{ An Autopsy of Democracy }

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Fertik to Pelosi | "The time for accountability is NOW" . . .

The conclusion is clear: George Bush lied about Iraq to Congress, the American people, and the world.

"The conclusion is clear: George Bush lied about Iraq to Congress, the American people, and the world.

In 1998, the Republican Congress voted to hold President Clinton accountable for his lies through Impeachment, even though only 26% of Americans thought Impeachment was the appropriate punishment for lying about sex.

Today, 42% of Americans think Impeachment is the appropriate punishment for lying about war. And that figure greatly understates true public support for Impeachment, because the media utterly refuses to discuss Impeachment - in contrast with 1998, when Impeachment was discussed around the clock.

It is true that Democrats in Congress cannot impeach George Bush (and Dick Cheney, who shares full responsibility with George Bush) by themselves.

But Democrats can introduce Articles of Impeachment and thereby put the issue of accountability squarely before the Republican majority - and the American people.

If Republicans prevent a full Congressional investigation and debate over Bush's lies, they will dishonor the 1,871 soldiers who died for those lies.

That is their choice to make - and they will have to suffer the moral (and political) consequences.

But as the House Minority Leader, it is your solemn duty to begin this urgent moral debate.

I urge you to introduce Articles of Impeachment immediately."


Saturday, August 20, 2005

"Subversive (i.e., Sane) Republican Award" goes to Ron Paul of Texas . . .

'Declaring that it is the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.'

The only Republican (so far . . . ) to co-sponsor a bill agreeing with the statements of the President of The United States, and everyone else in his administration including the VP and Secretary of Defense, (and pretty much every other Republican, [and pretty much anyone else . . .]) . . . on one of THE most important issues regarding Iraq :

'Declaring that it is the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.'
Bill # H.CON.RES.197

Original Sponsor:
Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th)

Cosponsor Total: 44
(last sponsor added 07/27/2005)
42 Democrats
1 Independents
1 Republicans

If you're a Republican, I encourage you to call/write your Republican Congressmen and ask them to either:
1.) support this bill; or,
2.) declare publicly, and on the floor of Congress for the permanent historical record, that they seek and support permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and believe it should be the policy of the United States to do so.

(If you're a Democrat, call/write with your support.)

Some people (like Dennis Kucinich) have been pointing out for almost two years the importance of declaring clearly and publicly to the Iraqi people that the U.S. does not want to stay there and permanently occupy their country; and that no such statements can possibly be believed as long as the U.S. is establishing permanent military bases in their country. And of course, if they believe we are Conquerers expanding our Empire, rather than true "Liberators," they will rise up against us.

(Hell, it's common sense. I don't need to point this shit out.)

So. I submit that if you fail to support a measure like this, you need to admit that you are willing to allow U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians to be slaughtered in order for the U.S. government to permanently dominate Iraq; and declare openly that we seek Empire, not Liberty.

Anyone with ANY sound reason for not supporting this measure, please comment. Thanks.


Tuesday, August 16, 2005

The Gospel according to Santorum

CSP: Sen. Rick Santorum:

". . . I see in this fall (the Catholic clergy child-sex scandal) an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. . . . The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities.

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
. . ."

"Fishers of Men"
By the Honorable Senator Rick Santorum

Stuff like this always reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, from my brother Shane:

Right-Wing Nut: "You hate our freedom, don't you, Shane."

Shane: "I'm starting to hate your freedom. Your right to vote kind of pisses me off right now, for example."

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality --

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in."

Not only does Ricky equate homosexuality with sexual predation on children and with bestiality, he openly calls for the abolition of any "right to privacy" -- which, in his view, is a fiction:

"And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. . . ."


(So, since Ricky so obviously "hates our freedom," is he not, then [by definition], a "terrorist"? I think a one-way ticket to Gitmo is in order . . .)

