Faux News Still Cold on Global Warming

Sometimes Fox News does provide some comic relief. Whether or not you’re watching in shock as John Gibson and Bill O’Reilly try to convince you that the two most significant holidays in the Christian world (Easter and the one the one that literally sustains the American economy every fourth quarter, Christmas) are endangered, or listening to the conservative network tell you civil war could be a good thing for Iraq, you’ve got to admit there is some level of humor at Fox that CNN and MSNBC are lacking.

When the cable networks are not parading disproportionately blonde, pageant-looking, teleprompter-readers on their 24 hours networks, they’re shoving clowns like Jonathan Hoenig, stock market analyst for Fox, in front of the camera to say stupid shit like this:

There’s no scientific proof that global warming even exists. To be honest, it’s a bogus consensus dreamed up by Greens because they hate industry. They hate advancement. They hate technology…Greens will lead us back to the stone ages.

Of course I enjoy the thick, obvious irony of a science-ignoring conservative calling “greens” anti-advancement. You know, those silly people who fight for new advances in global fuel technology, and are by their very definition forward-thinking and progressive. They’re always trying to bring us back to the stone-age with their fancy hydrogen-powered automobiles.

Can someone explain to me why conservatives are wrapped in the flag (while burning the Constitution) regarding the “Global War on Terror,” while at the same time in bed with the very industry that funds it?

I suppose if you could answer that question, you could also figure out why anti-choice conservatives support Bush and hated Clinton, when the Clinton years saw a complete decline in abortions, before the rise seen in the current administration. Or, you could explain to me how the “family values” corps of Republicans support legislation breaking up illegally immigrating families by sending immigrant parents back to Mexico while keeping their kids in America, favor policies that make it harder for gay people to have families, or support laws ending programs like Head Start, and welfare for single mothers. Hypocrisy is indeed my favorite Republican sin.

Anyway, Think Progress was on the ball enough to note that out of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published in the past decade, not one…not ONE, challenged the scientific consensus that Earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. Maybe pro-technology Jonathan Hoenig should be a little more pro-reading.

Pat Finally Finds a Sheikh He Likes

Move over Jake Lalaine, there’s another scary looking senior citizen trying to whip you in shape – except this one is a little more comical.

About once a month I attempt to keep this site updated as to what the hell it is Pat Robertson is doing or saying. In case you’re not keeping score at home, we’ve discussed:

-Pat’s belief that God smote Israeli Prime Minister Sharon
-The fact that the people of Dover, PA will face God’s wrath for voting for science in public schools
- We ought to assassinate the leader of another country because like Pat, he says stupid things
- The followers of Islam are possessed by demons

Pat’s latest utterance? He can leg press 2,000 lbs.

Go ahead and check it out on his web site, I’m not joking. Except there’s only one problem: 76-year old Pat Robertson has apparently shattered the Florida State leg press record by over 650pounds!

Pat Robertson has a new age-defying shake that allows him to look younger and literally leg press a ton. Rumor has it that the only side effect from the shake is that you might suddenly start talking like a bat-shit, schizophrenic, right wing Christian.

Apparently, Bush drank a few of these shakes right before he doubled the world record by landing the largest perch in recorded history, on his man-made lake.

The Rachael Maddow show talked about it this morning:
Listen:

No More Purple Heart Band Aids From the Right

I realize not everyone out there chooses to, or has the financial luxury of going apple-picking for premium cable channels, but for those like myself who might need to be institutionalized after the Sopranos end next year, the benefits of paying $12/month for HBO stretches far beyond the same 11 movies replayed 2300 throughout the year.

In keeping with its ability to blow away network and regular cable television out of the water with its homemade programming, HBO is currently airing a piece that takes a brutally honest look into the war, called “Baghdad ER.”

I had the opportunity to watch it the other night, and I have to say that it’s one of those documentaries that leave you feeling unlike the person you were just an hour prior. I’ll spare you the review. Let’s just say it is a powerful glimpse not only into this war, but how war in general comes nowhere near the glorious stereotypes packaged by “liberal” Hollywood pre-Vietnam.

Instead, I want to call attention to how much this chronicle of war really attaches human beings to what is sometimes a vague silhouette of a soldier that doesn’t appear much more than statistics and file footage on the Nightly News to us back home. (This will be apparent as the death toll takes a predictable, media-manufactured turn toward equaling the September 11th events for which we were told this war was launched.)

Because the film takes the audience away from cable news coverage and daily casualty updates and places them firmly in the middle of the casualty aftermath, I have to think that Bush supporters hate this documentary.

Since the war has started, the same crowd that can’t plaster enough “Pray For Our Troops” magnets (thus making their own statement about sacrifice by choosing a car surface-friendly magnet, as opposed to something stickier) on their vehicles doesn’t want you to get a real dose of reality regarding the war.

- Think about the Pentagon ban on photographing flag-draped coffins
- Think of liberal media giant Sinclair Broadcasting, and their refusal to air the Nightline broadcast in which read the names of then 700 fallen soldiers in Iraq
- Think of the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or any other architect of this war has yet to go to a service person’s funeral
- Think of the fact that airing Saving Private Ryan – during Veteran’s day - on network TV caused an uproar
- Think of the fact that liberal media member Brit Hume stated that the deaths in Iraq are negligible, historically speaking

And who could ever forget Barbara Bush protecting her beautiful mind on Good Morning America?

Therefore, I believe this documentary really shatters the, “move along, nothing to see here” attitude from the Bush administration regarding Iraq.

Many Americans can grimace and grind their patriotic teeth and argue the merits of this war, good or bad, based simply on the death toll figures. However, the number of casualties, rather than deaths – including limbs blown off, people returning home with one eye or unable to ever walk again, soldiers enduring 5, 10 or 15 surgeries just to survive – is perhaps the untold story of this entire saga. Over 17,000 of them and counting.

Couple this with the fact that so many injured are kids – fresh out of 12th grade study hall, not even old enough to legally drink away pain. Too young to have ever been through a psychology class, yet their first lesson will come from their own crash course in Posttraumatic Stress disorder, 101. Barely old enough to understand any of the politics that lead to 9/11, yet lied into buying the idea that they were sent to die in order to avenge it.

