I always thought the man who brought down Nixon was Nixon
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16c55/16c558310b0fbe85b3fe41fc56d00a7c4ca03abb" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1fd2/f1fd2affb4151df4c7b07ea6b0817b792267d4f9" alt="Posted by Hello"
To defend the principles of human liberty; to educate; to be vigilant against the ever expanding power of the state.
Uh-oh!
I'm not one for elaborate conspiracies, bureaucracy tends not to lend itself to that level of organization, but sometimes simple conspiracies can eloquently illuminate a rather dubious-looking official story. Such is the case with the recent Newsweek blow-up. Does it really seem likely that Michael Isikoff, one of the most respected journalists in the country, really ran with a single, anonymous sourced story of this magnitude? Does it strike you as at all coincidental that The International Committee of the Red Cross has been documenting Koran abuse at Quantanimo for the last three years, but when the story hit the mainstream press, all it took was the President expressing his outrage with the messenger, while discounting the validity of the message, to get Newsweek to retract the thing?
I submit for your consideration the following senario. The Newsweek story hits. There is no immediate reaction from the White House. When riots flare up in Afghanistan as a result of the story, suddenly the White House is morally outraged by the wreckless disregard for the facts and human life displayed by Newsweek. This just as Afghan President Harmid Karzai is about to visit the States and call the Administration to task for a detailed report on widespread torture and murder by US soldiers in his nation. Someone at the White House, Karl Rove perhaps, gets the managing editor of Newsweek on the phone. "If you don't retract that story and throw Isikoff to the wolves, Newsweek will never get access to a member of this administration again!" Suddenly, Newsweek apologizes. They call the White House. "There, we have apologized for running the story." "Not good enough, I said retract it." The next day, Newsweek retracts the story. Is this possible? Sure. Did this happen? I have no idea, but it makes a little more sense then what is being floated as the actual chain of events and its certainly consistent with the thuggish abuses of power we have come to expect from the Bushies.
Belinda Stronach & Paul Martin
It took every ounce of political capital that Paul Martin could muster, but in the end it proved to be enough. Thanks to a last minute bribe to give former Conservative MP Belinda Stronach a cabinet seat to defect and a tie-breaking vote by the Speaker, the Liberals managed to squeak out a 153-152 win on a vote to support a massive new budget. The Liberals gave the New Democrats huge new federal spending and a suspension of business tax breaks in exchange for their votes. If the vote had failed, Martin would have had to ask the Governor-General to dissolve parliament and new elections would have been called. Instead, Canada will be shouldered with budget-busting social spending and no new economic stimulus, to say nothing of a corrupt and ineffectual minority government. Conservative Leader Steven Harper blamed the Liberals for their slimy tactics to secure the votes, but it was Harper who, in the face of the Gomery Inquiry and Martin's Liberals incompetence, still couldn't manage to bring down the worst government that Canada has seen in a generation. Read more here, here and here.
Ask yourself, "How often has government sought broad, easily abused powers while assuring us that it would always be responsible with them. Social Security will be voluntary, the Department of Education will not become a national school board, we just want to threaten Saddam, etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile, the state consolidates power, becomes more ambitious and discovers all of the tools at its disposal to enforce a particular rulers brand of "civil" society. Enter Patriot Act II. Under provisions of the new act, the Stasi-like tactics of breaking into people's homes, wire tapping, monitoring financial records and even surveiling friends and families would be expanded to allow all these activities without even the simple check of requiring a judge's order that are now in place. Imagine how this authority could be abused in the future, under different circumstances, by different men claiming to be acting in the best interest of the nation. The Fourth Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (Bold mine)
This act is a clear violation of the letter and intent of our Constitution. The sponsor of this act is Pat Robertson, a Republican. I urge everyone to e-mail him and express your outrage and concerns by clicking here.
Read more about this story here.
The news has been really dark lately and I am afraid that that cynicism has pervaded these pages as well. As a classmate accused me today, "You're just an optimist." I don't think he meant it as a compliment, but hey it's true and if thinking people are generally decent, hard working and honorable is naive, then I'll cop to that too. Kuwaiti women today, by parliamentary vote, won universal suffrage. It's not all bad in the Middle East. Read more here.
What happens when real politik meets Bush's idealism? Well in the case of the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan the answer is a tepid US response to a viscous and violent crackdown of Muslim protestors by a Washington and Kremlim-backed knuckle dragging strongman, Islam Karimov. The US has a base in Uzbekistan and doesn't want to lean to hard on its leader despite his long record of human rights abuses and totalitarianism. If this does not sound consistent with Bush's "freedom is on the march" rhetoric, yet strangely familiar, this is the same kind of relativism and equivocation that was the hallmark of US Arab policy for 40 years. That didn't turn out so good. If you want another comparison, remember how Bush's father encouraged an Iraqi uprising at the end of the first gulf war, but refused to support the insurgents. Fast forward twelve years to Dubya's encouragement of democracy in the former soviet states. Georgia, Ukraine and Zyrgyzstan all just threw off oppression with enthusiastic encouragement from the US and the administration is actively encouraging it in Belarus (to their credit). But the US is less excited about representative government in Uzbekistan. What, besides the usefulness of an authoritarian ruler, could lead the US to have a different take on similar events there? Perhaps the fact that the oppressed populous is 88% Sunni Muslim and living next door to Russia which already has a Muslim problem in Chechnya and the Caucuses. I'm not saying, I'm just saying, if you know what I'm saying. Read more about Uzbekistan here and here. Learn more about current events there here and here.
