Wow! Here we are drawing the month of July to a close. I'm sad to say there weren't any really major storms in the realm of meteorology in my area; however, there are always plenty of storms on the political front!
As we move into the last full month of summer, the Congress is in recess for its summer holiday, and when it returns after Labor Day, it will find John Bolton as the United States ambassador to the United Nations. That will be a pretty sweet deal for Mr. Bolton. He will get to serve at the president's leisure until the 109th Congress is inaugurated in January, 2007; so he has over a year to make nations that already hate us hate us even more. It truly is sweet!
Yet this is just another example of how George Bush sees himself. He doesn't understand the "true" politics of being a consensus maker. He doesn't understand that a true politician finds the road of moderation and strides along it playing both sides of the fence, which in the end wins him accolades of adoration.
Mr. President, in the end, you will have served two terms as president of the United States, but you will forever be known as the president who gave us the Iraq war. History will not list you among the great American presidents, who created positive institutions that saved a generation from turmoil and hardship. Saddam Hussein, and his Iraq, will be your footnote when future histories are written. Thousands of American families will remember you as the butcher who sent their children to the slaughter. Thanks to your inept leadership thousands of Iraqi families will know Americans as the killers of grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. Your brand of democracy came at a price that in the end will prove to be too much to pay for Iraq. True democracy is won from within. Our own history is the best story. The government that was forced upon us is the one we rejected. In the end, we, as Americans, chose our own best destiny and course for change and prosperity.
Every nation, including Iraq, deserves nothing less. During our recess, let's not forget that the tears of American families will be shed for those who have been asked to die on foreign soil, innocent Iraqi families will be devastated and forever altered, and in the end it us, the average American, who must pay the final price with our dignity and soul.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Frist on crack
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is supporting funds for stem cell research! All in the face of King George, his arrogant party leader; not to mention the party's extremely religious fanatic right.
I think I'm gonna faint!
I think I'm gonna faint!
Thursday, July 28, 2005
More games!
I just love how this Senate confirmation hearing is coming together, even before the "actual" confirmation is under way.
Like every intelligent person has observed, George Bush seems more and more arrogant. He expects the Senate to confirm his nominee without asking any of the tough and important questions!
Roberts' record shows that he is nowhere near the center of politics and the law. He has a suspect conservative record, considering just the fact that he worked for Ronnie Reagan and Daddy Bush. His record as an attorney seems to have been spent working to reverse many of the reforms which characterized the fifties and sixties.
Especially, now in today's world, we have to strive for moderation in government and the judicial system. Every point on the political spectrum must be represented to accurately portray America. But we can count on Bush to give us a nominee who is almost a fascist!
Let's get real!
Like every intelligent person has observed, George Bush seems more and more arrogant. He expects the Senate to confirm his nominee without asking any of the tough and important questions!
Roberts' record shows that he is nowhere near the center of politics and the law. He has a suspect conservative record, considering just the fact that he worked for Ronnie Reagan and Daddy Bush. His record as an attorney seems to have been spent working to reverse many of the reforms which characterized the fifties and sixties.
Especially, now in today's world, we have to strive for moderation in government and the judicial system. Every point on the political spectrum must be represented to accurately portray America. But we can count on Bush to give us a nominee who is almost a fascist!
Let's get real!
Monday, July 25, 2005
What's the definition of a patriot?
Yesterday, I was watching Book TV on C-SPAN 2 (shut up!) and there was this guy who wrote a book about terrorism during World War II (you know, the BIG one). Anyhow, he likened the actions of today with those of FDR. Now we all know that Georgie is no FDR! Really! But I stipulate to the historical record and it does show that during this time of international crisis, the president did do things that were questionable, such as imprisoning Japanese-Americans, and in some ways these things are similar to what King George is doing today.
Now to the thesis of my post: what is a patriot?
In our time, the Congress of the United States is unwilling (for obvious reasons, such as political party) to stand up and question the policies of the White House. It understandable, but it is more of a travesty. Here's why. We elect representatives to represent us. They take an oath to defend and stay true to the Constitution, not the president or their political party. We would live in a different country if our directly elected representatives stood on principle and the letter of the law. If they chose to have the spine to say, "Enough is enough!" If they had the courage to call the president to task and say in a clear voice that the Congress of the United States is not for sale! To say, "Mr. President, the Congress represents the interests of those who elected us." No, a patriot is not one who stands idly by and thinks that by speaking out against what he or she believes is wrong makes him or her a bad American. It is quite the opposite; it is a person who stands up and questions the path we are asked to follow! It is the voice reminding us all of the truth of the matter and its dire consequences. We always seem to forget that we are a nation founded by great patriots who stood up and questioned their leaders.