Now try to comprehend the fact that not a single pre-war justification for our invasion has proven true – and watching kids die makes you wonder how any of the neocons could ever look themselves in the mirror with any sense of pride or honor, or how the person at the traffic light next to you can display their W ’04 sticker without a deep sense of shame.

Finally, it should be noted that this film is completely apolitical, and only slightly bumps in the night with politics when one of the surgeons states, “We have to be doing good. I have to believe we're doing some good, otherwise, this is sheer madness."

While I think the doctor is right on, I think the sheer madness comes from those who know we were lied into war, yet don’t demand impeachment of this President.

Liberal Media Searches For Hoffa

A little while back, I listed several reasons why the tired battle cry of the liberal media is not only old, it's actually completely inaccurate. Please note, this is an "open" list in progress, so by all means, feel free to email or comment your additions as well.

I also posted a screen shot of CNN.com on that particular day to underscore my point.

A couple of days ago, a friend of mine tipped me off the latest liberal media craze: hunting Jimmy Hoffa (hat tip Ben!)

I went to CNN.com and thought I'd gold-star some of my favorite articles from Friday...

Another Reason to Look Forward to August

As another Friday night nears, I’m saddened by the fact that my VCR (that’s right, I’m old school) won’t be taping another Bill Maher broadcast until August.

This particular show was one of the top 3 of the season, without a doubt. Guests included Madeline Albright, Princeton professor Dr. Cornel West, Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, and musician John Legend.

Most of you have probably seen the show, but for those who haven't, I need to say this: Not only is this show entertaining and funny, it’s important.

It’s a round table discussion on current events that has absolutely not political correctness to it, where conservatives get called on their bullshit often. You will not see anything like this on any talk show or cable news network, ever.

Does it have a progressive bias? Absolutely. Does Maher criticize and come after the Democrats during his hour as well? Damn straight. Pair that up with the countless AM talk shows, cable news programs, and Sunday morning political shows, most of which lean to the right - and even though you've got a show that's unique, it’s a doesn’t even lift the elephant on the other end of the sea saw by a single inch.

Anyway, in case you missed the last show of the season, here are some transcriptional highlights (full transcript here):


Bill Maher on Bush’s Fish:
Well, here's my favorite story of the week. A German publication did an interview with the president and asked Mr. Bush what was his best moment of his presidency. And he said it was the day that he caught a 7 ½ pound perch. [laughter] I couldn't make that up. [laughter] Now, he leaves out the part that he was fishing in downtown New Orleans …That's—[laughter] [applause] [cheers]

No, he was fishing – he was fishing on his ranch. He has an – he has a man-made lake—[laughter]—that is artificially stocked with fish. And let's not forget the scuba divers who are under there—[laughter]—who actually put the fish on the hook for him. [laughter] [applause] And then Cheney comes over and they literally shoot fish in a barrel. [laughter]

But the part I love is that he says he caught a 7 ½ pound perch, when the biggest perch on record is 4.3 pounds. [laughter] Bush lied and a fish died. That's all I have to say. [laughter] [applause] And Cheney went even further. He said when they pulled the fish out of the water, it greeted them as liberators.



Bill Maher and Madelin Albright on Bush and God:
MAHER: Okay, your – your book is about religion in foreign policy, which is actually on the minds, I think, of a lot of people these days. Is it – do you really think that George Bush thinks that God appointed him to be president? [laughter] I mean, we do hear that a lot. Do you really think he believes that?

ALBRIGHT: Well, he – I have a quote in my book where he actually says it. It's hard to say whether he really believes it, but he does say that God is on our side. And I think it would be better if he actually said what President Lincoln said, which is that we ought to be on God's side. [applause]

MAHER: But – but if God chose George Bush, of all the people in the world. [laughter]…to be president. I mean, how good is God, really? [laughter] [applause] [cheers] ALBRIGHT: As somebody says, “the unhappiest character in the Bible is God because His plan didn't work out.” [laughter] [applause]


Maher and the panel on upcoming events on the Congressional docket before the November elections:
MAHER: Well, you mentioned Karl Rove. He is going to use the flag. That's what – I looked at some of the things that Congress is going to bring up in the summer session right before the election: banning gay marriage, that's going to come up again; flag burning—

LEGEND: The greatest hits. They're bringing them back. [laughter]

MAHER: The greatest hits. [applause] Outlaw cloning. A bill about fetal pain. And, of course, singing the National Anthem in Spanish.

LEGEND: When are people going to realize that they're b.s.-ing them? They do it every two years and then it just goes away. Like when did they work on gay marriage after the election? It was – it was just over; it was gone. Are people going to believe them again?

CLARKE: Well, people don't anymore. I mean, you look at the polls. There's a big difference in the polls between the election and today. In fact, there's a poll that came out today that said if you had the choice between Bill Clinton today and the incumbent, who would you pick? 68% of the people said Bill Clinton. [applause] [cheers]

MAHER: So when Bush picks this guy, General Hayden, to be head of the CIA, that actually is what Karl Rove wants. Because they want a battle where they're saying, “We're the Republicans. We're going to protect you at any costs, where the Democrats are for laws and all that pansy bullshit.” [laughter]


...on 9/11 conspiracy theories:
MAHER: Well, let me ask you then, because everywhere I go, people say to me, “Why don't you cover on your show what really happened on 9/11? Why don't you talk about the fact that a missile was what brought down Flight 93, and that the World Trade Center was a planned explosion?” Do you believe any of those conspiracy theories? Do you think it's even possible?

WEST: No, I don't. I don't believe it. But I know the world is a mysterious place. [laughter] Which means I'm open to coordinated activity in secret places. But I don't believe in conspiracy. [laughter] [applause]

MAHER: Wow. You could be a Republican. [laughter]

LEGEND: I think the government is dishonest and they try to keep secrets from us, but they're not that good at keeping secrets, apparently, because they keep coming out. People keep leaking them. So I don't believe that they could coordinate that, that well, and pull it off without us finding out.

CLARKE: Yes.

MAHER: Yeah, it seems like if they couldn't get a helicopter into the Superdome, they probably couldn't get – get some of this stuff going.

