Saturday, November 10, 2007
On Keeping One's Place
Catholic Bishops Say No to Women Priests, Yes to Hookers
by Angela Bonavoglia
My Google "Catholic" Alert today listed two articles in this order: "Women Warned Against Catholic Ordination," followed by "Catholic Bishop Backs Brothel Regulation."
That about sums it up. In yet another empty defense of the Catholic Church's blatant discrimination against women who it refuses to ordain, St. Louis, Missouri Archbishop Raymond Burke promised to excommunicate two Roman Catholic women who will be ordained priests in St. Louis on Sunday, November 11. The women are part of an energetic international movement called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which has organized the ordination of Catholic women around the world, with the first U.S. ordinations, which I described in Salon, last year.
Burke also threatened to impose "additional disciplinary measures." To which one of the ordinands, Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, reportedly replied: "What is he going to do, burn us at the stake?"
Meanwhile, another Roman Catholic bishop in the City of Portsmouth, England, the Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, came out in support of legalized prostitution. He based his position on matters of health and safety and the fact that hooking has been with us "from time immemorial."
Yes, but so have women like the apostle Junia, the deacon Phoebe, and bishop Theodora who have been with us since time immemorial--or at least since the dawn of Christianity. Yet they remain conveniently invisible to the whole lot of this dysfunctional boys' club--Biblical and archaeological evidence be damned.
Sourced: Catholic Bishops Say No to Women Priests, Yes to Hookers
My comment: It's a matter of keeping one's priorities straight. Of course, using the word "straight" when referring to the church's hierarchy seems a little ironic.
by Angela Bonavoglia
My Google "Catholic" Alert today listed two articles in this order: "Women Warned Against Catholic Ordination," followed by "Catholic Bishop Backs Brothel Regulation."
That about sums it up. In yet another empty defense of the Catholic Church's blatant discrimination against women who it refuses to ordain, St. Louis, Missouri Archbishop Raymond Burke promised to excommunicate two Roman Catholic women who will be ordained priests in St. Louis on Sunday, November 11. The women are part of an energetic international movement called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which has organized the ordination of Catholic women around the world, with the first U.S. ordinations, which I described in Salon, last year.
Burke also threatened to impose "additional disciplinary measures." To which one of the ordinands, Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, reportedly replied: "What is he going to do, burn us at the stake?"
Meanwhile, another Roman Catholic bishop in the City of Portsmouth, England, the Right Reverend Crispian Hollis, came out in support of legalized prostitution. He based his position on matters of health and safety and the fact that hooking has been with us "from time immemorial."
Yes, but so have women like the apostle Junia, the deacon Phoebe, and bishop Theodora who have been with us since time immemorial--or at least since the dawn of Christianity. Yet they remain conveniently invisible to the whole lot of this dysfunctional boys' club--Biblical and archaeological evidence be damned.
Sourced: Catholic Bishops Say No to Women Priests, Yes to Hookers
My comment: It's a matter of keeping one's priorities straight. Of course, using the word "straight" when referring to the church's hierarchy seems a little ironic.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Did you know? The media loves controversy ...
... and they're happy to make it up on slow news days.
It’s hard to say for sure when the “silly season” started in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign. If there was a “serious season,” it was exceedingly short. I’m afraid I missed it.
But yesterday was unusually inane. A waitress at an Iowa diner noted that Hillary Clinton and her campaign aides had recently stopped by, but didn’t leave a tip. NPR picked up on the “story,” the New York Times called it a “potentially embarrassing mini-scandal,” and Drudge blared it above the fold. Soon after, NBC News and ABC News were trumpeting the story.
Clinton didn’t leave a tip? Does she hate working people? Is she out of touch? What does this say about her economic plan? What do her rivals think about this? Why won’t Barack Obama attack her over the issue? Is it too soon to put a poll in the field gauging the public’s reaction?
All of this breathless fascination was for naught. It turned out Clinton’s campaign did leave a tip with the manager for the entire serving staff. Clinton’s individual waitress didn’t know that, so there was a simple misunderstanding.
