Replies: 32 Comments
Comment #1: Nolip said on 10/6/06 @ 11:05am ET...
There is also encouraging news on the election front (aka..counting the votes)...many are aware of the anomolies present in the electronic voting machines and their potential for getting hacked and are raising a ruckus NOW to ensure that all legitimate votes are correctly counted...
Comment #2: koryannder said on 10/6/06 @ 12:13pm ET...
Maybe the "October Surprise" is a set of new lies; the country's fed up with the old ones. No one is going to believe that we are in any danger from Iran, and indeed many people who formerly believed in the WMD schtick are now wondering just how they could have been so damned foolish. That's why Bu$h's popularity ratings are heading to the cellar. The people (except the right-wing base) are plainly fed up with being lied to - so - listen for a gaggle of plausible crap, and be prepared to challenge it, on the basis "You have lied to us SO MUCH that we cannot believe a word you say!" But Rove is going to be in there slugging, trying to make the best of a bad job - and WATCH for a "False Flag" Terrorist event along toward the end of October, and be ready to accuse the Republicans of endangering the country for political advantage! To my way of thinking, the only REAL October surprise would be nothing happening! The thing I fear most is that our insane misleaders will attack Iran along toward the end of October, using the fact that we are in a new war, and the "Need to support the troops" to retain Republicans in office, whereas such an act should be ABSOLUTE grounds for impeachment and removal.
Can't we activate the 21st Amendment? BOTH sogennant leaders are manifestly INSANE! Can't they be removed for malfeasance, and Hastert for non-feasance? Rice as a two-year President wouldn't be too bad - at least she'd do what Bu$h 41 wanted, which is more than you can say for junior!
Comment #3: Ron said on 10/6/06 @ 1:52pm ET...
We were sure we would win in 2000 and again in 2004.Seeing as we all know what happened then , what makes you think that it won,t happen in your face once again?
Remember ,"Good guy,s finish last" Why because they go out of their way trying to be polite to those that don't deserve it .
I fear that we weren't capable of getting a verifiable vote in place in the last 6 years, why do you believe that the status quo will change.
Working hard to get people out of their comfort zone to go to a rigged polling place doesn't equate with me.
As much as I would really like to believe that we are ahead in all of the polls ,we were before and lost.
Knowing that my vote is being properly counted, would let me sleep better at night. If we then lose ,with a real accountable vote, I would be able to accept that loss, and would be able to know why I will have to work harder to win next time.
Without REAL accountability ,all of that hard work ,is just that, Hard Work!
Please explain to me why we can't have an on paper, traceable vote, it seems I'm really too stupid to understand why not!
Comment #4: unspun said on 10/6/06 @ 1:53pm ET...
Congressman Conyers: I agree that the polls are encouraging and that this is the time to focus on getting the Democrats elected to congress. I recently sent contributions to 6 of the "fighting dems", from the funds in my meager pension.
As of Nov. 8--I hope to start contacting the Dem. majority congresspeople to request they address issues like: NSA spying, striking down the "torture" bill, getting our troops out of Iraq, investigating the unconsitutional law-breaking of the Bush Admin., health care reform, the economy, etc. Till then, I'll try to focus on getting the Dems elected to a majority so they will actually be able to do something about these issues.
Democrat Talking Point Suggestion: The president made remarks while speaking at campaign events. In these remarks he all but accused Democrats of being too cowardly to fight terrorists and of being unpatriotic: This just infuriated me & I still haven't calmed down. Here's one reason why:
Many of the US Troops currently deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are DEMOCRATS. Many of the troops that died and many who have been wounded are DEMOCRATS. Democrats in their campaigns must counter this Bush insult to all democrats, but especially to the troops. Bush has the unmitigated gall to call Democrats, including those serving in the US Military, of being afraid to fight terrorists and of being unpatriotic.
Apparently Bush is so wrapped up in himself that he hasn't a clue how offensive and insulting such accusations are to Democratic troops. Bush hurls this venom against democrats from the comfort of home, while he is surrounded by protectors--and those very Democrats that he accuses of being afraid to fight terrorists are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their very lives, by his order. (Troops in combat zones--something, BTW, that Bush was able to avoid doing himself, with his daddy's help).
I've Had Enough. Now I'm going to see what I can do to get some more Dems elected on Nov. 7...
Comment #5: unspun said on 10/6/06 @ 1:56pm ET...
Have you seen this Campaign Video?
