Independence Day Countdown of Greatest Americans

I am still shivering over Ronald Reagan being voted the greatest American. That could only mean that the schools are not doing a really good job teaching American History anymore. That was my favorite subject. So, as a countdown to Independence Day, I am going to present my list of 5 Great Americans:

Abigail Adams

She was one of the first American feminists. She had it pretty hard running the farm in Braintree while John was running around Philadelphia insulting other members of congress and being jealous of Franklin's diplomatic abilities in France. Mrs. Adams suffered food and supply shortages and the kids were always sick with no antibiotics around. However, she got through the Revolution bravely, in a long dress with corsets underneath to boot, and wrote some of the best letters of the time both to her husband and to family friend Thomas Jefferson. OK, the Adams and Jefferson had a tiff or two over the years, but they ended up friends again in the end.

While Mrs. Adams is best known for her "remember the ladies" letter, I want to share another one with you because it seems so timely now. In 1787, Mrs. Adams had grown concerned about unrest in Massachusetts caused by new taxes imposed to help fight the war. She wrote this to Jefferson:

Luxery and extravagance both in furniture and dress had pervaded all orders of our Countrymen and women, and was hastning fast to sap their independence by involving every class of citizens in distress, and accumulating debts upon them which they were unable to discharge. Vanity was becoming a more powerfull principal than patriotism. The lower order of the community were prest for taxes, and tho possest of landed property they were unable to answer the demand, whilst those who possest money were fearfull of lending, least the mad cry of the mob should force the Legislature upon a measure very different from the touch of Midas.

While the rebellions of 1787 led to needed reforms in currency and debtors' laws, Mrs. Adams knew better than Bush that you simply cannot cut taxes during a war. For that, Abigail Adams makes it to my Greatest Americans list.

Is Halliburton Worth It?

The Sun Times should be embarrassed that it even printed its editorial from yesterday entitled Bush makes his case, now he must follow through. Instead they are proud of themselves for even suggesting that Bush must do anything.

However, the editorial simply helped Bush continue the lies he told to create and maintain the war. First, Bush's favorite quote by Bin Laden about terrorism in Iraq speaks of Iraq after the US attack, not before. The only pre-war link to terrorism that contained any facts at all was the alleged Niger sale of uranium and that turned out to be completely false. Bush created the current terrorism-friendly atmosphere in Iraq.

Bush and his cronies rely on the public believing false information and being so uninformed that they continue to believe it even after the evidence comes in proving it to be false. It used to be unthinkable for a news organization like the Sun Times to support an government pandering to false information and an uninformed public. Now it's just another day at the office as journalists around the country have completely abdicated their roles to independent bloggers becoming merely ad writers for the administration.

The Sun Times also fails to address the fact that pre-emptive war is illegal in the international community which is what put the British on edge and prompted the writings of the Downing Street Briefing Papers. The British are part of the World Court and could be help accountable while the Bush administration has made sure that it will never be accountable to the world or its own country.

Finally, the Sun Times notes that it will take more than a speech to convince the American public to support the war stating that Americans do not want to abandon the Iraqis, but that the 2006 election might create political pressures against the war. This insinuates that anything other than Bush's program is an abandonment and that support of the war is good for Iraq. That is a huge leap considering we have not kept our rebuilding promises and have inflicted corporate profiteers upon the country. Bush said Iraq was worth it, but that isn't the question. The real question for those of us based in reality and not part of the Bush/Cheney/Kirk PR team is, Is Halliburton Worth It?

What he thinks of you Part II--Evidence

Earlier today I posted that Bush, Rove, Cheney and Kirk must not think much of us because they are handing us the same old terrorism line with Iraq already proven false. Well, here is one more republican who doesn't think much of his contitutents:

POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y. -- A New York state lawmaker says he's embarrassed, after he mistakenly sent out an e-mail message that referred to his constituents as "idiots." Assemblyman Willis Stephens says he thought he was sending the e-mail to an aide. Instead, he sent the note to nearly 300 people on an online discussion group that focuses on the community of Brewster.

The message included the comment that he was "just watching the idiots pontificate."
Within an hour of sending the message Monday morning, Stephens sent another e-mail apologizing for the slip-up.

Stephens, a Republican, represents an area north of New York City.

Sort of funny if not just more evidence of what republicans think of the American people. Here's more evidence they have given us:

• Evidence that there was no terror link in Iraq--Downing Street Memo.
• Evidence that there were no WMD==DSM.
• Evidence that contractors are endangering our soldiers and hurting our foreign policy--Frontline from last week.
• Evidence that Cheney's Halliburton is ripping off the American Taxpayers and insulting our soldiers with expired fressness date food--Monday's hearing shown on C-Span reported by AAR.
• Evidence that republicans govern through distain for the governed--Bush's speech last night wherein he just committed deeper to the lies we already know are lies.

We need to give the republicans evidence that we don't agree to be governed this way. Best evidence I can think of is to vote them out in 2006 and begin hearings on all the evidence they've given to us, the "idiots".

What he thinks of you

The Bush speech said little about what is really going on in Iraq. Bush, Cheney and Rove do not think that Americans deserve the truth. They saw some political capital going down the drain and sought some damage control. They thought an hour or so in front of a cheering military crowd would do the trick. They could have done it on a Hollywood soundstage, but why pay for extras when you have them captive at Ft. Bragg.

He pulled out all the stops (ok all the stops that involve rehash of old lies): the war was needed after 9/11, Iraq was full of terrorists (well, now it is) etc.

The only thing apparent from the speech is that Bush, Cheney, Rove and their apologists like Mark Kirk, don't think much of the American people or American soldiers (and they claim Durbin insulted them).

Bush failed to address why it is taking so long to train Iraqi troops or why we are paying $80 to Halliburton for a pound of old bacon or why it is hard to get water in Baghdad.

Bush's number still look bad today, after the speech, even on conservative sources like AOL. My friend Terry has a theory. He thinks that the American people were mad that Bush's speech preempted "Beauty and the Geek", and consequently want to end the war through low poll numbers to prevent further interference with their reality TV (more reality in B&TG than a Bush speech, I'll agree with that). I thought that maybe to improve his numbers Bush might want to be Gilligan on the next season on the Real Gilligan's Island. Terry thinks it's more likely Congress will approve a Constitutional Amendment to give him a 3d term. Same difference.

Not hungry

To tell you the truth, I did not want to be politicking tonight, but on the train on the way home, I heard this and cannot get over it.

As Bush got on television tonight to tell everyone how great Iraq is, I learned that our troops are being fed old food at double the price by a Halliburton subsidiary (actually they are billing for more food than they provide). See this from Randi Rhodes blog:

Bunny Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers' top contracting official-turned whistle-blower, said in testimony at a hearing by Democrats on Capitol Hill that "every aspect" of Halliburton's oil contract in Iraq had been under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

"I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career," said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.

Make no mistake, the hearing was conducted by Democrats. The republicans could not care less.