CLARKE: All these conspiracy theories have the two basic problems: one, they believe the government is competent. [laughter] [applause]

WEST: The sad thing is, you know, when they talk about welfare, they always talk about personal responsibility, personal responsibility. But when it comes to their actions, who takes responsibility? Hardly anybody at all. [applause] That's what you call not just moral inconsistency. That's what you call unadulterated hypocrisy. [applause]

CLARKE: The WMD issue, the White House now says, “CIA gave us the wrong information.” No, they didn't. CIA gave them fairly decent information that they took and exaggerated and extrapolated; talked about mushroom clouds. None of that is in what CIA gave them.

LEGEND: They picked the information they wanted and then they ignored the stuff that didn't fit the story.

CLARKE: And then they blamed CIA and give them Freedom Medals. But that's a whole other story. [laughter]

...on President Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush:
MAHER: I can't – how can you do that? Frank, please. [laughter] So he sent the first letter from an Iranian president directly to an American president in 27 years. He, of course, sends it to the one president who can't read. [laughter] [applause] And, look, this guy is a total nutcase and a dangerous loon, we all know that. But, you know, it was an opening, was it not? It was an 18-page letter. And Condoleezza Rice basically said, “Talk to the hand.” [laughter] Wasn't there something to build on in this?

WEST: The structure of the letter was very interesting, because, as you recall, the letter says, “Mr. Bush, I understand you to be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you love Jesus Christ and you're supposed to be concerned with the least of these, why don't your policies in any way reflect a concern for the poor and the rejected, and the luckless and the landless?” [applause] Now, this is a very interesting strategy, you know. It's what philosophers call “eminent critique.” Which is to say, you being where people start themselves. They accept the premise.

WEST: And then you bring critique to bear on their platform.

MAHER: He was trying to find some common ground. He was saying, “I'm a religious nut; you're a religious nut.” [laughter] Can't we just—

WEST: But he doesn't – he doesn't mention Islam hardly at all. Just Jesus Christ. Did you notice it in there?

CLARKE: Absolutely.

WEST: In the letter, it was a fascinating move.

CLARKE: Absolutely. But, you know, in the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy got a letter, and it was not a very good one from Khrushchev. And he decided to ignore it and respond not about what was in the letter, but respond through a back channel. And, you know, right now, we've got an opening. Forget what was in the letter. The letter was 18 pages of blah-blah. You know, it was just – no one can understand the letter.

LEGEND: Long letter.

WEST: Yeah, it was a long letter.

CLARKE: And Bush doesn't read things that are 18 pages long anyway. [laughter] So – but the point is, it was an opening.

MAHER: Yeah.

CLARKE: That's – it was a symbol. It was an opening. And what do we say? “We refuse to talk to them because that would be rewarding bad behavior.” (pauses) We're not running a third grade class. [laughter] [applause] [West shakes Clarke's hand]


...on Rove’s gay marriage strategy:
MAHER: [overlapping] Everybody knows – everybody knows this was a big brouhaha during the 2004 campaign, and the right wing was furious at John Kerry. And let's go back just for a second and talk about what exactly happened. He was asked in the debate – was asked the question – he didn't bring it out of nothing – “Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?” And John Kerry said, “If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's just being who she is, who she was born as.” Now, considering the fact that this issue wouldn't even have been on the table except that Bush was pushing gay marriage—

LEGEND: Bingo.

MAHER: [overlapping]—it doesn't seem like such an outrageous proposition.

CLARKE: But the point is – the one that you made – is that Rove put the gay issue on 16 ballots for one reason: to get people out to vote, the religious right, who otherwise would not come out to vote. The reason Ohio went for Bush instead of Kerry by 59,000 votes is entirely because the gay issue was on the ballot. And twice the number of African Americans in Ohio voted for Bush as they did nationally, because they were able to – Rove is brilliant – Rove was able to get to them on this issue.

LEGEND: But – but they were also trying to suppress the black vote in Ohio . Let's talk about that.

WEST: That's true, too.

LEGEND: How they were going into neighborhoods, black neighborhoods, and trying to make sure they were confused about where to vote in Ohio . They didn't want us to vote in Ohio . I'm from Ohio , by the way. [applause]

CLARKE: Neighborhoods – neighborhoods where they had done the polling and knew that the people were going to vote for Kerry, they did that.

LEGEND: Yes. Which is still – the vast majority of black folks voted for Kerry. And they wanted to make sure we didn't vote as much. That's true.

CLARKE: They're going to try it again this year. This year, instead of gay marriage, it's going to be gay adoption, which they're going to put on ballots across the country so they can get that 10% of the religious right out to vote, who otherwise wouldn't come out to vote.

LEGEND: And you would think they'd feel betrayed by now, because they never get what they – what they go and vote for. [laughter]

LEGEND: Yeah, you would think they'd feel betrayed.

WEST: Oh, you mean the right wing themselves?

LEGEND: The right wing. Like they're going to the polls and, “Yeah, we're going to get this amendment.”

WEST: Yeah, that's a good point.

LEGEND: And they never get their amendment. [laughter] [applause]

WEST: But they get a kind of – they get a kind of symbolic satisfaction. It's like it's cathartic.

MAHER: That's right. That's Karl Rove's genius.


And finally, perhaps the most brilliantly delivered point of the night, Bill Maher’s new rule:
MAHER: And finally, New Rule: George Bush has to stop laughing at himself. [laughter] When you're incompetence literally costs lives, giggling at it isn't cute or funny. You know, there's a guy who's been running around the country pretending he's the president, and I believe his name is George Bush. [laughter] [applause] [cheers] And he wants everyone to know that he doesn't take himself too seriously. Which is working out great, because now nobody else in the world does either. [laughter]

You know, if the Republicans really want to joke around, I've got one for you. Knock, knock.

AUDIENCE: Who's there?