Have You Had Enough?
Comment #6: Patriot said on 10/6/06 @ 2:33pm ET...
Pelosi said she's going to "drain the swamp" that is Congress when she's Madame Speaker. I'm looking forward to that day!
Comment #7: Frosted Flake said on 10/6/06 @ 3:08pm ET...
Pew Polls.
September 6, 2006
September 14, 2006
October 5, 2006
Just one effort, must be taken in the larger context. Interesting because fairly detailed. And sometimes very odd.
Comment #8: Rusty said on 10/6/06 @ 3:55pm ET...
Rusty: "Hello Wall."
Wall: "zzzzzzz . . ."
Rusty: "Hello Wall.
Wall: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . ."
Rusty: "Hello Wall."
Wall: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . ."
Rusty: "HELLO WALL!"
Wall: "Oh . . . hi Rusty. How's it going?"
Rusty: "Just great. I'm feeling very empowered."
Wall: "Me too."
Rusty: "Say hello to all the other Walls for me."
Wall: "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . ."
Comment #9: Ron said on 10/6/06 @ 4:10pm ET...
Ha Ha zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Comment #10: Kitty Gambler said on 10/6/06 @ 6:57pm ET...
#2 koryannder
My "October Surprise" wild hunch is that the WMDs purportedly in Iraq will finally be unearthed near the border with Iran, and on the Iranian side.
Comment #11: MAX 1 said on 10/6/06 @ 9:04pm ET...
The Administration is up against the wall they built and labeled Iraq. They on one side and those that have opposed it on the other. The problem the Administration faces, we've been pushing so hard and have moved this wall so far into their territory that they are now considering a new strategy to wiggle themselves out of what space is left.
Yes, many times it seems as if we have been pounding our heads against a wall, and funny enough, some of us have bumped our fore heads on bricks. But that's the price we pay when pushing back against this Administration. An Administration that has, for far too long, insisted that America, or as long as George is King, must, "STAY THE COURSE."
Many Loyalist Republicans are now asking, "What to do? The current course isn't working." And several of them are opting for fresh ideas. Ideas, that if not seized upon properly, will be sold to America as being genuinely unique to the Republicans. Ideas such as a "Phased Withdraw" and a real "Exit Strategy" that actually requires the Iraqis to defend themselves.
While George may still insist that America continue to circle the camp fire, sing Com-by-ya and forget that Pakistan houses al-Qaeda and OBL, forget that the Iraqis people are close to demanding we leave, others in his camp ARE scheming to make an escape; A "Cut and Run" for it.
What Americans need to know, is that this is an opportunity not to be messed up. The Democrats can either stick it to the President with an, "I told ya so," or they can feed him humble pie with a gracious, "Wish you would have included us in you ideas of a bi partisan unity solution a year ago when we DID propose this redeployment and phased withdraw."
I hope everyone sees this, what I'm attempting to put forth. Because listening to the Loyalist's speak, they are whispering, "This course isn't getting us any where," and are seemingly content to throw out, what they will politicize as, "NEW and IMPROVED IDEAS." Ideas the Democrats have been saying for over a year now.
Comment #12: Truth_in_action said on 10/6/06 @ 9:44pm ET...
#2 and #3, I agree.
Congressman Conyers, I admit it sounds like good news and I'd like to be hopeful, but I felt hopeful twice before, in 2000 and 2004. In 2004 I had a Republican sitting beside me dialing up Democrats to come to the polls to vote, how much more hopeful can you get! The elections were stolen twice. I don't trust these Diebold and other related machines as far as I can toss them. I don't trust Republican secretaries of state and election officials as far as I can throw them. Republicans have no morals when it comes to elections and they take any step they deem necessary to win, including illegal actions. Let's call it as it really is.
I want a paper ballot and I want one now for everyone. It's the only form of protection. In the meantime I'll check on the latest things to do to ensure the election from blackboxvoting.org.
What happened to Robert Kennedy Jr.'s actions? It's been quiet on that front.
Koryannder, I'd hate the October surprise to be a major default spinning us into an immediate failed economy. Those things always happen in October. However, if Karl is shown to have known this in advance, well, that would be a real problem for Karl, wouldn't it. THE DOW'S PHONY NEW HIGH
I say it's all time we take a look again into the Cheney portfolio, just to be on the safe side, and a pinch of gold and silver never hurt to diversify one's holdings, as they say.
Comment #13: Nolip said on 10/6/06 @ 9:48pm ET...
