's the point? Something has to change." There was silence, then the redneck's wife started calling for email addresses. Suddenly everyone was scribbling down everyone else's email, promising to get together and do something. though no one seemed to know quite what. It was as if I'd just stepped into the world's most bizarre protest rally, except instead of hippies the group was comprised of men and women of every age, skin color, income, and walk of life coming together on something that had shaken them deeply, and to the co
In all my thirty years on this earth, I have never ever seen any movie have this kind of unifying effect on people. It was like I was standing there, at the birth of a new political movement. Even after 9/11, there was never a reaction like this, at least not in Texas. If Sicko truly has this sort of power, then Michael Moore has done something beyond amazing. If it can change people, affect people like this in the conservative hotbed of Texas, then Sicko isn't just a great movie, seeing it may be one of the most important things you do all year.
Progressivegrannie's comment.....You will laugh, cry and cheer. It's a great movie and not to be missed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)