MAHER: Hillary. [laughter] [applause]

Now, this is our last show of the season, and I'm rather proud that we've gone all 13 weeks without once making George Bush the subject of our show-ending editorial. Because I didn't want to start sounding like a broken record. Or, to you kids, a degraded MP3 file. [laughter] [applause] Oh, there may have been a stray George Bush punchline here and there. But, come on. I am a comedian and he is a retard. [laughter] [applause] [cheers]

But, fuck it, this is our—[laughter] [applause] [cheers]—this is our last show. This is our last show for a while and I just want to say that when we come back on August 25 th , the week of Bill Clinton's 60 th birthday, and a great time for him to do the show. Wouldn't you love to see him do the show, folks? [applause] [cheers]—Bill Clinton, everywhere I go. So, your move, Mr. President. But when we come back, I hope we're only months away from the beginning of impeachment proceedings. [applause] [cheers]

But, wait. But not for what you think. Now, of course there is a laundry list of valid reasons for impeaching this president. But George Bush and his nest of vipers don't deserve to be impeached with dignity for transgressions involving lofty affairs of state. They deserve the far worse state that Clinton got: being impeached for absolutely nothing at all! [applause]

And that's why I want to impeach Bush over the fact that he lied about that fish! [laughter] [applause] [sustained cheers]

He said he caught a perch twice as large as any perch that's ever been caught! [laughter] And that's a lie about a fish! [laughter] In a time of war! [laughter] And if he will lie about a fish, then…something, something, something, what do we tell the children? [laughter] What do we tell Mrs. Paul?! [laughter] That perch was as American as a McDonald's fish sandwich. Assuming for the sake of argument that a McDonald's fish sandwich contained fish. [laughter] [applause]

So, Mr. President, don't laugh at yourself, because breaking the law is not cute. Having Americans torture people isn't adorable. Leaving poor people to drown wasn't enchanting. And WMD's wasn't a shaggy dog story. So, I'll make a deal with you. We won't impeach you if you just stay on your estate – I mean “ranch”—[laughter]—and fish on your man-made lake. For perch. Maybe you'll beat your own record. [laughter]

But, for the next three years, just don't touch anything. [laughter] [applause] I was wrong when I criticized you for taking too much vacation time. It couldn't be more the reverse. [laughter] Take all the “me” days you want. [laughter] [applause]

But if you get any big ideas and try to do something, you know, like go to Mars or put the Ten Commandments on the flag—[laughter]—or turn the ports over to the Amish—[laughter]—then we're going to have to put you in the only place we can be sure we can be safe from you. And it looks like this. [photo shown of David Blaine's water-filled Plexiglas globe] [applause] [cheers]

No (M)(B)(Tr)illionaire Left Behind

During lunch today, I had the opportunity misfortune of watching Bush give shout-outs to the hopeless, underprivileged dividend tax payers of this nation, as he toted his latest tax cut. During. A. Time. Of. WAR! (sorry, trying to hold it together here).

The Tax Policy Center, a nonprofit sect of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, estimated that 80% of the tax savings would go to the top 10% of American earners, and that almost 1/5 of the benefits will go to the top one-tenth of 1 percent (see chart, lower left).

To get a visual of how small .1% is, click the image below, and maximize the size of your browser window. The area shaded in red is one tenth of one percent of the entire blue bar (And you thought Marist College degrees were worthless!).

Nevertheless, as I watched the President proudly show-and-tell his latest crowning achievement of fiscal responsibility, I realized that my BMT (Bush Media Tolerance) has significantly shrunk over the years of this presidency.

What is the Bush Media Tolerance you might ask? It’s an index I have devised to gauge how long you can observe President Bush speak through any medium – whether it be on the radio, television, or in print – before you absolutely have to turn off said medium because you’re near the breaking point of stress, anger or anxiety.

To figure out your own BMT grab a stop watch, and put one of W’s speeches directly in front of your face (if you don’t have one available, just go here and click the video on the right) .

Start the watch at W’s first word, and keep it running until you can no longer stand it. It’s like the David Blaine stunt in which he held his breath underwater as long as he could, right before passing out. When you’re ready to put your fist through the TV, stop the watch, look at the time, and you now have your BMT number.

Mine is at about 17 seconds, and here is the exact piece of the transcript that did it for me today:
“I'm proud to be up here with Vice President Cheney. I couldn't have picked a better person to be the Vice President of the United States. (Applause.)”

My remote somehow found its way flying across the room, end over end, and I had to continue with my workout. Luckily, I'll have almost enough money from the Bush tax cut to buy another one.

What’s your BMT?

Oh, and this just in - Denny Hastert explains why people with lower incomes don't get a tax break:

"Well, folks, if you earn $40,000 a year and have a family of two, you don't pay any taxes. So you probably, if you don't pay any taxes, you are not going to get a big tax cut."

No shit? I have some surprising news for a couple of my friends then. It's the liberals who are elitist, right?

Dodgey McSideSteperson

I think the next time Bush side steps something with such impressive moves, he should at least do so in a Ninja costume to complete the effect.

Bush ducked from a question hurled at his head like a Chineese throwing star, regarding the topic of the federal government keeping track of our telecommunications activities. Today Bush was asked if it is true that the NSA is keeping a huge database of phone calls placed by millions of Americans, and he smirked the following answer back:

"We do not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval…What I've told the American people is we'll protect them against an al Qaeda attack. And we'll do that within the law.”

By my count, that’s three sentences, and two lies. Although Bush has lied at a much higher ratio than this, today’s lies particularly infuriate me, because he’s flip-flopping on something as important as national security (at one time that was enough to lose you a presidential election):

First he said the government wiretaps only with a warrant. Listen:

They he said, “what I meant was, of course we wiretap without warrants, but we circumvent the law because the law is outdated.” Listen:

Now he’s saying, “actually the first thing I said is what you should pay attention to.”

Either way, Glenn Greenwald has done some A+ research regarding the hypocrisy from Bush-supporters on this issue.

It turns out that there are some archived discussions on the Free Republic web site that shed some light into how the conservative slime reacted to the news that Clinton was wiretapping during his tenure. Here’s the one major difference, and keep this in mind as you’re reading the comments below – Clinton did this legally under the FISA law, and Bush is bypassing FISA.

I realize that some reading this may be unfamiliar with the well known blogs the get a lot of attention today, so if you’re one of those people, let it be known the Free Republic is one of the more conservative, everything-you-and-I-hate-about-Republicans supporting site out there today.