Meanwhile the Iraq quagmire continues and Libby maneuvers to undo his trial...
"The danger for prosecutors is that the sheer volume and extreme sensitivity of classified information Libby wants to introduce could scuttle the trial."
Prosecutor: Libby Wants to Load Up Trial
Comment #14: Nolip said on 10/6/06 @ 9:51pm ET...
As the election approaches, we need to keep our eye on the ball...that is the maneuverings and skullduggery of the Rethuglicans...
Voter registrations faked in GOP drive
Comment #15: Truth_in_action said on 10/6/06 @ 10:14pm ET...
More Republican White House corruption.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - A key aide to presidential political strategist Karl Rove resigned Friday in the wake of a congressional report that listed hundreds of contacts between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the White House.
Susan Ralston, special assistant to President Bush, submitted a resignation letter to him less than five weeks before congressional elections in which corruption and scandal are emerging as key issues for voters.
"She did not want to be a distraction to the White House at such an important time and so we have accepted her resignation," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.
"We support her decision and consider the matter closed," Perino said.
Critics have pointed to Ralston as evidence that Rove - and thus Bush - are possibly closer to Abramoff than the White House has acknowledged. Ralston was Abramoff's administrative assistant at his lobbying firm and, after Bush took office, assumed the same post with Rove."
Read the entire article here.
I have to say, I am amused by the Republican house of cards so obviously toppling at this crucial twenty-some days before the election. Most importantly, the Republican "oh so savvy" media soundbites are such yesterday's news. "Cut and run" is tired and old.
It is such joy to listen to Republican Propaganda Hate Democrats radio like Rush and Hannity, and hear them racing to fill the airwaves with "corruption from the Democrats" like they could REALLY turn this around to their advantage. They sound beaten and defeated, and are begging their Republican listeners who have their thinking apparatus still in place to not question what is going on, but to still stay in lock step to their marching orders.
Congressman Conyers, isn't there anything you can do to get paper ballots for everyone? Just start printing them, the way they're printing all that paper currency we use in this country.
Comment #16: Truth_in_action said on 10/6/06 @ 10:18pm ET...
Sorry, off topic again. I'm on a roll.
Required reading for those who did not know this, and I'm assuming that is very few people on this list. Think of forwarding this to your friends who did not know it:
The Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is not federal... and other facts.
Comment #17: MAX 1 said on 10/7/06 @ 2:45am ET...
TIA and all,
WATCH THIS in regards to #16.
Comment #18: koryannder said on 10/7/06 @ 6:27am ET...
A long, long time ago, after reading some of the then available material, I wrote a friend as follows:
"The Federal Reserve is neither. It is a private organization of International Bankers, and has no reserves at all. It creates "Money" on printing presses with NO backing whatsoever, and LENDS the wastepaper thus created to the American Public, sets its own compound interest rate, and insists on being repaid with REAL money created by the labor of real people. An ancient and illiterate indian I know pointed up the essential fallacy of the manipulation of the money supply and interest rates, when he told me "They say that raising interest rates controls inflation. They lie. Raising interest rates causes inflation. If it costs more to make something, you have to raise the price to break even. That's inflation." He was, of course, correct. But the "Fed" is manifestly ilegal - what do you propose we DO about it?"
Actually, thanks to turning the entire world into a gambling casino (aka "Derivatives") Greenspan guaranteed the bankruptcy of the system. We are living on borrowed time, and unless some bold person takes the lead in putting the "Fed" into receivership and returning to lawful money issued by the Treasury Department and backed by SOMETHING, the whole house of cards is going to come down! The only question is when. Any of our creditors could destroy us in a New York minute by calling in our unpayable debt. Oh, sure - the "Fed" could print more bogus "Money" to pay it, but that only dilutes the value of the existing currency, and hastens the blowout of the whole system. Money - REAL money - MUST have some sort of hard currency support, or it is worthless - and when the total notional value of "Derivatives" - BETS - is more than ten times the gross planetary product, as it is now, something's got to give! Maybe the "October Surprise" is managing to hold off the crash until after the November elections, so that the Republicans can blame the chaos on the newly elected Democrats.
Comment #19: koryannder said on 10/7/06 @ 6:36am ET...
And on a related subject, look up this:
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
Send it to all your friends, regardless of party; it is too important, and too well done, to be kept a close secret among mojo subscribers
Comment #20: wallen said on 10/7/06 @ 7:31am ET...