Here is the only thing I can find that made it into the news:

Rory Mayberry, a former food production manager at a U.S. military base for KBR from February-April 2004, said the company charged for meals it did not serve to troops and had dished up spoiled food.

Randi played part of the testimony on her show tonight. She said it was on C-Span yesterday, but of course this never makes the nightly news, only that Democrats don't support the troops. I guess we still live in bizarro-USA. How can republicans be supporting our troops when they don't even feed them properly. My cat gets better treatment.

By the way for my regular readers and in all seriousness, my ill coworker, Patti, stopped eating this past weekend. Please send her thoughts. Just a "Patti get well" thought from all of you can do it. Patti hails from the exact precinct where Margie and I canvassed for Kerry on Nov 2d which went heavily Kerry, so I would like to be able to tell her that 1000 Democrats are pulling for her. Thanks.

Crops

"As recently as last year, only 8 percent of heroin from Afghanistan reached the United States," Kirk told the Tribune. "Last year's crop was the largest in human history, all of it coming out of one country and flooding this country."

Again, Kirk misses the point in front of the entire country. He thinks that the great American victory in Afghanistan inadvertantly helped the heroin trade.

How's this Marky-Rooster: Maybe if we stayed in Afghanistan until that job was done; until, the president was more than just the mayor of Kabul and more than just a representative of US corporate interests; until Bin Laden was captured rather than let go at Tora Bora; until the economy was recreated and stabilized. Maybe had we used our limited troops and military and rebuilding resources wisely in the country that attacked us, A-F-G-H-A-N-I-S-T-A-N, rather than squandering them in Iraq, there would no longer be a drug trade to plague us on the streets of the Tenth District.

Kirk also said:

The administration does not have a clear plan on this right now.

Finally got one right here, Rep. Kirk. No plan. No plan for a plan.

Maybe if Lee Goodman had been elected, we'd be geting some common sense representation in Congress. Goodman knew that the president was lying about Iraq while you were busy traveling around the world cheerleading for that war.

Good thing this year's crop of Democratic opponents for Kirk is looking good.

Something else to do tonight

I don't think I can bear to watch Bush's lies...er, um speech any more than I could watch the Greatest American be determined to be Ronald Reagan over Benjamin Franklin (which only proved that kids aren't learning about Franklin in grade school any more). So, for all of you like me, I have a suggestion. My car has a lot of bird poop on it from being parked at the train station and it just won't rain. Why not come on by and help me wash my car? I'll spring for the pizza. I have cable. We can watch Pimp my Ride on MTV instead.

Bird poop/Bush's speech. Same difference and Bush isn't offering pizza or cable.

As for learning about Franklin, the new republican controlled PBS is no longer showing Liberty's Kids, a children's show that provided a fairly accurate depiction of Franklin outsmarting both the French and English during the American Revolution. What could have happened to the Liberty's Kids? Maybe it was because little Henri was French and James never signed up for the Navy. The new PBS might do a modern day version: Bush's Liberty's Kids--2 15-year-olds and an 8-year-old learn about adulthood from an Army recruiter while posting, in courthouses, pictures of Ronald Reagan bringing the two stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments down the Rocky Mountains to good Americans wearing Rush Limbaugh's I heart Gitmo t-shirts.

One more question: now that truth is passe, can a person get a job as a revisionist historian?

Truth can stand by itself

The political-religious right, through strained Constitutional interpretation and revisionist history, attempted to establish its brand of Christianity in Kentucky by placing particularly prostelizing displays of the Ten Commandments in county courthouses. Thankfully, the Supreme Court majority rejected their arguments and preserved the Establishment Clause and First Amendment in McCreary County, Kentucky, et. al. v. ACLU of Kentucky, slip opinion no. No. 03–1693. Basically, the Court upheld the traditional Constitutional test set forth in the Lemon Case (see my June 4th posting) and judged the Kentucky display by its religious rather then secular purpose.

The Court specifically upheld the Constitutional requirement for government neutrality on religion.

The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the “First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U. S. 1, 15–16 (1947); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, at 53. When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality, there being no neutrality when the government’s ostensible object is to take sides. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 335 (1987) (“Lemon’s ‘purpose’ requirement aims at preventing [government] from abandoning neutrality and view in religious matters”). Manifesting a purpose to favor one faith over another, or adherence to religion generally, clashes with the “understanding, reached . . . after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens . . . .” Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U. S. 639, 718 (2002) (BREYER, J., dissenting). By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government “sends the . . . message to . . . nonadherents ‘that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members. . . .’” Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U. S. 290, 309–310 (2000) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S. 668, 688 (1984) (O’CON-NOR, J., concurring)).

The Kentucky counties and dissenting Justices alarmed the majority and concurring Justices in their fervor to water down establishment by distorting history. The majority opinion goes on:

The dissent, however, puts forward a limitation on the application of the neutrality principle, with citations to historical evidence said to show that the Framers understood the ban on establishment of religion as sufficiently narrow to allow the government to espouse submission to the divine will.... But the dissent’s argument for the original understanding is flawed from the outset by its failure to consider the full range of evidence showing what the Framers believed.... Today’s dissent, however, apparently means that government should be free to approve the core beliefs of a favored religion over the tenets of others, a view that should trouble anyone who prizes religious liberty.

In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor states:

By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat.

Both the majority and O'Connor understand that the founders saw separation of church and state as, not only important for the government, but important for religion too. Establishment hurts government and the people because it creates an underclass of non-believers and empowers members of the established church beyond their numbers and gives them control beyond reason and decency. Government controlled religion damages religion too because it puts political burdens on religion making its tenants dependent on political needs.

As Springer put it on Air America radio this morning (yup, I'll quote Springer because he's doing a great job on AAR), churches have lost something with the new politicization of religion because they have become mere "campaign headquarters" for republican politicians. The new leaders of the religious right are so thrilled to be pandered to by the republican party that they forget that their religion is now subject to the political needs of the republicans which one day might not be in alignment with their religious tenants. This will become more interesting as the Iraq War moves into Rumsfeld's predicted year 12.

The view that religion needs government to support it debases it. Jefferson said it best:

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.

Ah, now we know why the Bush administration needs government established religion. Lies need help.

Creating consensus

Last week, my coworker gave me 2 articles against Illinois House Bill 4050 which is the Illinois Legislature's attempt to curb predatory lending. One of the articles was from Crain's Chicago Business, the other from chicagobusiness.com (the internet version of Crain's). We had been arguing about it and he presented the articles to me as authority for his position. I don't think so. What would you expect from a business rag and it's internet counterpart? They are there for the sole purpose of creating consensus favorable to the business community.