Check out the non-news ... and you believe everything you get in the newspapers and on TV ... right? This is right up there with the "Obama-hand-over-heart-NOT" trivia.
How about we focus on actual issues?
It’s hard to say for sure when the “silly season” started in the media’s coverage of the presidential campaign. If there was a “serious season,” it was exceedingly short. I’m afraid I missed it.
But yesterday was unusually inane. A waitress at an Iowa diner noted that Hillary Clinton and her campaign aides had recently stopped by, but didn’t leave a tip. NPR picked up on the “story,” the New York Times called it a “potentially embarrassing mini-scandal,” and Drudge blared it above the fold. Soon after, NBC News and ABC News were trumpeting the story.
Clinton didn’t leave a tip? Does she hate working people? Is she out of touch? What does this say about her economic plan? What do her rivals think about this? Why won’t Barack Obama attack her over the issue? Is it too soon to put a poll in the field gauging the public’s reaction?
All of this breathless fascination was for naught. It turned out Clinton’s campaign did leave a tip with the manager for the entire serving staff. Clinton’s individual waitress didn’t know that, so there was a simple misunderstanding.
Check out the non-news ... and you believe everything you get in the newspapers and on TV ... right? This is right up there with the "Obama-hand-over-heart-NOT" trivia.
How about we focus on actual issues?
Is a Vote for Rudy a Vote for War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan on AntiWar
Rudy Giuliani has made a "promise" not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability, even if it requires U.S. military action. Though the U.S. Army is scrimping to meet recruitment goals, Rudy has pledged to add at least 10 new combat brigades.
Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?
Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.
Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?
While FDR talked to Stalin, Ike and JFK to Khrushchev, and Nixon to Mao, Rudy would not talk to any "enemies bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." Would he be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Answers Rudy, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy ... and a group of terrorists."
If Rudy rivals McCain as the hawk's hawk in the Republican race, the foreign policy advisers he has signed up make the Vulcans of Bush look like Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark.
Read the rest of the piece after the click ...
Rudy Giuliani has made a "promise" not to allow Iran to acquire a nuclear capability, even if it requires U.S. military action. Though the U.S. Army is scrimping to meet recruitment goals, Rudy has pledged to add at least 10 new combat brigades.
Speaking to an Atlantic Bridge conference in London, Rudy called for NATO expansion to include Japan, India, Australia, Singapore and Israel. Has Rudy thought this through?
Why would Japan and Australia, each of which already has a U.S. commitment to come to its defense, commit to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia if it invaded Estonia? For joining NATO would require them to treat an attack on Estonia, or any other NATO nation in Europe, as an attack upon themselves.
Why should the United States commit to war for India, which has territorial conflicts and has fought wars with China and Pakistan? What vital interest is it of ours who holds Kashmir? As for Israel, are American boys now to fight Hezbollah and Hamas?
While FDR talked to Stalin, Ike and JFK to Khrushchev, and Nixon to Mao, Rudy would not talk to any "enemies bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements." Would he be even-handed in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute? Answers Rudy, "America shouldn't be even-handed in dealing with ... an elected democracy ... and a group of terrorists."
If Rudy rivals McCain as the hawk's hawk in the Republican race, the foreign policy advisers he has signed up make the Vulcans of Bush look like Howard Zinn and Ramsey Clark.
Read the rest of the piece after the click ...
Right Wing "Swiftboaters" are Alive and Well
Obama "refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, but refused to say the pledge."
Chain e-mail on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 in an e-mail circulated by many people.
Photo was taken during anthem, not pledge
A chain e-mail says a photograph shows Barack Obama is unpatriotic because he "refused" to say the Pledge of Allegiance and did not put his hand over his heart.
In the photograph, Barack Obama is standing in front of an American flag with his hands clasped just below his waist. Beside him are Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton, with their hands on their hearts.
The e-mail notes that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein” and says he “REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief????”
But the Time magazine photograph wasn’t taken during the Pledge of Allegiance; it was taken during the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
My comment: I guess outright lies are part of Family Values.