No Bush Left Behind
The President's brother Neil is making hay from school reform
Across the country, some teachers complain that President George W. Bush's makeover of public education promotes "teaching to the test." The President's younger brother Neil takes a different tack: He's selling to the test. The No Child Left Behind Act compels schools to prove students' mastery of certain facts by means of standardized exams. Pressure to perform has energized the $1.9 billion-a-year instructional software industry.
profiteers
Comment #21: wallen said on 10/7/06 @ 7:34am ET...
Denny Hastert's dodgy real estate deals.
Worse than FoleyGate
by Norman Ornstein & Scott Lilly
Only at TNR Online Post date 10.06.06
Subscribe Today! Until last week, the broad image of House Speaker Dennis Hastert was of an affable, even grandfatherly figure. But Hastert's response--or lack thereof--to the Mark Foley scandal has suddenly put him in the hot seat, requiring even President Bush to defend him. The Speaker's reputation has taken a serious hit. Still, the image remains of an amiable guy, whose sins are more of sloth than malevolence....
yeah, right
Comment #22: wallen said on 10/7/06 @ 7:38am ET...
Olbermann's Special Comments
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 6, 2006; 11:56 AM
The traditional media has been slow to come to grips with the American public's distrust and dislike of President Bush -- sentiments clearly reflected in opinion polls dating back well over a year.
Almost alone among the network newscasters, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is channeling that sensibility. Channeling it -- and amplifying it.
In fact, the increasingly shrill Olbermann is fast becoming the Howard Beale of the anti-Bush era: He's mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.
click here
Comment #23: wallen said on 10/7/06 @ 7:47am ET...
Condi Rice: More Sordid Than Foley
By Robert Scheer, AlterNet
Posted on October 5, 2006, Printed on October 7, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42614/
They are such liars. And no, I am not speaking only of the dissembling GOP House leaders led by Speaker Dennis Hastert who, out of naked political calculation, covered up for one of their own in the sordid teen stalking case of Rep. Mark Foley.
Call me old school, but I am still more concerned with the Republicans molesting Lady Liberty while pretending to be guarding the nation's security, an assignment that they have totally botched. The news about the Foley cover-up, while important as yet another example of extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Republican virtues police, should not be allowed to obscure the latest evidence of administration deceit as to its egregious ineptness in protecting the nation.
On Monday, a State Department spokesman conceded that then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had indeed been briefed in July 2001 by George Tenet, then-director of the CIA, about the alarming potential for an al-Qaida attack, as Bob Woodward has reported in his aptly named new book, "State of Denial."
"I don't remember a so-called emergency meeting," Rice had said only hours earlier, apparently still suffering from some sort of post-9/11 amnesia that seemed to afflict her during her forced testimony to the 9/11 commission. The omission of this meeting from the final commission report is another example of how the Bush administration undermined the bipartisan investigation that the president had tried to prevent.
scandal upon scandal...
Comment #24: Patriot said on 10/7/06 @ 12:18pm ET...
------ TeamConyersBlog Update ------
General Membership Meeting now in progress. Click my name then login. After login, follow path:
Members (top left) > Soapbox4truth > Chat > Enter
Comment #25: Frosted Flake said on 10/7/06 @ 2:37pm ET...
Conclusion
Presidential signing statements have a long historical pedigree and there is no
discernible constitutional or legal impediment to their issuance. While such
statements have become increasingly common since the Reagan Administration and
have increasingly been utilized by Presidents to raise constitutional or interpretive
objections to congressional enactments, that increased usage does not render them
unconstitutional. While the broad assertions of executive authority contained in these
statements carry significant implications, both practical and constitutional, for the
traditional relationship between the Executive Branch and Congress, they do not have
legal force or effect, and have not been utilized to effect the formal nullification of
laws. Instead, it appears that recent administrations, as made apparent by the
voluminous challenges lodged by President George W. Bush, have employed these
instruments in an attempt to leverage power and control away from Congress by
establishing these broad assertions of authority as a constitutional norm. It can be
argued that the appropriate focus of congressional concern should center not on the
issuance of signing statements themselves, but on the broad assertions of presidential
authority forwarded by Presidents and the substantive actions taken to establish that
authority. Accordingly, a robust oversight regime focusing on substantive executive
action, as opposed to the vague and generalized assertions of authority typical of
signing statements, might allow Congress in turn to more effectively assert its
constitutional prerogatives and ensure compliance with its enactments.