The joyous liberation of Iraq continues unabated. Thousands of Iraqi's in the here unto peaceful western part of the country, freed from Saddam's tyranny, expressed their exuberance by running for their lives as the American war machine leveled their villages this week. Read more here.
Well, at least the Afghanis appreciate all the peace and freedom their enjoying....umm, right? Read more here.
This is an e-mail I received today that I thought might interest y'all:
May 12, 2005
Outrage of the Week: Senate Unanimously Passes the "Real ID" Act
In a 100-0 vote, the U.S. Senate passed the 2nd largest supplemental spending bill in the history of the nation. If that were not enough reason to question the common sense of our legislators, the Republican and Democrat leaders also passed the Real ID Act which was hidden within the spending bill.
With the passing of the bill, states will have to abide by federal standards for providing driver's licenses and I.D. cards to citizens. States will also have to link their citizen databases to federal systems in order obtain funding for the program.
Driver's licenses issued by states not fulfilling federal requirements will not be accepted by any federal agency. What does that matter? Here are a few scenarios that may occur if your state were to not fulfill the new federal obligations:
Flying to see a relative in another state? Don’t forget your papers: Domestic travelers could not pass through airport security checkpoints without a passport or a "Real" I.D. card.
Want to serve your country? Apply for a passport first: Prospective military enlistees could not meet identification requirements with only state issued identification.
Want to get a job? Not without federal documentation: The INS I-9 form is a required document for all U.S. workers. Section Two of the form requires identification to be examined by the employer. As no federal agency will accept "old" driver's licenses, your I.D. would no longer be valid. Be sure to bring your passport along to your next job interview.
Aside from the authoritarian restrictions that will be implemented within the next three years (the bill is to be fully implemented by May 2008 if signed by President George W. Bush), there are many other consequences of the bill.
The forthcoming database sharing will now put U.S. citizens in the same class as criminals. While the Social Security Administration tracks names and employment data, the federal government will now have access to at least your physical description, disabilities, and your photo. In the past, this level of detail was only offered to the federal government within criminal databases.
If you are comfortable with the above, please take the time today to send a "thank you" note to your Republican or Democrat senators. Be sure to let them know that you enjoy having your personal freedom and privacy stolen. Otherwise, choose to support the Libertarian Party, which will continue to follow principle and fight for your individual liberty.
To discuss the Real ID Act on the new LP Blog, see:
http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000021.shtml
***************************************************************
And this is the amazing letter I received from my one of my two brain dead senators on the subject, apparently it was o.k. to sell out privacy and liberty because that was the price of funding the troops involved in the illegal war she didn't support. The mind wobbles.
Dear Mr. "free2smooze":
Thank you for contacting me regarding the inclusion of the REAL ID Act in the Emergency Supplemental Act. I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.The Emergency Supplemental Act (H.R. 1268) is a critically important piece of legislation. This bill will ensure that our troops in Iraq, who put their lives on the line for us every day, are properly equipped and protected. It provides vital funds to support the emergence of a free Afghanistan, and it provides much-needed funding for tsunami relief. I supported the original Senate version of the Emergency Supplemental Act that passed on April 21, 2005. Unlike the House-passed version, the Senate version did not include the amendment that reflected the goals of the REAL ID Act (H.R. 418). In fact, the Senate-passed version included an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that Congress should not delay critical funding needed by U.S. troops around the world by conducting a debate about immigration reform. While we have long recognized the need for comprehensive immigration reform, this debate has no business taking place as part of an emergency spending bill. The REAL ID Act is a complete overhaul of our immigration laws that would, amongst other things, impose complicated new driver's license requirements on states, make it harder for refugees at risk of persecution to be granted asylum, and suspend all environmental laws along the U.S. border. Legislation of this importance deserves to be the subject of focused study and serious debate. Passing REAL ID without careful consideration is reckless, irresponsible, and a disservice to the American people.However, the conference committee, which reconciled differences between the Senate- and House-passed versions of the bill, included the REAL ID provision in the final version of the Emergency Supplemental Act brought before the Senate for consideration. I supported the final version of the Emergency Supplemental Act that passed the Senate on May 10, 2005, even though I strongly oppose the REAL ID provisions that were also included. I supported the legislation because I recognize the immediate need of emergency funding to our troops. I hope that the Senate returns to the issue of comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible and that stand alone legislation is introduced that better reflects our national priorities.Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov . Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
Thursday will see an increasing chance of horrific mortality in the north, with a slightly lessening chance of being called home to Allah in the west.
