Jane "The Warrior" Harman

There's nothing like a YouTube clip that has a politician to be claiming something she's not, especially when the politician is George Bush apologist and constitutional disgrace Jane Harman:

There Are Laws...Then There Are George Bush's Secret Laws

How bad is it that Senator Feingold has to hold these hearings???



I'd love to see Bush giving testimony, but we'll have to settle for this Administration stooge.

Vito Fossella Shows Us Why He Must Be Kicked Out Of Congress

I always thought that when an incumbent was running for re-election to Congress, he or she would say the things that people tend to agree with. Kissing babies, advocating for helping little old ladies across the street, upholding the Constitution, you know, the important things. Apparently Vito Fossella wants out of his job representing Staten Island and is determined to let us know it. Fellow Republican Peter King penned an Op-Ed in the NY Daily News today to call for the Democrats to pass a bill that violates the rule of law and our Constitution, all in one shot. How would one go about that? By passing retroactive immunity and lying about the situation to the readers of the Daily News.

From The NY Daily News:

Over the past two months, the House of Representatives has found the time to pass legislation on such pressing issues as establishing a National Watermelon Month and designating 2008 as the International Year of the Reef.

But legislative leaders haven't found time to restore one of the most important tools in the war on terrorism - a tool the Democrats took away from our intelligence officials in February when they failed to modernize the law that governs the surveillance of terrorists overseas.

The clock is ticking with more urgency every day.

Since right after Sept. 11, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, intelligence agents have had the authority to quickly monitor foreign-to-foreign communications of terrorists without having to first obtain a court order. Knowing in real time exactly what the enemy is going to do has helped foil numerous attacks, including the Heathrow Airport plot last year, which could have claimed the lives of thousands of innocent people.

Yet, 77 days ago, House leaders allowed the law to lapse. There's a clear way to break the deadlock: embrace the Senate bill passed in a bipartisan fashion by the Democratic-controlled Senate. That bill would close the terrorist loopholes, protect our civil liberties and also provide liability protections for the telecommunications companies that have played a key role in helping the government defend our nation since 9/11. We hear lots of talk about bipartisanship these days, but the party in power seems unwilling to practice it on the most pressing national security issue of the moment.

With our pleas for action ignored, we have been forced to take the extraordinary step of organizing a discharge petition. Once a majority of the House signs onto the effort, the bill would bypass normal procedure and go directly to the House floor for a vote. We began circulating the petition last week. So far, 184 members have joined our effort. That's 34 short of the magic number of 218.

So they couldn't even get the signatures of the entire Republican caucus. That is not good for the case, just for starters. The statements up above and in the rest of the Op-Ed are arguments of the worst sort, meaning false and misleading. First off, passing Watermelon Month does not tear away at our system of laws and open, accountable government. Passing the old Senate legislation to let telco companies off the hook would.

They also fail to mention that anti-terrorism activity is still on going and will do so for several more months. There is plenty of time to allow for legislation that will continue protecting Americans while holding those that acted illegally along with the President in monitoring American citizens without using the proper channels, such as obtaining court orders. When you spy for the President and you feel good about your culpability in the matter, then let the case go to trial and stop hiding behind George Bush.

Peter King and Vito Fossella try to dismiss themselves of being fearmongers, but that is exactly what they are doing. It is written throughout the Op-Ed. They do not care for following the rule of law and are willing accomplices to letting George Bush, AT&T, Verizon, etc go free from prosecution that they so justly deserve. That makes them criminals too and for that both need to be kicked out of office by the people that live in their district.

I would love to see Peter King lose in November, but the demographics in that part of Long Island are not in our favor yet. However in Staten Island, there is a sea change going on and we have a great opportunity to show Fossella the door. If you disagree with the Republicans desire to revamp FISA to let Bush and telecommunication giants, then it is time to come together and rid Staten Island of the stench Vito Fossella creates in the Borough, New York City and in the Congress itself.

Constitutional Showdown: Bush Vs democracy

Although the amount of time it took was surprising, the Bush Administration's lackey Michael Mukasey (a.k.a. United States Attorney General) handed back an all too expected response to Congress that he will not fulfill his duty to prosecute Miers and Bolten. When it comes down to it, Bushies will protect Bushies over the Constitution any day of the week. So what is Congress going to do about it?

From The Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused Friday to refer the House's contempt citations against two of President Bush's top aides to a federal grand jury. Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers committed no crime.

As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she has given the Judiciary Committee authority to file a lawsuit against Bolten and Miers in federal court.

"The House shall do so promptly," she said in a statement.