Last week, I watched Soledad O'Brien interview Rev. Billy Graham on CNN. She told him he helped set policy over the years with many presidents. He said no. He said he was only a spiritual advisor. She argued with him. He held his position. She changed the subject. Reagan must have been his favorite president, right? No, he said it was Kennedy. She cut him off and went back to his policy setting. He must have helped set policy. He looked at her like she was nuts. She got the final word. He set policy. They went to commercial. Soledad's new job is to create consensus for the idea that Evangelical Christianity was always a part of our government. Didn't matter that Rev. Graham disagreed.

We are supposed to hate the French, want to be blond, buy SUVs despite record breaking gas prices, think that labor causes all of business' problems, fear Islam, agree that Evangelical Christianity is the third branch of government, agree to bear the brunt of taxes to encourage corporations to invest in jobs even though they never use their tax cuts to do so, be afraid of WMD even though none have been found, know that we are winning in Iraq despite the growing insurgency, teach our kids to be so afraid of strangers that they avoid rescue for 4 days, agree to 12 more years of the Iraq war not asking why it will take 12 years or if 12, why not 20 and if so, why be there to begin with.

The mainstream press has rendered itself irrelevant for failure to report. They are only around now to create consensus for corporations and the establishment of right-wing fanatical religion within our government. Don't blame the Evangelicals either. Billy Graham cannot even get a word in.

Click on the title link to find out who owns what press.

New blog poll

Scroll down. Right hand column.

Blog polls are so fun!

The appearance of impropriety and real impropriety ok while real ethics under attack

Attorney are supposed to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It's part of the various states' canons of ethics and is supposed to avoid parsing when it comes to what is ethical and what is not. The concept is supposed to apply to members of Congress also.

republicans do not care about the appearance of impropriety or actual impropriety for that matter and Democrats fear the minute possibility of an appearance of impropriety even when it doesn't exist. Take for example the differences in the Abramoff, Scanlon and Delay scandals versus the comments made by Dick Durbin about Gitmo.

The Abramoff/Scanlon/Delay scandal involves Native American casino lobbying and members of congress obtaining gifts of travel out of improperly charged and handled lobbying fees. Tribes seeking PR help with casino developments were apparently bilked out of millions through bill padding and misdirection of payments. Much of the money was funneled into lobbiests and consultants personal pockets and to related religious organizations working against the very casinos for which they were supposed to by lobbying, some was diverted to other purposes. Of such other purposes included payments for travel expenses for several republican members of Congress and their staffers. According to the cited Truthout.org article, Delay himself received a trip to Britian, including London and the St. Andrews golf course in Scotland, in 2000.

Then, it gets worse. Hastings, the Chairman of the House Ethics committee, the one who's been stalling the Delay investigation, is alleged to have received a $7,800 trip to England in 2000 from a company he endorsed for a multibillion-dollar contract at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and also failed to file the required travel report. (Didn't Kirk fail to fill out such a report for some nuclear waste lobbying trip he took too?)

These republicans defend themselves and each other by parsing words and actions to assert that no actual improprieties took place even though things look bad. This is of course more nonsense than Clinton's "I did not sleep with that woman" ever brought to the political stage. Evidence of actual impropriety is mounting to a point where it far outweighs the vast appearance of impropriety in these cases.

Then, there are words and actions that involve no parsing and no impropriety and no appearance of impropriety that are under attack. Illinois' Dick Durbin became very upset by FBI reports on Gitmo and made an emotional speech on an almost empty Senate floor stating that the reports, if not identified, would make one think of a Nazi or Soviet Gulag. Being the good and ethical person that he is, he saw an impropriety, an injustice, and wanted to correct it. True to form, republicans twisted his words to attack him and he's been apologizing ever since.

There was nothing wrong with what Senator Durbin said. He became emotional because it is an emotional topic to find that one's country is condoning actions that he finds reprehensible. Durbin made no comment on US rank and file soldiers and the arguments made by republicans are completely ridiculous. Durbin is probably the most ethical person in Washington and needs to stop apologizing. Other Democratic leaders like Edwards and Biden need to stop attacking their Democratic collegues, like Dean, for using strong language against republican actions. This administration's and this republican congress' behavior has been over the top, and deserves strong language against it.

Democrats also have to take a lesson from the law. Young attorneys are taught to avoid allowing themselves to be placed on an opponents agenda and to keep their focus on their own agenda. Democrats need to stop following the republican-Kark Rove agenda and bring their focus back to their agenda of moving the country away from scandal, corruption and lies. Democrats need the nation to focus on real improprieties like the Abramoff/Delay scandal and the scandalous way our troops are still missing vehical and body armor, not to mention the scandalous way Bush got us into this war to begin with.

Those situations involve not only the appearance of impropriety, but actual impropriety.

Kerry out of the dog house

Kerry finally takes his stand and submits a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee seeking information about the intelligence used to sell the Iraq war to the American people.

Kerry's approach is to ask the SIC to continue its formal investigation of the performance of intelligence agencies and the use of the intelligence they produced. Phase I of the investigation examined the collection and analysis of intelligence data. Phase II was to consider its use by policy makers. Phase I produced a report that many feel simply brushed over important issues and Phase II was never started after being delayed until after the 2004 elections and considered unnecessary when Bush retook the country. The danger of Phase II never happening or being shortcut or ending in a whitewash are clear. However, Kerry is taking the correct approach because an investigation has to be official and complete to be of value.

Conyers approach was to submit 5 questions to the White House. Those questions will never be answered. Kerry has the advantage of the Senate and the existing Phase I investigation and the SIC's prior decision to expand the investigation. So, he is taking them to task for not completing the investigation and they will have more trouble refusing it this time.

Kerry has finally found his courage, so he makes it out of my dog house and I'm taking Durbin out too because Kerry has put me in a good mood.

Please take a look at the heros list by scrolling down below and take a moment to think good thoughts for my co-worker, Patti McConnell, who is battling cancer. Her cancer has been very aggressive and quick spreading, so she didn't have the choice that these politicians have. She had to find her courage fast and strong, and she did.

Easy to say when you don't have to serve or pay for your mistakes

Karl Rove's conservatives are tough and prepared for war, while "liberals" are all reading I'm Ok, You're OK trying to figure out how to make nice with terrorists.

That is what they will have Americans believe and true to form, many will go along with it, but remember facts are stubborn things.

Karl Rove never served in the military himself. Born in 1950, he avoided Vietnam with his strong political connections. By now, everyone know where Bush was during his military service, except perhaps his commanding officer. It's sure easy to beat the war drum and call others cowards when you don't have to do anything yourself.

But, all that really doesn't matter any more because what we Liberals are upset about and still need to talk about is that Rove and his buddies went to war in the WRONG COUNTRY. They let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora. They are paying huge amounts of money to contract mercenaries completely unchecked and uncontrolled and possibly putting our soldiers in more danger. The Iraq War is no big act of conservative bravery but a smoke screen for Bush's much wanted political capital, Cheney's shady business dealings and Rove sitting back and having political fun.