Friday will bring a flurry of car bombs to the Sunni Triangle and Greater Baghdad regions.
Saturday will see a rise in humiliated young men joining the infidels and dying to keep their children fed.
Saturday it looks like some temporary clearing in most of the country, but a rise in sexual humiliation and torture at secret U.S. prisons in Anbar, Mutanna and Irbil.
Sunday you will want to pack your flack jacket if you have to be out as a sharp rise in friendly fire incidences will rob mothers of their children and families of their fathers throughout the nation.
Today 76 more innocent civilians have been killed for George Bush's ego. Read more here.
***************************************************************
In Brief:
Canadian Govt' loses confidence vote, but refuses to resign. Promises resignation if budget vote fails. Read more here.
Cuban bomber, responsible for murder of 76, is CIA agent and being protected by US Govt'. Read more here.
While America slept, the US senate voted 100-0 in favor of a war spending bill that will also authorize the creation of a national ID card. Bush says he is "enthusiastic" to sign the bill. New Zealand is looking better and better. Read more here.
***************************************************************
"Freedom" in George Bush's America - from harrybrowne.org
• Paying federal, state, and local income taxes, Social Security taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and import taxes that add up to almost half of what you earn;
• Standing in long security lines at airports, being forced to remove your jacket and shoes, submitting to searches that are made without any warrant or probable cause, in violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution;
• Knowing that your email might be filtered and monitored — without a warrant or probable cause;
• Knowing that your bank accounts and other personal affairs are subject to inspection by U.S. Treasury agents — without a warrant or probable cause;
• Knowing that a mistaken identification could cause you to be arrested but never charged with a specific crime, put into prison, denied access to an attorney, and even denied the ability to tell your family where you are — in violation of the 5th and 6th amendments to the Constitution;
• Being forced to testify against yourself by revealing all your income and expense information to the IRS — in violation of the 5th amendment.
February 10, 2009
Insta Pundit University of Tennessee School of Law Knoxville, TN
Dear Mr. Pundit,
I am writing to inform you that the Federal Election Commission has voted unanimously to support my recommendation that there is "reason to believe" that you have violated federal election law. Pursuant to that finding, the Commission has opened an investigation of these violations.
I hereby direct you to provide sworn written answers to the following questions related to your violation of federal election law.
1. Did you on or before August 30, 2008, state on your "blog" that "If elected, Hillary Clinton will be the worst U.S. president of my lifetime"?
2. Did you on or before August 10, 2008, state on your "blog" that "John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment. If he is elected president, the nation is in trouble."?
3. Did your "blog" on August 10, 2008, and August 30, 2008, receive in excess of 100,000 visitors?
As part of its investigation, the Commission has subpoenaed your hosting company to provide information about activity on your "blog" on the dates in question in relation to the questions above.
Please note: if you refuse to provide sworn written answers to these questions, the Commission can ask a federal district court to enforce these subpoenas and orders.
In your last letter to the Commission, you stated that "my alleged blogging about Senators McCain and Clinton is protected from government regulation by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." You conclude: "The Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech.' No law means no law."
This is incorrect. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may restrict the financing of campaigns to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court has also stated that Congress may close loopholes in campaign finance law by regulating speech that influences federal elections.
In 2008, Senators Clinton and McCain were the major party candidates in a federal election for the presidency. The Commission has ruled that messages that reach over 100,000 voters nationally (or 25,000 voters in an electioneering area) may be assumed to influence a federal election. The complaint against you alleges that your statements received well over 200,000 hits on the dates in question.
You also state that you received no payments to blog about the election from any candidate, candidate's committee, or political party. That is irrelevant. Congress and the Commission, with the blessing of the Supreme Court, have decided that your influence on federal elections justifies regulation of your activities. If your attempts to influence federal elections were not regulated, the entire structure of campaign finance regulation (and hence, the very integrity of our democracy) would be threatened.
Frankly, we are surprised that a law professor would make such absurd claims based on the outmoded "Congress shall make no law" view of the First Amendment. In fact, Congress has complete authority to regulate freedom of speech to realize the values underlying the First Amendment. If you doubt that, please read the Supreme Court decision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).
In 2007 Congress passed the Internet Freedom, Responsibility and Level Playing Field Act which states that Internet messages influencing federal elections shall be valued at ten cents per voter affected by the message. If the facts are as alleged in the complaint, you have apparently contributed $20,000 to the presidential campaigns of both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton. Federal law limits individual contributions to $2251.01 annually.
The Office of General Counsel will review your sworn, written answers to these questions and prepare a brief that recommends whether the Commission should find there is "probable cause to believe" you have violated federal election law. You or your attorney will have fifteen (15) days to respond to this brief.
Have a great day,
Office of General CounselFederal Election Commission
This article appeared in the American Spectator on May 10, 2005.