Mukasey said Bolten and Miers were right in ignoring subpoenas to provide Congress with White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

First off, Mukasey doesn't know shit other than subverting the rule of law. For him to decide what is right or wrong is ridiculous. If your goal is to thrash our system of government and install an autocratic dictator, then maybe you are on the right track. Its just, well, the American people might have something to say about that.

So anyway, this civil lawsuit will go to a judge sooner or later. Mukasey will argue that Miers and Bolten could not testify because the President said so. He obviously believes Bush has more power than the Congress, despite the fact that the United States was set up with three co-equal branches of government. This isn't a case that is hard to determine, it is a slam freakin dunk for Congress. All this does is delay the American people from hearing the truth about what Miers and Bolten did on behalf of the White House.

Oh and just in case you forgot what this whole brouhaha is about.....Bush and his cohorts had United States Attorneys fired for not prosecuting people based on the political beliefs of the Bush Administration. When several of the dismissed Attorneys came forward with what happened, Congress started asking questions and no one that is involved with doing the firing is answering. Finding out those answers could implicate Bush Administration officials in a crime. The American people deserve the answer, and those that violated any laws of our land must be held accountable. It is that simple.

My Hero Of The Day

If only we had enough Senators that were as brave as him to stand up to our pResident:



Update (9:44PM EST): And congrats to him on his victory today. The bill is now tabled, thanks to Dodd's backbone. If only all Democrats could learn from him.

Chris Dodd Is A True Patriot

From the floor of the Senate, Chris Dodd:

Mr. President:

I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against cloture on S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007.

Opposing cloture is essential, because there is no unanimous consent agreement in place providing for the immediate adoption of the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment.

As you know, Mr. President, the Judiciary substitute amendment, among other things, strikes Title II of the Intelligence Committee bill—the title which seeks to provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who are alleged to have violated their customers' privacy rights by turning over information to the government without warrants.

I am fully aware that the Majority Leader has various parliamentary options at his disposal to move this legislation forward. It is his right to attempt to invoke cloture.

But I regret that decision, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in stopping this legislation.

Mr. President, why do I feel so strongly about this matter?

For the last six years, our largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own American customers.

Secretly and without a warrant, they delivered to the federal government the private, domestic communications records of millions of Americans—records this administration has compiled into a database of enormous scale and scope.

That decision betrayed millions of customers' trust. It was unwarranted—literally.

But was it illegal?

That, Mr. President, I don't know. And if this bill passes in its current form, we will never know. The president's favored corporations will be immune.

Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The details of their actions will stay hidden. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the book on our government's actions will be closed, and sealed, and locked, and handed over to the safe-keeping of those few whom George Bush trusts to keep a secret.

Why does Chris Dodd have to do this while we have a Democratic majority in the Senate? It is because our current Majority Leader, Harry Reid is caving and/or helping George Bush to allow retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that illegally wiretapped millions of Americans. Senator Reid could have introduced the Judiciary Bill and avoided this travesty but claims to be afraid of not reaching a super-majority of 60 votes and an eventual veto from the President.

Reid claims retroactive immunity is inevitable, but Dodd demands to stand up to the President anyway. Dodd wants to protect the Constitution regardless of George Bush's tyranny, but Reid would rather the Senate become a permanent rubberstamp to the President, essentially destroying our democracy and the system of checks and balances that has made America that great country that it had become. Now our system is in great danger, and Reid is facilitating it.

Now the netroots is clamoring for Dodd to become Majority Leader in the 111th Congress, it is a change that we so direly need.

This is all happening now, live on C-SPAN 2.

Will Ron Paul Support Impeachment?

Paul talked to students last week about limited government and what the constitution is supposed to be about. To him, the purpose of our cherished document is to preserve liberty and restrain the government. Well under Bush, our liberties have been hampered and now it is time to restrain the Executive in our government. It is written in there that when confronted with a tyrant, we must impeach him out of office.

So what say you Ron?

Why Can't All Democrats Act Like Kucinich

Watching the debate last week between the Democrats, the thought of switching Kucinich's brain with another candidate crossed my mind a couple times. Seeing "Young Frankenstein" on Broadway three days ago brought the idea up again. If only that machine was more than a mere prop and my name was really Frederic Frankenstein.

I know he isn't electable, the UFO question during the debate was the media's way of trying to make him look crazy and the anti-choice positions he neatly turned off before running last time is a little irksome. Despite all that, this man is standing up for something that I hold very near and dear. It is called our Constitution....and it has been degraded by Republicans like Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld, with no restorative help from the Democratic Congress.