Liberals wanted justice for 9/11, cleaning Afghanistan of Al Qaeda and rebuilding their economy without the drug trade and renewed rights for Afghani women. What they got was a war for oil, a larger Afghan drug trade with women hiding in their houses and disarray outside of Kabul, and the bill for all of Bush's political capital.

Conservatives leaders are having a ball with their fun and profitable war, but on the backs of the American people, both liberal and conservative. So, regular Americans shouldn't care a bit about all the current sniping about who is tough and who is soft of terrorism. Fight all you want, but the administration has been self-serving and incompent on both Afghanistan and Iraq. It will eventually come crashing down on all of us and then they will storm around blamimg liberals for making them do it and protect their children from the military service as their connections protected them from having to serve in Vietnam.

"Isn't it time for you to resign?"

Ted Kennedy calls on Rumsfeld to resign. Read his OPENING STATEMENT TO ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON THE REALITIES OF WAR

Kennedy doesn't even get to the issue of contractors in unprecedented combat situations and their effect on our sons and daughters in the military or the number of deaths in their ranks and the billions of dollars we are paying to them from our tax dollars.

The time for Rumsfeld's resignation is long overdue. He has no shame and no compassion for our troops or their families. He is the one who should stand before Congress with a tearful apology, but he never will which is why he is a far lesser person than those who do acknowleged their errors, even when they are not so very wrong at all.

Plainly, Rumsfeld, Rove, Bush, Cheney and Kirk and all those who maintain the WAR BASED ON LIES are each only a fraction of the man who represents Illinois, Dick Durbin.

This is what I'm talking about

I've have asked Mark ("Marky-Rooster") Kirk to leave the republican party a few times on this blog. republicans and some Democrats have agreed only on the proposition that I'm nuts for suggesting that. However, a republican has recently left the party, Rachael Lea Hunter, a candidate for North Carolina Supreme Court.

Ms. Hunter not only publicly left the republican party and declined their endorsement, but she lambasted them too. On her blog she wrote:

Republican dirty tricks are not confined to just me any more. I also saw that Congressman Jones made the news by calling for a withdrawal of our troops. Whatever one may think about the war, one should ask when the mission will be over and when the troops can come home. Are we going to stay indefinitely? While it is nice that we are building Iraq, what about America? And what about the cost? Why do the Americans have to foot the bill when we can ill afford it? These are all legitimate questions to ask. Congressman Jones did nothing more than make a proposal to start pulling out.

But it seems that the administration in Washington will brook no criticism of its policies. So it has sent out its dutiful attack dogs to shoot the messenger. What have we heard? That Walter Jones is a member of the lunatic fringe. That Walter Jones should resign. Its the same stuff that COPAM pulled on me, only this time its orchestrated by those in Washington instead of those in Raleigh.

What I find disturbing is that we are criticized for nothing more than the exercise of our Constitutional rights. Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors and must be silenced. I thought the previous administration was bad because of the amorality. This is far worse.

There is a famous poem about the Nazis of Germany - first they came for one group, then another, but the writer did not speak up. And then they came for the writer and there was no one left to speak up. The administration is acting like the Nazis. I will not be quiet. I agree with Congressman Jones that we should ask the administration the tough questions and that we should begin to withdraw.

As you can see, she also pulled out the Nazi imagery, something for which our Dick Durbin was thrashed by republicans and I suspect, some members of his own party. Local republicans tried to make her look out of her mind by referencing Max the dog, but I think she was just trying to be ironic. "The whole thing is apparent, even to a dog" kind of thing. Their attack on her for that sort of proves her point anyway, doesn't it?

Ms. Hunter has seen the reality of the republican party up close and personal from what I read on her blog. She is in a position to know and felt the need for some honesty. It seems that she had some personal bad experiences with the local republican party and started looking at the party as a whole. She also recently had surgery for acoustic neuroma, a benign tumor near her brain. A physical scare like that can sure make a person take a close look at their situation and bring out the honesty.

I think Kirk should consider leaving the republican party very seriously and I am very serious when I suggest it. Kirk likes to think of himself as an independent thinker. He re-election website slogan is "Thoughtful, Independent Leadership". If he is serious about that, he has to consider the burden of the current republican party on his office and future campaigns.

During election campaigns, he has to give money to Texas arch conservatives like Pete Sessions and Kevin Brady so they can win and vote against the wishes of Tenth District constituents. The first thing he has to do after the election is vote for the ethically challenged House Majority Leader, Tom Delay. After 9/11, he was sent around the country to support the War on Terror and then they go ahead and attack the wrong country, Iraq rather than Afghanistan and he had to support that.

Then, this session, they embarrassed him on the house floor for polling on the stem cell issue in Arizona, an issue that his district is most in favor of, and his fellow republican, Rick Renzi went after him, physically (and I have it from a highly reliable inside source that that incident in fact happened as originally reported, and not as reported in the later played down version).

Now, they are putting him through Social Security so-called reform, meaning benefits cuts, which his district already hates and for which they will blame him.

The only way Kirk still belongs in the republican party is if he is fine with all that and:

1. the ethics problems of Delay who is being found further involved in the Abramoff scandal as the McCain hearings roll on;

2. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib;

3. International mercenaries paid billions for fighting in Iraq without military controls, military strategy or a proper chain of command with accountability while US soldiers are put into further danger cleaning up their messes and going without vehicle or body armor;

4. Lies that got us into the Iraq War to begin with;

5. attempted establishment of right-wing Christian fundamental religion;

...and the list goes on and on so much that I don't have time to go through it all or my cat will die of starvation.

On the ground in the Tenth, the voters are becoming angry at Kirk for the actions of his party and for his own disconnectedness to them. To many, it seems like he's hiding from his constituents. He has no public forums as John Porter did and the only in-district meetings he has are carefully controlled with short, supporters-only guest lists. Potential candidates are lining up to run against him.

So, either Kirk is fine with all this or he will consider leaving the republican party. If he leaves, kudos to him and I hope it will usher in a period of honesty in the Tenth and across the country. If he doesn't, we know the acts of the republicans and their effect upon his Tenth District constituents are fine with him and all he thinks he needs to do is hide out until post-election 2006.

The republican congress misses the point, again

The republicans great plan for increasing our safety is to create a Constitutional Amendment making it a crime to burn the flag.

Once again they completely miss the point and get it wrong.

You don't increase our safety by making flag burning a crime so you can arrest, try and imprison people who are only using their First Amendment Rights---guaranteed to them under the Constitution.

You increase our safety and stop flag burning to boot by stopping the actions taken by this government that makes people want to flag burn or worse.