T.J. Halstead is not being very helpful, here, though it is apparent the problem is well understood by this author. I disagree with him, because :
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power...(omitting much that is relevant)...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. (including the President)
The Constitution is written the way it is, so that it gets read the way it is written. This is not alphabet soup, People. These are carefully chosen words placed each behind the other after careful deliberation. The purpose of these words is to seperate powers. To seperate them FROM the President.
Mr.(?) Halstead clearly understands the President claims powers deined that officer, specificly the power to rewrite a bill then make it law, yet counsels "oversight" while decrying that very thing.
I understand there are shortcomings to current proposals, but prefer to suggest the Congress consider better proposals.
The literal words are "If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections..."
Clearly, if the bill is signed it is law. Clearly, the signiture is token of approval and acceptance of the bill as finished product. The alternative, the ONLY altenative provided the President is to fail to sign and instead return the bill for reconsideration, where it may become law over the President objection. This alternative is provided the President for use in the event he disapproves in order to so indicate. This is a case of one, or the other. A case of black, or white. There is no gray here, for this is where the powers are seperated. If there were gray, there would be no seperation.
As I read Mr. Halsteads report, he acceeds to all this, goes so far as to say that signing statements have no legal force, goes so far as to touch the real issue, but only just. He fails to examine his conclusion.
The point Mr. Halstead draws is, the President is Myth-making. He is redefining the norm of our system of government, outside official channels. He is doing this by makeing repeted erronous statements about the nature of the Presidency. And while these statements are discarded by those who know better, they resonate with the credible and will continue to echo untill and unless they are corrected, in an unequivicol fashion. It falls to Congress to do this.
Taking several steps back from the daily grind, looking at the big picture, I assert there is a contest for the shape of the future. Well, natch. But I mean, of more than usual gravity. The Presidents camp asserts the bizzare idea that we should (must) attack (kill) those who might (possibly be able to) attack us. While those that point out reasonably that this would lead to unlimited pointless killing supposedly "just don't get it." Are supposedly "unpatriotic." Are supposedly "the problem." Let's look carefully at this, because it is important. let's ask seriously, "Who is the intended recipient of the message implied here?
Well, of course, it is Stupid people, and the guilty. These are the same people who believe the Presidents frequent assertion of lawmaking powers thru his signing statements. These are the Presidents core constituants. The primary characteristic which makes these dangerous to us is, they are thinking with garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. This can be addressed directly. By directly contradicting the Presidents Neo-tradition of asserting powers unofficially. This may be done simply, and it would be more effective if it were. All that is needed to address this point, which I emphasize is seperate from any other issue created by this President, is an unequivicol statement thru normal channels whereby the Congress asserts that law may be made with or without Presidential approval, that the Presidents signature signifies approval, that any other statement by the President, over, under, beside, behind, infront of or about that signature is without legal effect, but may be used as evidence.
That ought to get thru to both the stupid and the guilty, and might just smarten them up. Which would be good. And it would prevent future President making sweeping claims of power, which is neccesary. And it would identify any member of Congress not qualified to be one.
I'm sorry this is long. Probably could have said this better.
Frosted Flake.
Thank you to TIA. Now I'm off to the meeting.
Comment #26: Frosted Flake said on 10/7/06 @ 4:17pm ET...
Portland, OR: Pigs Rampage on Oct. 5th
What? Don't like the word, Pig? Does it hurt you? Why? Think about that. Hard.
FF
Comment #27: Ohiodem1 said on 10/7/06 @ 11:26pm ET...
TIA #15 - The Republicans only have the "tax" and "security" issues to run on. They are not using "cut and run" any more, because they have done what they always do when they can't or won't make a decision. They appoint a "blue ribbon commission" this time headed by James Baker, and Kean and Hamilton. This commission will not report until November 11, or four days post-election. The commission report will say that a "strategic redeployment" or in republicanspeak, "cut and run". The only alternative will be to:
1. "Share the sacrifice" by putting the war on paygo, and cancelling or postponing the 2003 tax cuts.
2. Impose a military draft, and grow the military by 2,000,000 men and women, plus all the equipment necessary to outfit them. That would be ships, planes, weapons, etc.
3. Increase the troops on the ground in Iraq to 400,000, and use these to secure the country as they should have done in the first place, although most rational people would argue that the war should never been prosecuted in the first place.