Very few Democrats stand with Kucinich's fight for impeaching Dick Cheney (22 co-sponsors to be exact). It is a sad sight when a man with an 11 percent approval rating can hold the majority in such fear. But this isn't about polls. It is about that document written by Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the rest that have guided our country for the last 200 years or so. The Bush Adminstration's willful disregard for the laws of our land demands action from the Congress to show that we hold our leaders accountable.

After Republicans tried to call Kucinich's "bluff" the other day, Harry Smith of CBS had him on the show to talk about the impeachment issue and it wasn't pretty. Smith is doing his part for the traditional media by making impeachment look like a crazy idea, something used for political grandstanding when in fact, it is a necessary tool to protect our laws when people like Bush and Cheney callously disregard them.

Kucinich was fantastic despite the persistent attack from Smith. Why people do not get that impeachment is something we must do not for political maneuvering but out of principle is a dangerous sign for our democracy. How far will we have to fall into authoritarianism until people like Smith realize the severity of what is going on around us? When they do wake up from their ignorance, will it be too late to save us?

Ah, The Irony Of It All

If there is one thing you must applaud the Bush Administration for, its their chutzpah. The irony, sad and pathetic as it is, is quite funny when you look at their record and compare it to their actions. Take for example the crisis in Pakistan. The dictator that we have given a billion dollars a year to fight terrorism has now shut down any type of democracy that might have been progressing in that cataclysmic country. The White House has some advice for them (no, not this advice) and from it, you can hear the jokes burgeoning out of the statements.

From ThinkProgress:

During today’s White House press briefing, spokeswoman Dana Perino condemned Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of “emergency rule” in Pakistan. She said that the administration is “deeply disappointed” by the measure, which suspends the country’s constitution, and believes it is never “reasonable” to “restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism”:

Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?

MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no.

George Bush would never, never ever, never restrict our freedoms, right?

Thank You Senator Dodd

I've already expressed my displeasure about how the "debate" was setup by MSNBC to follow the media's narrative and that for the most part, the entire two hours was a pathetic show that seemed more like "Presidential Idol" than a real debate. Well Chris Dodd is expressing the same opinion more or less over at Huffington Post and I think it is about time that we actually get to hear important questions and the answers we need to hear to pick an able 44th President.

Here are some of his desired questions and the answers to them as well:

1. Less than two weeks ago, Senator Dodd, you announced you would filibuster any FISA legislation that included retroactive immunity. Why are you opposed to amnesty?

Quite simply: you can't defend America if you don't defend the Constitution.

The Bush administration came to the telecom companies, some even before 9/11, and asked them to eavesdrop on Americans. They didn't produce court orders or warrants to justify their surveillance. And the telecoms went along with it.

These companies have some of the best legal counsel money can buy. They know the law through and through. And they broke it anyway. That is inexcusable and I'm not about to let Congress step in and stop lawsuits against them for violating the privacy of ordinary Americans.

2. Do you think waterboarding is torture?

Absolutely, according to both US law and international conventions. And in my view, the Bush Administration knows full well it is.

He also stated why he opposes Mukasey's nomination (and for good reason), just click on the Huffington Post link above. Even though Dodd was never my first choice, nor sadly does it seem like he has much of a chance, he is showing himself to be a true leader in his campaign and when he gets up on the debating stage. America desperately needs a leader, and not one that will lead us off the cliff and into the abyss of authoritarianism such as Bush has been doing for nearly seven years now.

When Backed Into A Corner....

They say that is when the dog is most vicious. With its teeth bared and the growl growing in ferocity ever so slightly, the Bush Adminstration is getting pinned from the U.S. Attorney scandal. It isn't pretty to watch, this dog is threatening our constitution after having thrown dignity and accountability out the window long, long ago.

From the Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON — A defiant President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.

Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm: They said they would start authorizing subpoenas as soon as Wednesday for the White House aides.

"Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush is offering less than nothing. If you won't submit your statements under oath, there is no way to be held accountable in a court of law. If you are afraid of the law, there must be a lie buried in the actions of Karl Rove and other White House operatives. The Democratic Senate must stand firm and issue those subpoenas and let justice prevail. Bush will go kicking and screaming, but he must not win against a nation founded on laws.

So far the Senate is handling itself well in this matter. Stripping Alberto Gonzales of the ability to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation is a good start. It seems that Senators Leahy and Schumer are staying steadfast in their commitment to see this through. It is already a new day over here in Tel Aviv, I hope to see a new one over in Washington as well.