Here are the exact words from some of it’s members – the same ones who blame Clinton for 9/11 – when they discovered Clinton was wiretapping with FISA approval:

This is beyond frightening. Thank you for this find…This does not bode well for continued freedom.
Posted on 11/30/2000 21:38:11 PST by logos

Any chance of Bush rolling some of this back? It sounds amazing on its face. Why didn't Wen Ho Lee just "disappear" into one of these Star Chambers, never to return?
Posted on 11/30/2000 22:22:26 PST by drlevy88

As quietly as possible (although it sometimes breaks out into the open, usually with the sound of gunfire and the death of innocents), a "shadow government" has been set up all around us my friend. It's foundation is not the constitution, but Executive Orders, Presidential Procalamations, Secret Acts, and Emergency Powers. It has all the tools to be an absolute tyranny and those behind it (on both sides of the aisle) who crave power and their form of "governance" continue to move towards it while we are distracted by so many other goings on.
Posted on 12/01/2000 05:31:21 PST by Jeff Head (jeffhead@bigplanet.com)

This is wherein the danger lies in the precedent set by the Clinton criminal administration. God only knows who will be in power next, but there are no checks and balances anymore. This is exactly the SORT of thing I've been protesting all along. Libs just don't see this! But when and where do they find this in the major media? They don't even know!
Posted on 12/01/2000 05:37:18 PST by vharlow

This is one of those ideas that has a valid purpose behind it, but is wide open to terrible abuse. And there's no way to check to see if it is abused. Like all things that don't have the light of day shining on them, you can be sure that it is being twisted to suit the purposes of those who hold the power.
Posted on 12/01/2000 07:01:09 PST by Dog Gone

Dog Gone, the article doesn't seem to say, but isn't there a Congressional subcommittee in charge of overseeing these operations? Or is Congress just passing the bills then turning its collective back?
Posted on 12/01/2000 07:18:11 PST by drlevy88

Congressional oversight of the FISA court is virtually non-existent. This is something which ought to be changed. At least a small subcommittee should have oversight on a frequent basis.
Posted on 12/01/2000 07:45:35 PST by drlevy88

Wonder how many terrorist plots they have stopped? Sounds like despite trampling Constitutional rights, this was ineffective. Maybe because x42 told them to go after movie pirates!
Posted on 09/19/2001 06:01:22 PDT by antidisestablishment

Thanks for the post. Ominous possibilities. Kafka's Trial right on. This, as all law when it breaks down from crashing into individual rights, will default to the 2nd amendment.
Posted on 12/02/2000 05:11:22 PST by PGalt

Mmmm...smell that? That's hypocrisy.

What do you think of all this privacy stuff, Mr. President?
Listen:

Happy Mother's Day Music

Stop reading this immediately. Push your chair away from the computer. Get to the nearest independent music store (sorry Republicans, your darling Wal-Mart doesn't count).

Get the new Tool Album.

Give it to your mother before I do.

Vicarious
An impeccably written song, keeping in mind the corporate media will stop reporting this stuff when you stop buying it. Also listen to the tightness of the amazing asymmetrical rhythms, and the brilliant musical ideas in this song. If anyone has any question as to whether or not Danny Carey is one of the best drummers on the planet, this should lay those concerns to rest.

Listen:
Eye on the TV, 'cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be, like...

"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used a poison in his tea...kissed him goodbye."
That's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies.

Don't look at me like, I am a monster
Frown out your one face, but with the other
Stare like a junkie, into the TV
Stare like a zombie, while the mother holds her child

Watches him die.
Hands to the sky crying,
"Why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die... from a distance
Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie.

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing
Neither the brave nor bold will write as the story's told
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing

I need to watch things die... from a good, safe distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same, so...

Why can't we just admit it?

Blood like rain come down
Drown my grave and ground

Part vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and Voyeur
Stare at the transmittal
Sing to the death rattle

La, la, la, la, la, la-la-lie...La, la, la, la, la, la-la-lie
La, la, la, la, la, la-la-lie...La, la, la, la, la, la-la-lie

Credulous at best, your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men
Pull your head on out, your head please, and give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again

The universe is hostile, so impersonal
Devour to survive... so it is, so it's always been

We all feed on tragedy, it's like blood to a vampire

Vicariously I
Live while the whole world dies!
Much better you than I.


Right in Two
Obviously about war in the Middle East, one of my favorite songs on the new album.

Listen:
Angels on the sideline,
Puzzled and amused.
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they’re all confused.

Don’t these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly old monkeys,
Where there’s one, you're bound to divide it...
Right in two.

Angels on the sideline,
Baffled and confused.
Father blessed them all with reason.
And this is what they choose?

Monkey, killing monkey, killing monkey over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs, they forge a blade.
And where there's one they're bound to divide it,
Right in two.
Right in two.

Monkey, killing monkey, killing monkey, over pieces of the ground.
Silly monkeys give them thumbs, they make a club, and beat their brother down.
How they survive so misguided is a mystery.
Repugnant is a creature who would, squander the ability to live to die to have a conscience
Brothers sleep inside here...

Cut it all right in two.
Cut it all right in two.
Cut it all right in two.
Cut it all right in two.

Fight, over the clouds, over the earth, over sky.
Fight, over life, over blood, over air and light.
Over love, over sun, over another.
Fight, all the time. Over what? Over Lies and...

Angels on the sideline again.
Been so long with patience and reason.
Angels on the sideline again.
Wondering when this tug of war will end.

Cut it all right in two.
Cut it all right in two.
Cut it all right in two.
Right in two.
Right in two.

Wanna Bet?

My prediction, at 11:05pm on Saturday, May 13th. Rove will be indicted by next weekend. Anyone want to take that bet? You heard it here first.
(well, maybe you didn't, but I still think it's coming).

RATR Terror Alert. REMAIN CALM.

And now it's time for everyone's favorite game, lying or stuipd!

Listen:

Ladies and Gentlemen – the terrorist issue is a lot worse than we thought. According to President Bush today:

"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaeda and their known affiliates. We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

Now it has been revealed that phone companies have provided the NSA with 10’s of millions of phone records in the past few years, and this of course means, by the president’s own words, these 10’s of millions of people are al-Qaeda affiliates.

Perhaps as much as one in every three Americans.

It could be your father. Your neighbor. That weird guy you peered over his newspaper at you on the subway. Perhaps your pre-school aged children. It could be...me.

Strangely, the terror alert level that scrolls across the bottom of my Fox News screen every 11 seconds has no changed. Hmmm…they must be in on it too.