A dyed-in-the-wool Republican friend of mine forwarded the e-mail to me on 11/1 with an indignant note. That puts him pretty close to the beginning of the chain. I suggested there were far more significant issues at stake. Now that the truth is out, maybe the "hand-over-the-heart" thing is a significant issue. Lacking rational arguments to support their positions, the Right is at it again given the national disgrace we experienced in the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry in the run-up to the 2004 election. That strikes me as pretty significant. But, my god, don't these people ever learn. They fall for the same brand of hooie and horse-pucky every time. (Can you spell "g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e"?) You'd think they'd catch on eventually. Rather than checking the facts, it seems they'd rather embrace their negative fantasies. Rather than debate real issues, they'd rather hop on a bandwagon of lies and personal attacks. They get suckered every time.
I e-mailed my friend the link (above) to the St. Petersburg Times / Congressional Quarterly "PolitiFact" piece. I wonder if he forwarded it to the same list of people he sent the original piece to? What do you think?
Wither you're a Conservative Republican or a Liberal Democrat, I would hope that the truth and honesty are important values in your world.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Highway to Hell
Lets see if I've got this straight. Earlier in the campaign Rudy tore Ron Paul a new a$$h0^# for suggesting US foreign policy might have been a contributing factor in our nation being attacked on 9/11. Now he embraces Pat Robertson who said: "We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say 'why does this happen?' Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us"
Following reported by Andy Borowitz
One day after endorsing former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani for president, televangelist Pat Robertson explained his decision, saying that a Giuliani presidency features prominently in the Book of Revelation.
In his endorsement announcement the day before, Rev. Robertson had made reference to Mr. Giuliani's tenure as "America's Mayor," but did not indicate that the Republican frontrunner was a key player in the Bible's most apocalyptic book.
In his statement today, however, the televangelist made it clear that "in order for the Second Coming to occur, the world needs to end, and Rudy Giuliani is just the man for that job."
Rev. Robertson said that he was "confident" that within weeks of his inauguration, Mr. Giuliani would usher in the "end days" that are a staple of Bible prophecy.
In praising Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Robertson had critical words for the current resident of the White House, President George W. Bush: "President Bush got us on the road to Armageddon, but it's taking too darn long -- Rudy Giuliani will put us in the express lane."
While the Giuliani camp initially welcomed the endorsement of the influential evangelist, the former New York mayor seemed less enthusiastic today about being identified as one of the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.
When asked by a reporter in Iowa about Mr. Robertson's comments today, Mr. Giuliani replied, "9/11."
Elsewhere, former Beatle Paul McCartney confirmed that he is dating a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member, explaining, "Since my divorce from Heather, I've had to start taking the subway."
Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times, and at his award-winning humor site, BorowitzReport.com. He hosts an all-new edition of "Next Week's News" starring Amy Sedaris. John Oliver (The Daily Show) and Christian Finnegan (VH1's Best Week Ever) at Comix on Thursday January 17 at 8 PM. Comix is located at 353 West 14th Street, just east of Ninth Avenue. For tickets, call 212-524-2500 or go to comixny.com. For a $5 discount, use the promotional code ANDY.
The Worst Economy in Our Lifetime
Yo - my "supply side" friends! I hope you're deliriously happy ...
"Republicans stand for "fiscal conservatism", meaning they believe in smaller government and balancing the books. At least, that's what they say. The underlying reality is far different. Bush has yet to balance a budget. In fact, he has yet to come close to balancing a budget. In fact, Bush has yet to even get moderately close to maybe possibly balancing the books one day."
"First, Bush has cut taxes twice -- once in 2001 and once in 2003. Working off the standard "supply-side" economic theory he thought this would create a huge wave of tax revenues. The problem is it didn't."
from Hal Stewart.
Check the charts while you're at it. One picture is worth 1,000 words.
Stewart: The Republicans are spending social security money now, hoping no one will notice. And so far they're getting away with it. But intra-governmental debt is still debt. It has a legal priority claim on government revenue and must eventually be paid."