GWB would NEVER acceed to no 1. Congress, particularly a Democratic Congress would never permit no. 2 and no. 3 to take place, so GWB and company would say the only possible position to take would be the first alternative and thus a commission recommendation would be the political cover for them to do a "strategic redeployment" and get us out of there by the end of 2007. Then he will blame the increase in terrorists in the world, and the reduced security at home on the Democrats. That's my opinion, and expectation. Remember this, the only way for Republicans to do the right thing is if they can get the political cover of a commission to cause them to do what they know they should do, but won't because it would piss off their investors.
Items 2 and 3 above would play into the Neocon agenda of vastly increased spending on the military-industrial complex, and putting 400,000 troops in close proximity to Syria and Iran. Again, this will not be permitted by first, the American People, and second by Congress. To advocate this would be a kiss of death for any chance for the R's to hold the Senate, which looks increasingly less possible each and every day, as Americans see for themselves the cesspool of R congressional leadership, the corruption, the dirty dealing, the gross hypocrisy, the failure to do oversight, and the tax shifting to the low and middle wage earners, and our children.
Republicans won't tax their investors, but they will tax your children. Any your children's great grandchildren.
Work for victory on November 7.
Comment #28: MAX 1 said on 10/7/06 @ 11:58pm ET...
I'm just a peon, a nobody in the landscape of America, so the latest signing statement really affects me greatly, as being a nobody who can shout loudly and if done often enough made to be quiet by this Unitary Executive. But really, Congressman Conyers, you should be extremely worried should you shout at all as you are a somebody who can affect the necessary change.
Imagine, Bush with his thumb to nose, wiggling his fingers at Congress and the America people, with a quick leap and a click of the heals. "YE-HA!!!"
He's gone done it again. Except this time, he supervises himself with no exceptions because Congress cowers from the Unitary Executive who claims war powers without a declared war at all.
IS THERE NO ONE WHO CAN STAND UP TO THIS MAN?
President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department's reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watch lists.
In the law Mr. Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security Department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Mr. Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."
...snip...
The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Mr. Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.
The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers compiled from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.
Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Mr. Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.
"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Mr. Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
...snip...
The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents.
The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.
Mr. Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.
Mr. Bush, for example, said he would disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."
His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
Comment #29: koryannder said on 10/8/06 @ 5:57am ET...
Ohiodem1 #27 "Vastly increased military spending!?" Jeezus! The military budget for next year is 447 billion, and with inevitable overruns will exceed HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS! That is, all by itself, more than the gross domestic product of most nations, and frankly, we don't have the money, so China gets to bail us out some more. With the destruction of the Middle Class and the concomitant destruction of our tax base, the all-but-free ride for the super-wealthy, and the refusal to see the onrushing crisis, we are bankrupt anyway, so the debt will HAVE to be repudiated eventually, which is a recipe for instant third world status. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP AND FACE THE FACTS? There is still time to save us, but it is a cinch the Republicans won't - or can't, and the Democrats, so far, have not demonstrated the leadership necessary to:
1. Get out of all other Nations' business
2. Bring the troops home.
3. Put the military on starvation rations.
4. Put the Fed into bankruptcy receivership and start issuing legal currency.
5. Repudiate ALL "Derivatives!" CANCEL them - or if you can't do that, put a 1% transaction tax on them, which will do the same thing, only slower.
6. Cancel the tax cuts on high income.
7. Enact enabling legislation for the Bohnsack plan
8. Start repairing our disastrously neglected infrastructure.
9. Since we can't pay our own debts, stop giving money away to every other deadbeat nation - let them get it from China, too.
10. Get out of NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO. BRING OUR INDUSTRIES HOME! Free Trade has cost us TRILLIONS in lost income! Go back to Fair Trade and protective tariffs!
That's a good start. Only by rebuilding our disastrously neglected infrastructure can we spend our way to Prosperity. It can, and should, be done, but we HAVE to get rid of the millstone around our necks, AKA "The Fed." It is manifestly unconstitutional, the Amendment authorizing it was never ratified, and we can legally buy it anyway, in spite of the fact that it is basically worthless. ONLY CONGRESS CAN LEGALLY PRODUCE MONEY!!!
Get with the program. It will be popular, once the Public understands that the "Federal Reserve" is not Federal, and has no reserves. Oh , the fascist bankers will savage you, and Rohatyn will take his money and go home - and good riddance. In the last analysis, which is more important; the fortunes of a gaggle of bankers, or the survival of the United States as a nation?