Bush went on to make the following statement:

“The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.”

I was not aware of this. Apparently the debate we’ve been having in this country about whether or not the president can break the law to allows domestic surveillance without court approval is completely fabricated.

Of course the president isn’t breaking the law, because again, “the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval.” Therefore, Bush has been defending warrantless wiretapping for no reason at all, by saying things like, “the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world.”

And, on top of all this? We may NEVER find out whether or not Domestic spying without a warrant is illegal.

Why you ask? Because the NSA isn’t going to let the justice department have the clearance they need to investigate them.

I’ll rephrase.

The subject of the investigation isn’t letting the investigators investigate:

The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department
lawyers security clearance.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax Wednesday to Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York saying it was closing its inquiry because without clearance it could not examine department lawyers' role in the program. The administration has vehemently defended the eavesdropping, saying the NSA's activities were narrowly targeted to intercept international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to the al- Qaeda terror network.

Jack Cafferty on explains on CNN
Listen:

That would have been like OJ telling the LAPD that he was denying their request to investigate the murder of his wife.

The small government, get-the-feds-out-of-my-life Republicans have yet to comment...well, except for one.

This is Jonathan Turley, a well recognized expert on the subject of Constitutional Law, who is a regular guest on Fox News.
Listen:

10,000th Unique Visitor

According to my trusty counter on the right hand side, I've passed the 10,000 mark. I hadn't even noticed until now, but whomever the 10,000th visitor was, email me via the "speak to me" link on the left, and I'll mail you any one of several anti-Bush magnets I have here.

(Actually if anyone wants an anti-W magnet for your car or fridge, shoot me an email.)

Thanks to all who visit the site. Without you...well, I'd be writing anyway, for my own sanity, but I'm glad someone out there is reading.

And thanks especially to those who comment. And on top of that, Sox 5, Yankees 3.

As Ice Cube once said, "Today was a good day."

Pray for STD Prevention Education

Bush supporters, social conservatives and many Republicans detest science, largely because it directly conflicts with their utopian goals of bringing us back to the mid 1800’s as a society, where we can churn our butter, keep women’s goddamn legs and mouths shut, and ride horses to Church with Adam and Eve.

In the 6 year tenure of 100% Republican control, the government has launched a never ending holy war upon (among dozens of other things):

-Sex Education
-Evolution
-Global Warming
-Stem Cell Research-NASA
-Clean Air
-Clean Water

Entire books and web sites have been assembled with factual evidence, interviews and data to demonstrate countless examples of the Bush administration threatening, firing, discarding, or rewriting the opinions of well respected, world renound scientists, in order to push a more theological philosophy when it comes to educating the American public.

After all, why improve the quality of life through factual, documented research when you can make everyone adhere to the scientific method of the Bible, a book of metaphorical stories written by men 2,000 years ago solely to convince everyone to join their religion? I mean, theocracy is working well for other nations, right?

The Centers for Disease Control is hosting it’s biannual STD prevention conference next week, just got a taste of this for themselves recently.

The upcoming National STD Prevention Conference…has just been given an unhealthy shot of ideology. The conference was supposed to include a symposium designed to explore how abstinence-only sex education may undermine other efforts to reduce STDs. But now the symposium has been abruptly retooled to include two proponents of abstinence programs—and to exclude a well-respected detractor.

The symposium that's been meddled with was originally titled, "Are Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs a Threat to Public Health?" Its convener, Bruce Trigg of the New Mexico Department of Public Health, proposed a skeptical look at abstinence education, which the Bush administration is funding to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. As moderator, Trigg promised to ground the critique in scientific evidence.

Now called "Public Health Strategies of Abstinence Programs for Youth," the program will no longer be moderated by Trigg, though he and Santelli will still present. Smith, by contrast, has been bumped from the program.

Taking his place are two staunch proponents of abstinence-only education, Eric Walsh and Patricia Sulak. Walsh is a family physician affiliated with Loma Linda University, a Seventh-day Adventist institution in California. His approach to public health is explicitly ideological. "Dr. Walsh seeks to serve the Lord through medical missions and the preaching of the Gospel in all the world," an online bio explains. Sulak, meanwhile, is an obstetrician-gynecologist at Scott & White Memorial Hospital in Texas and the founder of "Worth the Wait," an abstinence program noteworthy for its negative messages about condoms and stereotypical statements about girls and boys.

Read on.

Why Women Should Never Vote Republican: Reason 1,326

It was once said by a great comedian that the very people who think the United States is indisputably the greatest nation on Earth have probably never traveled outside of the country. Most people who make that argument are not drawing from any significant statistical fact, but rather from the same emotion and blind faith rendered by telling your classmate on the bus that your dad could beat up his dad.

After all, if the measure of a great Democracy includes how free its press is, the quality of public education, how it treats its minority populations, its poor, its incarcerated, and access to health care, Canada, Europe and parts of Asia are surging ahead in this pointless water cooler debate.

We’re one of the few 1st world nations actually rolling back, not expanding sex education, reproductive and abortion rights for women. We’re one of the few 1st world nations to have prison over crowding to the extent that we do. Our public school children are lagging behind in science, math, and social studies, while our citizens storm out of Bill Nye the Science Guy lectures due to offensive content about the moon’s light.

Oh, and take a look at whose company we keep in terms of Death penalty advocation.

We need to make changes if we’re going to remain reclaim the title of best nation on Earth. Perhaps we could start with some changes in health care:

…the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report. American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States.

For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births. Only 17 percent of all U.S. births were to African-American families, but 33 percent of all low-birthweight babies were African-American, according to the report.

Charles MacCormack, president and CEO of Save the Children, said the report card "illustrates the direct line between the status of mothers and the status of their children.” Tinker said Japan was among a number of nations highly ranked mainly because they offer free health services for pregnant women and babies, while the United States suffers from disparities in access to health care.

The report highlights the three areas it says have the most influence on child well-being: female education, presence of a trained attendant at birth and use of family planning services.

The report said that family planning and increased contraception use leads to lower maternal and infant death rates. Many women and children in developing nations, it said, die as a result of births that come at the wrong time -- too close together, too early or too late in the mother's life.