Good reading from AmericaBlog

I wish this is what Durbin had said, but at least someone did. Read from AmericaBlog:

Monday, June 20, 2005

I'm sorry
by John in DC - 6/20/2005 02:17:00 PM

Cheney wants an apology to the military and to our vets for those of us who have the audacity to criticize the brutal abuse of international and US law taking place at Gitmo. And Cheney's right, we do owe everyone an apology. Here's mine:

- I'm sorry Bush told us there were WMD when there weren't.
- I'm sorry Bush told us Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, and didn't.
- I'm sorry Cheney told us that Saddam's agents had met with Mohammad Atta in Prague, when he didn't.
- I'm sorry Colin Powell became so spineless that he threw his principles out the window and lied before the entire UN.
- I'm sorry over 1700 US servicemembers are dead in a war that was based on a lie.
- I'm sorry our soldiers are being told their own parents have to pay for their body armor, because the US military won't.
- I'm sorry the Bush administration lied about what really happened to Pat Tillman, and then lied to his parents.
- I'm sorry Bush demanded Saddam comply with UN inspections, then when Saddam did comply, Bush invaded anyway.
- I'm sorry Bush told us Mission Accomplished nearly 2 years ago, and the bloodshed continues.
- I'm sorry Bush told us the few incidents at Abu Ghraib were only isolated incidents, when they weren't.
- I'm sorry Bush told us 7 months before the Iraq war that he hadn't yet decided to invade, when he had.
- I'm sorry Bush keeps telling us the over 500 prisoners at Gitmo are such bad terrorists that they simply can never be released, but then Bush can't even come up with enough evidence to charge even one of them with jaywalking.
There's my apology. Wonder if Cheney and the GOP will sign on?

War for Sale, cheap, ok, well not so cheap

I watched the Frontline on the private contractors who provide security services in Iraq last night and had bad dreams of airstrips and war machinery all night.

The program made a few things clearer to me:

1. It is probably fairly easy to hide the casualties because a lot of the people fighting in Iraq for the US are civilians and many not even Americans, but foreign mercenaries.

2. The corporate profit motive is playing a large part in this war and will have an effect on its outcome. Example: The 4 civilians killed in Fallujah were Blackwater employees, Blackwater being a US subsidiary of a multinational corporation started by a former US Navy Seal. They were sent to Falluja to guard the transportation of some food preparation equipment. They were supposed to go in SUVs operated in teams of 4, but the rear gunner position was eliminated at the last minute leaving the SUVs with fewer defenses. The families of the killed Blackwater employees still want to know why the rear gunner position was eliminated.

3. A bad economy is necessary to fill the ranks in these security firms which need people who are in such desperate economic straights that they are willing to go to Iraq under the current circumstances because they need the hazard pay.

4. It is a wonder why GM and Ford are having problems due to their decisions to concentrate on the SUV market because it appears that the Iraq War is being fought completely with SUVs. Maybe they bought Japanese?!

5. Despite Bush administration happy talk, the situation in Iraq did not appear to be improved as the host and his producer were terrified to make the trips to the airport and back and their corporate guards were clear that it was very dangerous. One contractor said that the area of Baghdad once known as the Green Zone could no longer be called that because it implied safety and there was no safe zone. The Green Zone was renamed the International Zone.

6. We have people in Iraq representing us that we may not be too happy with as representatives including former South African police whos last job was enforcing apartheid laws.

7. There are communications problems among the various security contractors that make it far more insecure than it might be under US military control and the contracting companies are not very enthusiasic about fixing the communications problems.

8. This is all wildly expensive, some of the guards being paid $1000 each day, which may help explain why our soldiers are still missing the vehicle and body armor.

9. Corporate politics plays a role. Example: one of the Blackwater Falluja victims took the job because he thought he was going to get a high profile job guarding Bremer, but he got the old bait and switch guarding cafeteria equipment instead.

10. Comparing a relative weak military force with soldiers who believe that they are fighting for their country, their families and their lives with a strong military force with employees that are fighting for their job, who would you pick as the ultimate victor?

So much for bringing liberty and democracy to Iraq. We brough the corporate profit motive.

You can watch them both!

I was worried that the interview of the runaway bride telling the world how she just wanted her wedding to be so perfect that she took a Greyhound bus hundreds of miles away to leave her groom at the alter would get millions of viewers and Frontline would be ignored. But, great news, you can watch runaway at 8 and Fronline at 9.

Seriously, don't miss Frontline tonight which is about the private security contractor's being used in Iraq who are getting about 25% of the newly appropriated funds for the Iraq war.

A Nanny 911

I opened up the AOL this morning to this story:

Bush Faces Decision on Bolton Nomination--Should he bypass the Senate?

Sheesh. The kids are acting up again. Since Senate Democrats again rightfully blocked Bolton's nomination to the UN ambassador job, the Administration wants to roll up the Constitution and go home, cry and whine, and blame others for their problems.

Nanny 911 to the rescue!

In case you haven't seen it, Nanny 911 is the show where people who cannot control their children sign up and Fox Broadcasting sends over a British nanny to help them. The Nanny points out that the children are out of control because the parent's have abdicated their responsibility and inconsistently enforced the house rules, or set none to begin with.

I have only seen Nanny Stella, but she is great. She sets house rules and explains them to the parents. It is up to the parents to enforce the rules consistently and lovingly. At first, the parents are resistent and the children react badly, but once the parents see the need to have and enforce the rules, the children and happier, more secure and, consequently, behave.

Nanny Stella says that children appreciate the rules because it gives them limits.

The Bush administration desperately needs Nanny Stella. So does the country.

Lucky for all of us in the family of America, there's already a set of rules in place. It's called the Constitution.

The country is in trouble now because the Bush administration refuses to enforce the Constitution consistently: free speech for right wingers, no speech for other.; freedom of religion for right wing Christian fundamentalists, religious persecution for others; Senate approval of nominations for Democrats, a free approval for republicans.

As in Nanny 911 the family of our country is in trouble and the kids are misbehaving; manifesting their insecurity and anger in a willingness to give up their civil liberties for the promise of protection from terrorism; allowing government corruption to go unchecked.

Someone please call Nanny Stella. We need her to pick up our Constutution, dust it off and show us how to live by it again so we can all be happy.

Answers in a bowl of Fruit Loops

Last week, Rep. Maxine Waters of California and 49 other members of Congress formed the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus to lead the movement to end the Iraq and Afghan Wars. This group has commenced the follow-up to the hearing held by the Democratic wing of the Judiciary committee to investigate the British Briefing Papers that show the Bush administration lied to Congress and the American public to win acceptance for the Iraq War. Representing Illinois in the Caucus is Representative Jan Schakowsky.

Following last weeks hearing, a group of congressmen went over to the White House to deliver a letter signed by over 1/2 million Americans and 122 members of Congress seeking answers to 5 simple questions:

1)Do you or anyone in your administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

Contrary to other progressive bloggers, I really think the questions were answered this past weekend. The answers were:
1) No one, not the least, Democrats, particularly Congressional Democrats, has the right to question any administration policy at any time.
2) Gitmo is GRRRREAT!
3) Terry Schaivo's husband will be hunted and dogged until they find another story under which to hide.
4) The Iraq War is going fine, it's the PR we have to change.
5) Saddam Hussein prefers Raisin Bran to Fruit Loops.