Got a problem with that? Write your "borrow-'til-you're-blue" Republican congressman. It seems Republicans have never seen a buck they didn't want to borrow!
"Republicans stand for "fiscal conservatism", meaning they believe in smaller government and balancing the books. At least, that's what they say. The underlying reality is far different. Bush has yet to balance a budget. In fact, he has yet to come close to balancing a budget. In fact, Bush has yet to even get moderately close to maybe possibly balancing the books one day."
"First, Bush has cut taxes twice -- once in 2001 and once in 2003. Working off the standard "supply-side" economic theory he thought this would create a huge wave of tax revenues. The problem is it didn't."
from Hal Stewart.
Check the charts while you're at it. One picture is worth 1,000 words.
Stewart: The Republicans are spending social security money now, hoping no one will notice. And so far they're getting away with it. But intra-governmental debt is still debt. It has a legal priority claim on government revenue and must eventually be paid."
Got a problem with that? Write your "borrow-'til-you're-blue" Republican congressman. It seems Republicans have never seen a buck they didn't want to borrow!
The Machine is Us/ing Us
or get the video here.
Just under 5 minutes but an interesting introduction to HTML, XML, the Web and how it effects communication and us.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Former State Lawmaker?
Guess which political party* ... no ... really ... take a guess. Green? Socialist? How about Progressive? No .. really, take a guess!!!
PIERRE, S.D. - A former state lawmaker was convicted of raping two former foster daughters during physical examinations that he claimed would help them sell their reproductive eggs.
The jury on Tuesday found Ted Klaudt guilty of all four counts of second-degree rape after deliberating for three hours. Klaudt, 49, could get as many as 25 years in prison for each count when he is sentenced in January.
Circuit Judge James W. Anderson ordered Klaudt to undergo a psychosexual evaluation before sentencing, as required by state law.
Klaudt also is scheduled to stand trial next week for rape and other offenses in Corson County, where he lives.
Klaudt's attorney Tim Rensch didn't deny during the trial that his client gave the girls physical examinations or that they were part of a scheme by which the girls were told they could make thousands of dollars for selling their reproductive eggs.
Read the sordid rest here.
* Answer? You're right!!! You guessed it!!! Klaudt, a Republican served eight years in the state House from 1999 to 2006 and left because of term limits. He ran for a state Senate seat last year but lost to a Democrat.
PIERRE, S.D. - A former state lawmaker was convicted of raping two former foster daughters during physical examinations that he claimed would help them sell their reproductive eggs.
The jury on Tuesday found Ted Klaudt guilty of all four counts of second-degree rape after deliberating for three hours. Klaudt, 49, could get as many as 25 years in prison for each count when he is sentenced in January.
Circuit Judge James W. Anderson ordered Klaudt to undergo a psychosexual evaluation before sentencing, as required by state law.
Klaudt also is scheduled to stand trial next week for rape and other offenses in Corson County, where he lives.
Klaudt's attorney Tim Rensch didn't deny during the trial that his client gave the girls physical examinations or that they were part of a scheme by which the girls were told they could make thousands of dollars for selling their reproductive eggs.
Read the sordid rest here.
* Answer? You're right!!! You guessed it!!! Klaudt, a Republican served eight years in the state House from 1999 to 2006 and left because of term limits. He ran for a state Senate seat last year but lost to a Democrat.
Giuliani: Guts, Experience, Vision and His Own Facts. too!
Katie Levinson
Communications Director
Rudy Giuliani 2008
Dear Miss Levinson,
Rudy's been very good about reminding people every few minutes about how he heroically held press conferences on 9/11. And by now, most people know about how Rudy: single handedly protected New York from terrorist attack (most of the time anyway), waded into the smoke and debris at the World Trade Center to work on the clean-up; brought down the mob by torturing confessions out of suspects. But few people know about his other great accomplishments. I've created the following campaign posters to help you change that.
More Giuliani posters on Jesus' General.