Let's remember these simple facts when we are asked to give up our basic civil liberties for cloak-and-dagger policies, when we are asked to spy on our neighbors and look at others with suspicion, or asked to die for unclear reasons in far off battlefields.
It's the American way to question and demand accountability!
Now to the thesis of my post: what is a patriot?
In our time, the Congress of the United States is unwilling (for obvious reasons, such as political party) to stand up and question the policies of the White House. It understandable, but it is more of a travesty. Here's why. We elect representatives to represent us. They take an oath to defend and stay true to the Constitution, not the president or their political party. We would live in a different country if our directly elected representatives stood on principle and the letter of the law. If they chose to have the spine to say, "Enough is enough!" If they had the courage to call the president to task and say in a clear voice that the Congress of the United States is not for sale! To say, "Mr. President, the Congress represents the interests of those who elected us." No, a patriot is not one who stands idly by and thinks that by speaking out against what he or she believes is wrong makes him or her a bad American. It is quite the opposite; it is a person who stands up and questions the path we are asked to follow! It is the voice reminding us all of the truth of the matter and its dire consequences. We always seem to forget that we are a nation founded by great patriots who stood up and questioned their leaders.
Let's remember these simple facts when we are asked to give up our basic civil liberties for cloak-and-dagger policies, when we are asked to spy on our neighbors and look at others with suspicion, or asked to die for unclear reasons in far off battlefields.
It's the American way to question and demand accountability!
Another Blank Check for George?
Either put up or shut up! It seems Georgie wants a covert confirmation in the United States Senate. I suppose that it's a good thing that I am not a senator, or else I'd be the most hated in the chamber! I don't play ball. I just get the job done! It's either up or down, not all around.
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Stop! Don't shoot! (Batente! Não dispare!)
What's up with that Brazilian guy that got mowed down Friday in London? I mean when the cops say "stop" and you jump the turnstyles and run on anyway, what do you expect to happen? The cops are going to stop chasing you and let you go? Puh-lease!
How sad!
I can't wait to hear the rest of the story! (Not that I'm trying to sound like Paul Harvey, by the way.)
How sad!
I can't wait to hear the rest of the story! (Not that I'm trying to sound like Paul Harvey, by the way.)
Friday, July 22, 2005
Funny Things
Today, I got a mass-email from Senator Libby Dole asking me to support a speedy confirmation process for John Roberts in the Senate, who she says is already under attack from liberal special interests groups. My first instinct was, "How the hell did I get this email from Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee?" Nextly, the RSCC mustn't know I am my very own, individual liberal special interest group! HA!
I believe ANY nominee for a life-long position (especially as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) must expect, and demand, to be asked tough questions and answer them honestly and forthright. Every American deserves to know the position of the nominee on the issues that impact them today and potential questions arising in the future, especially those relating to important individual civil liberties, such as homosexual rights and the continued rising tide of terrorism.
So, in response to Senator Dole's request, I will encourage my ultra-conservative Republican senators to ask the tough questions and demand appropriate and telling responses from the nominee; it's only fair!
I believe ANY nominee for a life-long position (especially as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) must expect, and demand, to be asked tough questions and answer them honestly and forthright. Every American deserves to know the position of the nominee on the issues that impact them today and potential questions arising in the future, especially those relating to important individual civil liberties, such as homosexual rights and the continued rising tide of terrorism.
So, in response to Senator Dole's request, I will encourage my ultra-conservative Republican senators to ask the tough questions and demand appropriate and telling responses from the nominee; it's only fair!
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Roberts, or the Ayotollah?
According to what I know, Georgie should have just nominated the Ayotollah to the Supreme Court!
What a disgrace! The road WILL get bumpy from here on out now!
What a disgrace! The road WILL get bumpy from here on out now!
Georgie's Big Announcement
Who the hell is Edith Clement? CNN seems to think she's the nominee. I looked up her up and basically the secretive lives of federal judges limited my understanding of her to being a judge on the Fifth Circuit of Appeals (down in Louisiana), and she's probably a hardline conservative (look at who's doing the nominating).
Ugh! Who knows? We've got until 9pm before we're told for sure.
Ugh! Who knows? We've got until 9pm before we're told for sure.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
No Hypothetical Questions
On Wednesday, Senator Bill Frist stated that the confirmation process of the president's candidate for the Supreme Court should focus on the nominee's past and not the future. I think that is a bit biased.