So what might we do in order help Ricky demonstrate the nonexistence of this supposed "right" to privacy to the ignorant masses? I hereby call for volunteers: if you live in D.C. (or in Pennsylvania, if you know where his family lives) and have a video camera, please, please stalk poor Ricky and his family day and night; record his every move, his every utterance; follow him into his home, and tape him in the shower and on the shitter; tape him masturbating and picking his nose; tape him while he sleeps -- and, just for fun, wake him up every 17 minutes by urinating on his sheets, then tell him "you wed the bed again, Ricky"; . . . and whilst doing all these things, cover your hands with peanut butter and maple syrup and rub them all over his face continuously -- for, after all, according to him, not only is there no right to privacy, but he quite specifically denies any right to control over your own body. Hell, stick a herring up his anus, while you're at it.

But if he moans softly in ecstacy, run away; run far, far away.

Or better yet, implant some sort of large (and preferrably very noisy) parasite inside him, using a very large needle to do so; an egg-laying parasite.

What possible objection could Ricky have, after all? . . .


Friday, August 05, 2005

Debating the Subtle Sway of the Federalist Society - New York Times

Debating the Subtle Sway of the Federalist Society - New York Times

. . . . . . . .
Yet down the hall from Mr. Meyer's office, a vacated desk testified to the more activist role that members often play. It belonged to Leonard A. Leo, the executive vice president, who doubles as the head of Catholic outreach for the Republican Party and who has taken a leave of absence to help Judge Roberts win confirmation.

As he argued that the society's influence flowed from its intellectual work - "I sound a little like a broken record, but what I'm excited about are the ideas"- Mr. Meyer also said he had benefited from news media training by Creative Response Concepts. That is the public relations firm that represented Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group whose advertisements in last year's presidential campaign attacked the war record of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

The Federalist Society hired the firm, Mr. Meyer said, to train members and place them on television shows during the confirmation process. He said the goal was to educate the public on the role of judges and courts. "Given the general philosophical outlook, the chances are very good that they'll support the nominee," Mr. Meyer said. "But that's not the purpose."

In the early days of the Bush presidency, administration officials said about a quarter of their judicial nominees were recommended by the Washington headquarters of the society. Mr. Meyer said the advice came from staff members speaking in their private capacities, not as official representatives.

With an annual budget of $5.5 million, the society has benefited from decades of support from prominent conservative organizations, including the John M. Olin, Sarah Scaife, and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundations.

In the 1990's, three Federalist Society lawyers, Jerome M. Marcus, Richard W. Porter and George T. Conway, played important but covert roles in helping Paula Corbin Jones sue President Clinton for sexual harassment. They also worked behind the scenes to disclose Mr. Clinton's affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel whose report led to Mr. Clinton's impeachment, is a prominent member of the society, as is Theodore B. Olson, who successfully argued Bush v. Gore, the case that stopped the Florida recount in 2000 and ensured Mr. Bush's election.

According to the Senate Judiciary Committee, 15 of the 41 appeals court judges confirmed under Mr. Bush have identified themselves as members of the group. Complaining that the society serves as "the secret handshake" of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees, Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat on the committee, has repeatedly questioned them about the group's mission statement. Their answers, he said, have "ranged from the amusing to the preposterous."

Carolyn Kuhl, who later withdrew her stalled bid for an appeals court seat, wrote, "I did not participate in writing the mission statement."

"Therefore I am unable to opine," she said.

Jeffrey S. Sutton, who won a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, said, "I have no idea what their philosophy is."

Mr. Dinh, who left his Justice Department position in 2003 and now teaches law at Georgetown, said he answered candidly at his confirmation hearing. "I did not know, and still do not know, what the society stands for because it has no stated philosophy other than the exchange of ideas," he said. "There's no evasion in that. It's just as straightforward as it gets."

Mr. Durbin's questions did bring sharp words from one society member. "I am on the board of advisers of the Federalist Society, and I am darn proud of it," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Hatch called the society a group of lawyers "who are just sick and tired of the leftward leanings of our government.""
. . . . . . . .


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?