Comment #30: wallen said on 10/8/06 @ 7:04am ET...
Cheney Back Delivering the Grim Campaign Speech
Democrats Cast As Foils to the Nation's Security
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 8, 2006; A14
MILWAUKEE -- Vice President Cheney sometimes starts speeches with a Ronald Reagan quotation about a "happy" nation needing "hope and faith." But not much happy talk follows. Not a lot of hope, either. He does, though, talk about the prospect of "mass death in the United States."
grim reaper
Comment #31: wallen said on 10/8/06 @ 8:24am ET...
Foley not the only gay republican...
October 7/8, 2006 -- The rumors about another top GOP member of the House being involved in sexual encounters with young "men for hire" are confirmed to WMR by well-placed sources in Washington's gay community. The member in question is House Speaker Dennis Hastert, whose "alternate" life style is the primary reason for him and his staff covering up the scandal involving ex-Florida GOP Rep. Mark Foley and his lewd messages sent to underage male congressional pages. Hastert's penchant to receive anal sex is well-known to our sources in DC's gay community. Additionally, Hastert's reported extremely small penis is the subject of many jokes among Washington's gay circles.
click here
and...
GANNON-GATE ARTICLE 6
BUSH IS GAY
"Why is Bush so hostile to the idea of gay marriage? Perhaps because until 1987, George W. Bush was gay. According to a group of 29 Yale classmates who comprise Gay Ivy Leaguers for Truth, Bush was "known to be at least sexually experimental throughout his time in college." One of Bush's alleged former boyfriends, Anthony Berusca (class of '70), told The Dallas Morning News that Bush was "deeply conflicted about being gay, even somewhat self-hating." Berusca is convinced that this conflict led to Bush's drinking problems, but describes the President as a "gentle, caring lover". In 1986, the Bush family arranged for George to join Worthy Creations, a church group in El Paso that focuses on converting homosexuals through faith. A year later, Bush claimed to be straight, born again, and engaged to Laura Welch (Kitty Kelly in THE FAMILY wrote that Bush's twin daughters were not his offspring, but from a donor at a fertility clinic). Bush at all-male Phillips Academy in Andover , Massachusetts was "head" cheerleader. Drama club and cheerleading are where the gay boys hang out. George earned the nickname Lips Bush for his skill at giving blow jobs to his fraternity buddies, according to Kitty Kelley. Bush has gay-style excrement nick names for the people he hangs out with: "Turdblossom" term for Karl Rove Note the classic juxtaposition of the obscene with the feminine to come up with a nickname for a gay man. For example, the late David Lewis went under the name Sally Suckemsilly. "Bulldog" term for both Victor Ashe and Jeff Gannon aka Jim Gluckert "Pooty Poot" term for Vladimir Putin, Russian President. "Mr. Big O" term for lispy treasury secretary Paul O'Neill."
—Roedy Green, The Wit and Wisdom of George Bush
click here
not that there's anything wrong with that, unless, of course, you've used it as a wedge issue to alienate an entire group of individuals and spread your own-brand of vicious hatred.
Chickenhawks coming home to roost...
Comment #32: koryannder said on 10/8/06 @ 8:27am ET...
So Cheney is admitting - obliquely - that he INTENDS to mastermind a "False Flag" "Terrorist Event" in order to cement GOP power and fascist rule in the US to fulfill Hitler's dream of a "Thousand Year Reich?" The ONLY WAY we will ever have "Mass Death" in this country is if the powers that be arrange it! Think about it; the Medical - Ho$pital - Pharmaceutial E$tabli$hment already kills a half million people a year, accidents do in another hundred thousand, so an isolated "Terrorist" attack that knocks off a few thousand at once, (like 9/11, for example), is really small potatoes - he'd have to do something like nuking LA in order to REALLY put a dent in the Country. He COULD do it; but he'd play hell blaming it on Iran or North Korea - or a gaggle of troglodytes in Afghanistan! The people should be reminded of "Project Northwoods," and the fact that we are in more danger from our own home-grown fanatics than we ever will be from the likes of bin Laden. And we ARE in such danger. The ONLY way this Administration, with its track record of lies, blunders, and incompetence can persuade the people that we are in danger from some imaginary foreign group is to STAGE some sort of October Surprise. Be ready for it, and DENOUNCE it as soon as it occurs! NAIL the PNAC to the wall! We do NOT need to "Destroy our country in order to save it."!!!!