Communications Director
Rudy Giuliani 2008
Dear Miss Levinson,
Rudy's been very good about reminding people every few minutes about how he heroically held press conferences on 9/11. And by now, most people know about how Rudy: single handedly protected New York from terrorist attack (most of the time anyway), waded into the smoke and debris at the World Trade Center to work on the clean-up; brought down the mob by torturing confessions out of suspects. But few people know about his other great accomplishments. I've created the following campaign posters to help you change that.
More Giuliani posters on Jesus' General.
Drivers Licenses for "illegals"?
A very conservative friend and I have started a discussion via e-mail about the controversial "drivers licenses for illegals" proposals that have been floated in several areas of the country. I thought I'd post my view in response to his question about my take on it. (I don't have his take on it, yet ... though I'm sure its coming.)
First, I believe the immigration reform issue is so emotionally charged that no rational plan has a hope in hell regardless of who proposes it. Even the Republicans can't decide among themselves wither "homeland" security should be the priority or "business friendly" should be. On this issue those two priorities are in direct opposition.
Second, with 12,000,000 of them here already, we have a significant problem - and there is no practical solution that involves rounding them up and sending them home en masse. It's a situation that has been with us for decades - though it has only just recently been "discovered". They didn't arrive here in the last year or two. They have been among us throughout the last century .... first invited here, then discouraged, then invited again. They are not here on vacation. They are here because they need to eat and because segments of our economy have built their business plans around their existence - notably the hospitality industry, restaurants, the construction industry and agribusiness to name a few.
Aside from our on again, off again love affair with their cheap labor, I think one needs to be aware that a lot of the problem has its deeper origins in the US export of Milton Freedman's bankrupt "corporations and the invisible hand of the markets" solve all problems. The net result was tremendous support for right-wing dictatorships throughout Central and South American wherein the rich in these countries became super rich selling the national resources to American businesses at the expense of the nations economy in general and their citizens. The few that prospered did so in spades --- but there has been a cost. Everything has a cost and these displaced people are part of that cost. Too bad they don't just crawl off into a corner and die ... the certainly don't fit into Freedman's formulas. (Would love to discuss Uncle Milty's "invisible hand of the market" with you at some point ... I'm sure the conversation would be spirited. I'll give you a clue: I think it's mostly bunk.)
Third: Its a simple fact that you can't control something you can't identify & measure and until we find a way of identifying who these people are, we have no hope of controlling the situation internally. I don't know what the answer is but I know measurement and control are at the bottom of it. I haven't explored drivers licenses enough to feel that's THE solution. However, I do know that New Mexico provides for drivers licenses and some of the positive effects are that uninsured drivers in that state have declined from about 25% to roughly 11%.
As for current migration across the border ... walls don't work. They didn't work when the Soviets (whom the Right resembles more and more every day) walled in Berlin and they didn't work when China tried to wall out the Mongol hordes. We need tighter security at the borders, but walls are a band-aid that only makes the Minutemen happy. We have the technology to register everyone at the border at entry. Other countries require visitors to report to the local police on daily, weekly, or monthly cycles thereby verifying their whereabouts. Failure to report results in an arrest warrant. Apprehension results in instant, no-questions asked, no appeal deportation. Students are visitors and subject to the same rules. We have the computer power ... we just don't have the political will. No papers? Instant bums rush.
Right now a major part of the decision involves a serious prioritization. Is it more important to gain control of our borders than it is to get into a pissing contest over wither or not a workable solution appears to "reward law breaking"? (Given Libby's pardon, I'm surprised its an issue with those on the right ... but go figger!) I vote for doing what is necessary to gain control of the borders, as well as doing whatever it takes to identify and measure the illegal aliens already here so we can control that aspect of the situation. If driver's licenses do the trick, I'm all for them.
First, I believe the immigration reform issue is so emotionally charged that no rational plan has a hope in hell regardless of who proposes it. Even the Republicans can't decide among themselves wither "homeland" security should be the priority or "business friendly" should be. On this issue those two priorities are in direct opposition.