So keeping the above information in mind, let’s read between the lines, and look at the Conservative agenda, dancing a sick Waltz of ignorance with today’s Republican leadership:

Decrease financial aid to those living below the poverty line while increasing aid to corporations

Continually vote against the universal health care plans for which Democrats and most of the country are a fighting to instate.

Stand in direct opposition of Planned Parenthood services, denying women access to health care, sexual and relationship health-related information.

Draft legislation chipping away at the opportunity for higher education among minorities.

Provide funding for abstinence only instruction, completely disregarding sex education, contraception, and teen gay & lesbian relationships.

Lobby against Title IX, passed by liberals in Congress in the early 1970’s which has had a direct effect in increasing women’s education at the collegiate level.

And so it is, one of the great hypocrisies of conservatives and the majority of the Republican party. How many times have these people rallied their troops around the theme of “saving” or helping children? How often have they bolstered their votes by targeting mothers, children, and the sanctity of life? These are the representatives of God, of Christianity, of children, and the culture of life?

Their political values are in stark opposition with reports such as these, and the standards with which we measure our success as a nation and a society. Their answer to the value of human society is not to educate and empower; it’s to shove feeding tubes down the throats of incoherent, brain damaged vegetables.

Conservatives therefore have two choices. Start adopting liberal philosophy in order to improve the health of children and mothers…OR…stop saying you care about children and mothers. You have to choose one, you cannot have both.

We’ll await your response.

Daily Show Moment of Zen

Thanks to C&L, those who missed it last night are able to see and hear for themselves the reasons why Bush nominated Michael Hayden to lead the CIA. And, of course why he nominated the man whose resignation left the very vancancy he will fill:

Yeah - What She Said

Once in a while I find that rather than writing my own particular entry for the day, I would do this site and anyone who stumbles across it a better service by simply posting a link an entry writing by someone else within the liberal blogging community; if not for any reason other than someone else is saying it a lot better than I am.

After reading BlueGal’s latest post, I’ve decided May 8th 2006 is one of those days.

She keyed a post today that reminds me a lot of who is perhaps my favorite columnist, Mark Morford was writing about during the time around the 2004 presidential election (please read this one specifically). He noted specifically the difference between blue and red voters, not necessarily geographically but culturally, educationally and in terms of overall societal value.

I mean, let’s just take a sample: almost of the cultural centers, college towns, scientific organizations, leading newspapers, faculty members, etc, all voted blue. The Pat Robertson’s, creationists, social conservatives, racists, (see Bob Jones U), Nascar dads, and Brittany Spears, all voted red.

Speaking about (and accurately for) the liberal blogosphere, Blue Gal highlighted not only the impact liberal blogs have had on the corporate media, but also the sharp contrast between the way we approach political discussion in both our presentation and intellect, versus the all drama, primal brain-tapping approach of the Right. Listen to the types of discussions Bill Maher has on his show, and then immediately pop in a tape of Bill O’Reilly earlier in the day and you’ll get an intellectual contrast I couldn’t even begin to describe here.

Here is some of what she said, and I hope you’ll read more at her site:

“…Without the lefty blogs, MSM (and by the way, folks, nobody even SAID "MSM"
before we came along, they were just the "M" and they got away with a lot more than they do now) would never have covered the Kaloogian fake photo of "Baghdad," Bush's fake "interview" with our troops, and, um, don't get me started about you-know-who. And you also know I'm just scratching the surface here. Needless to say Joe Lieberman wishes we would just go away…

But there is another connotation for "respect" and that we may never get. I hate to inform you, lefty blogospherians, but we are also the intellectuals of our society. That may sound snooty, but when Stephen Colbert says that "reality has as well-known liberal bias" and says that he "trusts his gut more than his head" he is talking back at us, directly and specifically. Critics stress that Colbert is pretending to be right-wing a la Bill O'Reilly, but more than knee-jerk conservativism, what Colbert is lambasting is O'Reilly's anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism has a long and cherished history in American politics. Elections are won by being the guy everyone wants to have a beer with, rather than the one with the best ideas…

The challenge of the internet, and particularly the blog, is that you are capable, and I would argue, therefore required, to name your sources and back up your bullshit. The tightness of our community is also its control mechanism. If you lie, if you plagiarize, you will be caught and you will be outed. The internet is no respecter of persons, it respects the truth.

We bloggers as intellectuals will never get any "respect" in that sense. Those who think their vote on American Idol is as valuable as their vote for President will never respect us…"

Read on.

Getting Hated Over There, So They Don't Hate Us Here

I remember fondly some trips to Ireland that Bill Clinton took during his presidency, both for diplomatic purposes and to make his contribution toward the terrorism problems the Irish faced in the North (if you'd like to read about some other counter-terrorism efforts from the Clinton administration, go to this part of the site. Read further down for Bush's pre-9/11 efforts, and you'll understand why Democrats want to rip the face of anyone who suggests Clinton was weak on international terrorism).

I remember the images from the massive crowds of Irish gathered to hear his speech, whipped into an American president-admiring frenzy, waving miniature American flags (memory refresh here). It was as if the latest American Idol, who weeks prior was asking you if you wanted ketchup with your order, just set foot in your local Best Buy to promote the new album written and produced before the karaoke contest winner was even crowned.

I distinctly recall how proud I was at that moment - of my country, and of my president. It's similar to the feeling you get when watching the American athletes roll into the stadium at the Olympics every few years: "Damn right, that's my country."

I haven't had that feeling in 5 years. I can only assume it's on hold for another 2, and perhaps longer. In fact, the most recent overflowing, patriotic memory I have comes from the days after 9/11.

Our President had a near 90% approval rating.
The entire international community was with us, asking how they could help.
The band outside Buckingham Palace played "The Star-Spangled Banner" during a changing of the guard, as thousands of Londoners tearfully waved American flags.
The headline in the Parisian newspaper from soon to be hated France proclaimed the phrase heard 'round the world: We Are ALL Americans.

And how did Bush respond?

He blew one of the greatest opportunities for international power and cooperation since World War II. A president who had almost the entire world community at his fingertips suddenly became the most simultaneously protested American in civilization's history.

Americans traveling abroad EVERYWHERE must use caution, for fear that even looking like an American tourist will be at best be enough to get you harassed, and at worst, get you killed. It's now to the point where a clothing company (based in New Mexico) is actually selling "Go Canadian" clothing kits in which traveling Americans receive a gift basket full of red maple leaf insigned attire, hoping to trick everyone into thinking they're not really from Calgary, not San Diego.