This administration told us their answers loud and clear. They have no respect for the American people or the American soldiers (who they still fail to properly outfit for war). They have no respect for the our own Constitution, 218 years of case law on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, or America as a beacon of freedom and justice around the world. They want American to be hated and feared in the world and see no value in goodwill like that created at the close of World War II when dignified American treatment of enemy soldiers led them to surrendered willingly and created the American/European/Japanese alliances that exist to this day. They think that Medical science and the patients themselves exist to be used for political purposes. They think Americans are so disconnected from their government, seduced by advertising and preoccupied with celebrities that they will swallow any line they come up with every time.

So, we actually learned a lot from the administration's response to the 5 Congressional Caucus Questions... and that perhaps Saddam Hussein has a regularity issue. Maybe that is why he was so cranky.

Translation for Kirk

So, the president would not call you Rooster, as you requested, but stuck with Marky. I have no idea why you'd want to be called either, but since you made an issue out of it in the Tribune over the weekend (funny, I thought the Iraq War was the issue for the weekend), I thought I'd translate:

1. You are not on his agenda.

2. Because you come from a increasingly Democratic District.

3. That won't accept his Social Security destruction plan.

4. That knows what the Downing Street memo is about.

5. That knows that things are not going well in Iraq.

6. That wants choice and stem cell research.

7. That understand the need for health care reform, federal funding for housing and public schools, a check on the pharmaceutical industry, sensible bankruptcy laws.

8. Because you stick to the Bush agenda for the most part, you might be retired in 2006.

9. So, why bother coming up with a good nickname.

10. Marky, quit the Republican party and become an independent--you don't even have to become a Democrat--we'll call you Rooster.

Translation

CIA director Porter Goss claims he knows the whereabouts of Bin Laden, but that the US will not catch him until "weak links" in the war on terror are strengthened.

From what we know of the Bush administration, this could mean:

1. They want to convince Americans that the restrictions on the Patriot Act should not be made.

2. They want to deflect attention away from the Downing Street Memo which provides evidence that Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq.

3. They want to make their case for the new war in Iran or Syria.

4. They want to keep Bin Laden's name in the news as part of Bush's new focus on the PR surrounding the Iraq war (because he cannot actually focus on the actual war--which some actually think we are losing).

What it likely does not mean is that Bin Laden will be captured soon.

See, it's getting really easy to translate the language of "Bush" into English.

No thanks, Mr. Kirk

Mark Kirk has asked republicans to come out with a Social Security overhaul bill that incorporates the private accounts and other rubbish Bush has been trying to sell across the country for months. Kirk thinks he being a good old fashioned republican by asking for the bill so he can run the numbers, but we know what it is going to say and we already know that the administration will lie about anything to get its way, so the numbers won't be worth running.

Rep. Kirk, plese listen to your district for a change and tell Bush to forget his plan to destroy Social Security.

If you want bill drafting, how about a bill that will bring our soldiers home from Iraq. Let's have some policy fixed around the intelligence for a change.

Teddy says it best

The contents of the Downing Street Minutes confirm that the Bush Administration was determined to go to war in Iraq, regardless of whether there was any credible justification for doing so. The Administration distorted and misrepresented the intelligence in its attempt to link Saddam Hussein with the terrorists of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, and with weapons of mass destruction that Iraq did not have.

In addition, the Downing Street Minutes also confirm what has long been obvious – that the timing of the war was linked to the 2002 Congressional elections, and that the Administration’s planning for post-war Iraq was incompetent in all its aspects. The current continuing crisis is a direct result of that incompetence.

Many of you have worked hard for the American people, the media and those in government to speak out about the Downing Street Minutes and the Iraq war. You can join me in speaking out as well.

The policy of “shoot first, ask questions later” took us into an unjustified war, and without a clear concept of what “winning the war” actually means.

President Bush constantly talks about the “progress” that is being made in Iraq against the insurgency, but he’s looking for good news with a microscope. All anyone can see is “Mission Mis-accomplished” and the continuing losses of American lives, the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, the torture scandal, and the ominous decline in our nation’s moral authority in the world community.

We know the Administration had been planning to invade Iraq for many months before the invasion actually began. We know the Administration twisted the intelligence to make the facts fit their plan. We know that the Administration never really intended to give the U.N. weapons inspectors a reasonable chance to succeed. The Downing Street Minutes demonstrate that the Administration knew their case for war was paper thin, and that in order to go into war with the support of our allies, we had to demonstrate some willingness to go along with the UN inspection process. But the Administration continued to misuse its intelligence, distort the facts and pay only lip-service to the UN’s role in disarming Iraq.

We never should have gone to war for ideological reasons driven by politics and based on manipulated intelligence. The Downing Street Minutes provide even more proof that this is exactly what happened on Iraq. The Administration’s dishonesty, lack of candor, and lack of planning have brought us to where we are today, with American soldiers dying, Iraqi civilians living in constant fear, and with no clearer picture of our strategy for victory in Iraq than when we started.--Ted Kennedy

Times are Changing in the Tenth

No, my republican friends, this picture was not posed. My friend Steve saw this sight while taking a walk on his street and ran home to get his camera. Apparently, Steve's neighbors are no longer going to be sporting Kirk yard signs on their lawn. Maybe it was the Downing Street Memo, the Iraq War in general, Kirk's votes against health care reform, Kirk's relationship with Delay, who knows. Not to worry, soon there will be plenty of other candidates, Democrats, for whom to plant signs on Tenth District lawns. 

After a while it just doesn't work

Check out the MSNBC poll:

Do you believe President Bush misled the nation in order to go to war with Iraq? 27755 responses

Yes 93%

No 7%

A lesson in covering a lie--More lies

In the face of being caught in a lie, the republican's MO is to cover it by committing more strongly to the lie. The Schiavo case continues on thanks to the president's brother, Jeb, with his own presidential hopes for the future. They won't leave this husband in peace.

Newsflash to the Bush family and their friends Delay, Frist, Kirk:

The American people have had enough of this (see the aol poll):

Should authorities investigate Terri Schiavo's 1990 collapse?
No 74%
Yes 26%
Total Votes: 16,757

Translate this reaction to the Schiavo truth to the Downing Street Memo truth and imagine what they intend to do in Iraq to cover the "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". It is already starting because the president today is focused on happy talk about victory in Iraq per Scott McClellan:

The president recognizes that this is a concern that's on the minds of the American people. That's why he's going to sharpen his focus, spending more time talking about the progress that's being made on the ground -- there's significant progress that has been made in a short period of time -- the dangers that remain and that lie ahead, as well as our strategy for victory in Iraq.

Changing the focus on the sale job to the American people, not the military or political focus where change is needed.

Covering a lie with more lies. Great strategy until the truth leaks out again.

"So, it was a false lie"--Ray McGovern at the House Judiciary Committee Democrats Hearing on the Downing Street Memo

This evening I watched the Conyers hearing about the Downing Street Memo. Click on the link above to get to C-Span if you have not seen it. You can download it from the site. I am still sorting through my notes. There are incredible time lines to consider.