Second, with 12,000,000 of them here already, we have a significant problem - and there is no practical solution that involves rounding them up and sending them home en masse. It's a situation that has been with us for decades - though it has only just recently been "discovered". They didn't arrive here in the last year or two. They have been among us throughout the last century .... first invited here, then discouraged, then invited again. They are not here on vacation. They are here because they need to eat and because segments of our economy have built their business plans around their existence - notably the hospitality industry, restaurants, the construction industry and agribusiness to name a few.
Aside from our on again, off again love affair with their cheap labor, I think one needs to be aware that a lot of the problem has its deeper origins in the US export of Milton Freedman's bankrupt "corporations and the invisible hand of the markets" solve all problems. The net result was tremendous support for right-wing dictatorships throughout Central and South American wherein the rich in these countries became super rich selling the national resources to American businesses at the expense of the nations economy in general and their citizens. The few that prospered did so in spades --- but there has been a cost. Everything has a cost and these displaced people are part of that cost. Too bad they don't just crawl off into a corner and die ... the certainly don't fit into Freedman's formulas. (Would love to discuss Uncle Milty's "invisible hand of the market" with you at some point ... I'm sure the conversation would be spirited. I'll give you a clue: I think it's mostly bunk.)
Third: Its a simple fact that you can't control something you can't identify & measure and until we find a way of identifying who these people are, we have no hope of controlling the situation internally. I don't know what the answer is but I know measurement and control are at the bottom of it. I haven't explored drivers licenses enough to feel that's THE solution. However, I do know that New Mexico provides for drivers licenses and some of the positive effects are that uninsured drivers in that state have declined from about 25% to roughly 11%.
As for current migration across the border ... walls don't work. They didn't work when the Soviets (whom the Right resembles more and more every day) walled in Berlin and they didn't work when China tried to wall out the Mongol hordes. We need tighter security at the borders, but walls are a band-aid that only makes the Minutemen happy. We have the technology to register everyone at the border at entry. Other countries require visitors to report to the local police on daily, weekly, or monthly cycles thereby verifying their whereabouts. Failure to report results in an arrest warrant. Apprehension results in instant, no-questions asked, no appeal deportation. Students are visitors and subject to the same rules. We have the computer power ... we just don't have the political will. No papers? Instant bums rush.
Right now a major part of the decision involves a serious prioritization. Is it more important to gain control of our borders than it is to get into a pissing contest over wither or not a workable solution appears to "reward law breaking"? (Given Libby's pardon, I'm surprised its an issue with those on the right ... but go figger!) I vote for doing what is necessary to gain control of the borders, as well as doing whatever it takes to identify and measure the illegal aliens already here so we can control that aspect of the situation. If driver's licenses do the trick, I'm all for them.
An Impeachment Petition
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
Find it here. Pick a reason. Any one of them would do it under normal circumstances. Just ask yourself what would happen to Bill Clinton if ANY of these charges could legitimately be leveled against HIM.
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal "War of Aggression" against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using "signing statements" to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a "Unitary Executive Theory" giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
Find it here. Pick a reason. Any one of them would do it under normal circumstances. Just ask yourself what would happen to Bill Clinton if ANY of these charges could legitimately be leveled against HIM.
Conservatives get a taste of unregulated Capitalism
And they find they don't like it very much.
Their battle cry?
"Why is Regnery acting like a Marxist cartoon of a capitalist company?"
You can find it here in the New York Times.
gee ... maybe your publisher IS a Marxist cartoon of a capitalist company? I found it all very amusing. How about starting a writers union, guys?
Their battle cry?
"Why is Regnery acting like a Marxist cartoon of a capitalist company?"
You can find it here in the New York Times.
gee ... maybe your publisher IS a Marxist cartoon of a capitalist company? I found it all very amusing. How about starting a writers union, guys?
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Does the FBI have a file on YOU?
If you're a convicted or suspected criminal, you already know that the FBI has a file on you. But the agency's files aren't just for criminals and bad people. If you've ever done anything to get the government's attention, like march in a civil rights protest or getting involved with political action committees, even if you've applied for a job that required a background check or security clearance, you may have an FBI file. If you've ever wondered whether you have an FBI file, and if so, what its contents are, GetMyFBIFile can help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)