And of course, with the World Cup in Germany right around the corner, it is with great embarrassment I bring you this gem:

The official team bus to be used by the United States during the World Cup will not bear a flag for security reasons.

The 32 official buses were presented Thursday in Frankfurt, and the other 31 buses have large national flags of the their teams painted on rear sides.

At the 2002 World Cup, the United States was among the most heavily guarded teams. When the Americans arrived at Incheon International Airport, about 500 police formed a corridor the players walked through as they came out of customs, with SWAT team commandos mixed in.

When the team’s charter flight landed at Daegu Airport before a game against South Korea, two tanks were on the runway. Metal detectors were placed at the entrance of the team hotel throughout the players’ stay in Seoul.

Bush supporters responded to this story by issuing this single, collective statement:

"We continute to support our President's efforts to make Americans safer as they travel abroad.

We are disappointed our concept for the American team bus in Germany donning 11 American flags, two Pray For Our Troops ribbon magnets, and a mural depicting Toby Keith with an eagle on his shoulder, urinating on the head of Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not pan out. We are hereby renaming hot dogs, commonly known as frankfurters, 'freedom tubes.'"

Would anyone like french fries with that?

Note to Bush Admin: No More Public Q&A's

Today was a tough day for Rummy. Although he didn't face resignation calls from yet another decorated, troop hating military General, he was heckled twice by members of an audience in Atlanta. One woman spoke out by declaring, “I cannot stay silent, this man needs to be in prison for war crimes.” As she was being forcibly removed, the freedom-lovers in the crowd shouted, “get out of here!”

Another protester soon followed suit, as did a woman (and card carrying America-hater) named Patricia Robertson, who said she had lost her son in Iraq.

But that wasn’t Rummy’s biggest headache. His problem today was a man in the crowd who got to ask him some tough questions.

You’ll recall that our President isn’t the only one who doesn’t do will with live, unscripted Q&A’s, because Rumsfeld is determined to not let Bush stand in that embarrassing spotlight alone.

Today was no different.

Here’s the Transcript:

QUESTION: So I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the american people and made a presentation. i'm not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and – (this is a LIE, see below)

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that… -- no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second (they tried to usher him out of the room). Just a
second.

QUESTION: This is America.

RUMSFELD: You're getting plenty of play, sir.

QUESTION: I'd just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I'm giving it to you.

QUESTION: Well we're talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That's also...

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren't idiots. They know the story.

(PROTESTER INTERRUPTS)

RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.

It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?...They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously (weapons given to him by Rumsfeld during the Reagan administration). He'd used them on his neighbor (AUDIO GAP) the Iranians (again, 20 years ago, with our blessing) and they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

QUESTION: That's what we call a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.

MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience.

Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, proof of his lie was not only caught on tape, but has actually become an imfamous soundbyte, and an auditory symbol of disgrace and embarrassment for this White House regarding their 100% certainty of Iraq’s WMD’s. From March 30th, 2003:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Oh, who was the America-hater who dare question our government as they tried to throw him out of the room? 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern.

Here's the transcript of an interview he did with CNN hours after the "incident."

Our Activist President

Back in January, I wrote about Bush’s knack to essentially avoid following the laws to which he signs his name, with what are now affectionately called “signing statements.”

Most are familiar with this political maneuvering, but for those who aren’t, Rachael Maddow explains:

Audio:

It should be noted that other presidents have used signing statements in the past. What makes the Bush Administration so slimy and in effect, completely hypocritical, is that the President will not only publicly support the bills he signs into law, he’ll openly use words that show his rabid enthusiasm for said laws in order to demonstrate to everyone he agrees with that particular policy.

For example – in the link cited above, Bush proudly proclaimed “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example," on June 26, 2003. Heck, he later signed the bill drafted in part by a torturee himself, one John McCain. Sounds pretty decent, right?

Well, take a look at the accompanying signing statement, and you’ll discover that it excuses Bush from following the law. In effect, it says “we can torture whenever we feel those being tortured threaten national security.” Consider the incredibly wide net this president has cast to justify other violations of the law in the name of “national security,” and you’ll understand where this is going. Therefore, torturing is illegal, except when we need to torture.

That’s like saying, "speeding is illegal - except when I’m late for work."

So as the freedom-loving Bush supporters continue to make excuses for the president who is taking away freedoms by violating the very laws he signs, other Americans who value the constitution are a little concerned, especially after this recent Boston Globe article, of which I suggest reading immediately:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws
enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional…Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the
law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.

…Twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving
Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill
that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law.

''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.

In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

Read on.

So what are some examples of laws you thought your President swore to uphold but really had his fingers crossed behind his back?

March 9: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.

Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.

Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.


Dec. 30: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."

Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.


Aug. 8: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.

Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.


Dec. 17: The new national intelligence director shall recruit and train women and minorities to be spies, analysts, and translators in order to ensure diversity in the intelligence community.

Bush's signing statement: The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with a constitutional clause guaranteeing ''equal protection" for all. (In 2003, the Bush administration argued against race-conscious affirmative-action programs in a Supreme Court case. The court rejected Bush's view.)


Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Bush's signing statement: The inspector general ''shall refrain" from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.


Nov. 5, 2002: Creates an Institute of Education Sciences whose director may conduct and publish research ''without the approval of the secretary [of education] or any other office of the department."

Bush's signing statement: The president has the power to control the actions of all executive branch officials, so ''the director of the Institute of Education Sciences shall [be] subject to the supervision and direction of the secretary of education."


As I have said before, other presidents have used this quietly kept Constitutional loophole, so it's fair to ask how Bush compares to others who used the signing statement clause:









You’ll remember that in order to give the few Americans that still support him a nice, empty bumper-sticker slogan from which to spit ammunition, the Bush PR team invented the phrase “activist judges.” By “activist,” Bush is implying that federal judges are overstepping their bounds by going above their role as the judiciary, and playing the role of Congress by actually ignoring the laws they pass. He warns that this breach of Congressional authority should not only be stopped, but it poses a threat to the integrity of our government.

I’ll let you write your own punch line to this one.