The panelists were Joe Wilson, the former Ambassador to Iraq, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and John Bonifaz, attorney and leader of www.afterdowningstreet.org Please try to get into that site and take a look. It may be busy because the C-span rebroadcast of the hearings just ended. Please try to get into that site. Check this, this and this out in the meantime.

As with every other important issue facing this country, the news media is remarkably absent and unwilling to report. Cameras were in the room, but I have not seen much in the major media about it. They fell all over themselves earlier today making excuses for not reporting on the lies that led up to Iraq; some denying the lies and others saying sure, but everyone knew it all along. Cindy Sheehan responded to that by asking if they knew all along that the intelligence was being fixed around the policy, why did they not report on it.

Thanks to Jan Schakowsky for attending the hearing and speaking, representing Illinois. I may add, the only IL congressman to attend. That could be, however, because the republican controlled congress made a special effort to schedule more votes in the two hour period of the hearing than have ever been scheduled before.

Mark Kirk probably could have attended, but did not because he cares more about his political career than the truth, the lives to be lost and the dishonor to his country brought on by the lies his buddy Tom Delay and his leader Bush.

Interesting information that I picked out straight off is that Wolfowitz was the one who decided that WMD had to be the basis of the war because it could most easily be sold to the American public. The Brits apparently liked it too because it was the only basis they could make legal and they were concerned about it because they belong to the World Court and could be held accountable thereunder. We do not.

Regime change is not a legal basis for war, preemptive strike is not a legal basis for war, nor is bringing democracy to the Iraqis. Our soldiers sign on and agree to put their lives on the line to defend our country against foreign enemies, not to spread the Bush, Cheney, Delay, Kirk brand of democracy to the world.

Mr. McGovern testified to unprecidented visits to the CIA by Cheney to pressure analysts to come to approved conclusions. Careerism in the CIA has damaged the CIA according to a lot of the testimony. The best and most honest CIA analysts have left according to Mr. McGovern because of the pressure to come to pre-set conclusions.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee talked about the deaths from the war including the unprecidented number of suicides by returning soldiers and apologized to Mrs. Sheehan for the loss of her son based on these facts.

The derelection of duty by Congress was also discussed. When congressmen got up on the floor and stated that they were voting for the war resolution because they trusted the president; they were unconstitutionally giving up their duty to decide upon war. Congress continues to neglect its duty by not officially investigating the statements of the Downing Street Memo.

The importance of the Downing Street Memo is that it puts in writing, in an offical government document, written contemporaneously with the events, under the protection of secrecy, and documenting a meeting the highest British officials, the allegation that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington pointed out the irony that we fought the tyranny of England's King George III and now it is the British who are making up for it by giving us the evidence to again fight tyranny. I take the irony a bit further. In 1770, John Adams, as an attorney, represented the British soldiers accused of murder during the Boston Massacre. However, Adams found that the colonists egged on the soldiers and scared them into shooting. He defended the soldiers with the now famous line: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Facts are stubborn things. There is a force in the universe that brings out the truth. It is not a Star Wars/Hollywood sort of cartoonish force, but a real force of nature. It must exist because it brought out the unpopular truth in 1770, the unpopular truth of the Schiavo autopsy and the truth about the identity of Deep Throat. It is sure to bring out the truth on how the US was brought to the Iraq War.

Facts are stubborn things. It may take a long time as Rep. Conyers warned the hearing attendees, but it will happen. Rep. Conyers and the members of congress in attendance pledged to work on as did the witnesses on the panel and the audience.

Facts are stubborn things, Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Frist, Delay, Sensenbrenner, Kirk. You can hide, deflect, smear those who tell the truth and continue to lie all you want, but the facts and the evidence are there waiting to be found.

I urge you to look at:

Guantanamo Bay Prison Cookbook on Sale at your local RNC headquarters now

"Don't think of it as a prison, just a summer camp with attitude"

Recipies include:
Honey Glazed Chicken
Lemon Fish
Beans
Rice Pilaf
Noodles Jefferson
Two (count 'em, two) fruits

With forward written by Terry "I still had half my brain" Schiavo.

Donald Rumsfeld details 16 ways to prepare chicken and interrogate a prisoner.

Interspersed with cute vignettes straight out of the logbook by Mohammed al-Qahtani:

They tickled me so hard, I cried.

I wasn't going to eat the apple till they told me "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" and the doctor was Bill Frist.

That guy in the corner claims to be an American dragged out of his bed in the middle of the night in his pajamas, but the guards say he looks dark and Middle Eastern to them and his clothing appears to be Iraqi.

If you buy now, you'll also get the CD with catchy tunes like: Don't Cry for me Abu Ghraib sung by Christina Aguilera and Photographs and Memories sung by Army Reserve Pfc. Lynndie England.

Don't forget to pick up your copy now. All proceeds go to the campaign for the establishment of our religion in the United States...because we know Jesus better than anyone.

Contributions not tax deductible...yet.

Copyright before 9/11--because we just knew

As sad footnote to a sad case

And then, let me just comment, because it says: "absent responses to visual stimuli." Once again, in the video footage--which you can actually see on the Web site today--she certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli that the neurologist puts forth--Dr. Bill Frist, March 17, 2005, Congressional Record.

Good thing for patients everywhere that Mr. Frist got out of medicine.

The autopsy is in. Terry Schiavo was in fact in a persistent vegetative state as the doctors who had testified before the Florida court had said, as her husband had said, and as Judge Greer ruled and as my friend, a Tenth District Neurologist, reported to me months ago. Her brain had atrophied and partially liquefied as happens in such a state. She was also blind and her bones were shattered. She died of dehydration, not starvation. She had not been abused or poisoned.

So, just about everything folks were saying all over the news and in Congress was nothing more than lies. The nurses who said she spoke to them were lying and those who were saying her eyes were following a balloon were lying. The people who accused Mr. Schiavo of foul play were lying. Mr. Schiavo was subjected to defamation and anguish under the weight of those lies just as Ms. Schiavo's body was crumbling under the weight of her mostly dead body. Dr. Frist was either lying in Congress or should have known that he did not have the facts to make the above-quoted statement.

They proved they will say anything at anybody's expense to get their way.

In sharp contrast to the days before her death when all you could find on television were those lies about Ms. Schiavo, I flipped around the stations this evening and almost no one on television is talking about it. It got mentioned briefly, very briefly on CNN with no comment about the incessant lies it told in March. I guess a story is not interesting when you cannot use a poor dying, almost dead, woman to promote a consensus for an idea from which your company can profit.

Earlier today, the news teases on the Chicago CBS affiliate were stating that a shocking revelation on the Schiavo case would be made, almost inviting the audience to assume they were going to hear and even greater tradgedy, that she was not so very ill. The fact that she in fact was in a persistent vegetative state was no shock at all because it was what the evidence showed all along.

This is a sad footnote, but it should not be a footnote. The truth should get as much press as the lies received. The public should not be insulted by misleading news teases and abbreviated reports on the facts.

Why do I bring this up again and invade Ms. Schiavo's privacy even more? Because it is important to know that they are lying to us and don't even care that the facts reveal their lies. It almost doesn't matter because while the lies are repeated over and over again, the truth is played down in the extreme.

People lied to Congress to obtain the special Schiavo law because it shows they have no problem lying to Congress. Congressional leaders got up and spoke based on facts not in their possession.

No one cares?

I am disgusted.

Aren't you?

A sadder postscript te to the sad footnote: I caught a little of Aaron Brown last night on CNN and they actually spent some time on the Schiavo matter. Instead of talking about the truths revealed, they again gave substantially more time to the liars still lying. His guest, a religious leader, said that Terry was actually talking. They will say anything. Lie and continue lying with the facts right before them. If we continue to listen to it, we are the ones at fault.

Kirk and his buddy Delay on the budget

Mark Kirk and and buddy Tom Delay are working tirelessly to pull money out of federal programs that help people in need.

Kirk is delighted to be working with Rep. Delay:

This time I've got Delay. He goes from someone not supportive of the rules package to someone who can make it happen.

OMB Watch is concerned that the budget changes being this Delay led group will pull money out communities for things like housing.

As federal money gets pulled out of housing, we will have more and more homeless. They live day to day in run down motels if they are lucky. Otherwise in their cars or on the street. Expect more of this from the Ownership Society of Mark Kirk, his buddy Tom Delay and their leader, George W. Bush.

Good info out of Kankakee

Two interesting posts right up top, the first on the Conyers hearing. The republicans are doing their best to stop it, but it's a freight train that won't stop. Remember Adams said that "facts are stubborn things".

Hearings to be held at DNC because Republicans Denying Democrats Use of Rooms on Hill

On Thursday June 16, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. in the Wasserman Room at 430 S Capitol St. SE, Washington, D.C., Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other Congress Members will hold a hearing on the Downing Street Minutes and related evidence of efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.

The second post is about the slippery slope we go down when we start writing discrimination into our law and our leaders use it in their rhetoric.

Thanks Kankakee!!!!

Ahhh, the 100% mortgage

My partner and I are in a mess with a brand new house in Las Vegas. Here are the details.

1. AUG 2004, we paid $445,000 for a Pulte model in the community of Aliante, North Las Vegas.
2. 100% financed and still owe roughly the same.
2. Payment is $3000/month.
3. Currently could only sell for about $360,000.
4. Finally found tenants to lease out for $1100/month in APR to reduce neg cash flow to $1900/month.

We are running out of cash quickly. We desperately need some ideas on how to get out of this house immediately.

Don't let this happen to you. There is a new bankruptcy law in town and unless you are of the poorest of poor, you will not be able to get a discharge. You will be hounded for the rest of your life paying off this mortgage.

Also notice, the illustrated post is that of an investor. The market is falsely inflated because of all the speculating investors in it. The post is from Las Vegas where that is a major problem, but it is happening here too.

The Illinois legislature tried to do something about predatory lending but was slapped down by a national lending industry that is taking the position that they will accept no regulation.

All part of the Bush/Kirk and Co. ownership society.

Vote Democratic in 2006.

Don't insult us with a way too late apology, prevent future atrocities

The half-hearted (voice vote in the Senate) apology for lynchings is an insult to all of us, black, white, whatever your race. The grandfather of all too little, too late actions, this vote is small comfort to the families of Chicago's Emmett Till and others similarly situated. The Senate failed to take action at the time partly (ironically due to filibusters by conservatives). That cannot be undone.

To honor the lynching victims, we need to think about what that part of our history reflects back to us about our current actions. Lynching was the use of fear and racism to keep a certain group in power. Bush/Kirk and Co. also enjoy the combination of fear and racism, fear of terrorism and racism now against Muslims.

What matters now is to prevent another similar scar in our nation's future written history. To do that, we need to do two things. First, we need to look at the current movement to establish radical, fundamentalist Christianity as a state religion. It's just another divisive movement to exclude and silence others. It's not what the United States of American is or ever was supposed to be about.

Seconds, we need to allow the Red Cross into Guantanamo and let the truth come out. We need to allow charges to be made, or not, against the detainees and trials to begin. Everyone else needs to be released. We need to know what Americans were taken to Guantanamo under the Patriot Act and study that as part of the study of whether or not to allow the sunset provisions to sunset forever.

Forget the half-hearted apology and give us whole hearted truth.

Focus on courage

Congress Member and House Judiciary Committee Member Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) shook up the Rainbow Push Coalition's 34th Annual Convention in Chicago today, winning huge standing ovations for a speech denouncing President Bush for lying about the war. Waters announced that she and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus plan to inform the House Democratic Leadership that they will introduce amendments on the issue of the war EVERY DAY from now on.

Just when it seems like there is no one speaking out, we get Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Thank you Congresswoman Waters!

Representative Kirk, why don't you care about lying to send the country to war? Have you even read the British Briefing Papers or are you too busy taking trips sponsored by nuclear energy lobbyists to the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada without reporting the costs on your required Financial Disclosure Statement.

The avalanche on which to focus

The avalanche has dumped a ton on us. No, it's not the series of "Not Guilty" verdicts in the Michael Jackson trial. It's the now large group of British Briefing Papers that show that Bush/Kirk and Co. knew that Saddam Hussein was not a threat and had no connection to Al Quaeda even when they were saying the opposite to the American people.

Take a look for yourself:

British Iraq Options Paper
Manning Paper
Meyer Paper
Ricketts Paper
Straw Paper
British Legal Background Paper

OK, for you skeptics out there who are still trying hard to believe that Bush/Kirk and Co. do no wrong, what evidence do you think is better, work in progress memoranda written at the time strategies were being concocted and meant only for insiders to read or stories put out in the corporate owned US press by Bush/Kirk and Co. for the specific purpose of obtaining American buy-in to their regime change plan?

The evidence is mounting on what most of us already knew. Now, the question becomes what will become of it. Does the country care about sending our sons and daughters to war based on lies as much as it cared about Clinton and Monica? Will the country turn its focus away from celebrity hookups and celebrity trials and take a long, hard look at what it is becoming? I'd like to see a little less Brad and Angelina and a little more interest on the truth about Iraq. I'd also like to see my Representative, Mark Kirk, care a little about it, at least fake it if he has to because it is his job to care about the circumstances under which our country goes to war.

And by the way, when Sensenbrenner gaveled the the Patriot Act Hearing when Democrats began hearing testimony about Guantanamo Bay, the point the Democrats were making was that it is possible that Americans are being held there and they are there because of the Patriot Act, because the Patriot Act allows the president to name anyone an enemy combatant and has created an atmosphere where Americans can be taken away with no court hearing, no attorney, no abili