Sure, the Senate must consider the nominee's past, current, AND future actions. The future entails a great deal of conjecture and hypothetical situations, I understand. A potential justice must be open and honest regarding their philosophy regarding the Constitution and how it impacts the lives of Americans in all realms of society.
It is naive and arrogant to assert who should be a justice based simply on their education, experience, and Bush political affiliated tendencies. That is a rather Republican ideology.
Senator Frist is a curious man to suggest it!
Sure, the Senate must consider the nominee's past, current, AND future actions. The future entails a great deal of conjecture and hypothetical situations, I understand. A potential justice must be open and honest regarding their philosophy regarding the Constitution and how it impacts the lives of Americans in all realms of society.
It is naive and arrogant to assert who should be a justice based simply on their education, experience, and Bush political affiliated tendencies. That is a rather Republican ideology.
Senator Frist is a curious man to suggest it!
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Okay, even more...
After reviewing the Constitution further, the executive has the power to appoint individuals during a recess of the Senate (Article 2, §2, ¶3), but he must obey the "consent and advice" clause (Article 2, §2, ¶2) of the Constitution regarding appointments, during the time the Senate is in session.
I would venture to say that in this event the retiring member would have to continue his or her duties on the bench.
I would venture to say that in this event the retiring member would have to continue his or her duties on the bench.
More Thoughts...
I just refreshed my memory on Article III of the Constitution and it doesn't mention anything about a vacancy that is not filled.
I need to check and see if there are any precedents for a vacancy on the Supreme Court that is not filled by the beginning of the new term.
Interesting...
I need to check and see if there are any precedents for a vacancy on the Supreme Court that is not filled by the beginning of the new term.
Interesting...
A Spot of Curiosity
What would happen if the Supreme Court comes back into session in October without a newly appointed justice? I wonder if Justice O'Connor would be obligated to serve another term, considering her resignation is contingent on the confirmation of her replacement to the bench.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Karl Rove
"The best laid plans of mice and men..." (or something like that), but I'm not sure that it was a very well laid plan for Mr. Rove (is he a mouse or a man?).
I have to say I loved the parody of Karl Rove, as hellish soul, in American Dad when he ran the campaign for title character Stan Smith's (who is a CIA agent, no less) election for church deacon.
Stay tuned...I think King George is about to do some flip-flopping on an issue here!
I have to say I loved the parody of Karl Rove, as hellish soul, in American Dad when he ran the campaign for title character Stan Smith's (who is a CIA agent, no less) election for church deacon.
Stay tuned...I think King George is about to do some flip-flopping on an issue here!
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
When will it be?
When is George Bush going to give us his nominee for the Supreme Court? We're coming up on two weeks since Justice O'Connor submitted her resignation. We will have to spend time fighting over his nomination, I'm sure!
October is not that far off....
October is not that far off....
Friday, July 08, 2005
Rules of Warfare
It might be economical to consider the following fact of war: people die.
Interestingly, I have given this simple fact a lot of thought over the course of yesterday and today. A war is inevitably two forces siding agaisnt each other for domination and control of land, sea, air, political considerations, or religious dogma. The British and Americans have sided against a single foe (albeit, two--Iraq and terrorism; hereinafter, I will focus on terrorism).
Yesterday, there were casualties in the war on terrorism. Even though this war is abstract, it is imperative to understand that when you fire at the enemy, the enemy might happen to fire back. Yes, when they fire it is more than likely it will be on your own soil, but sometimes wars come to our own doorsteps. The enemy seeps in during the night following the shadows. Simply, we must be prepared to reap what we sow. In this case, we must expect to be targeted and attacked; to think otherwise is highly arrogant and a bit naive!
Happy day!
Interestingly, I have given this simple fact a lot of thought over the course of yesterday and today. A war is inevitably two forces siding agaisnt each other for domination and control of land, sea, air, political considerations, or religious dogma. The British and Americans have sided against a single foe (albeit, two--Iraq and terrorism; hereinafter, I will focus on terrorism).
Yesterday, there were casualties in the war on terrorism. Even though this war is abstract, it is imperative to understand that when you fire at the enemy, the enemy might happen to fire back. Yes, when they fire it is more than likely it will be on your own soil, but sometimes wars come to our own doorsteps. The enemy seeps in during the night following the shadows. Simply, we must be prepared to reap what we sow. In this case, we must expect to be targeted and attacked; to think otherwise is highly arrogant and a bit naive!
Happy day!
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Bagdad v. London
I was just wondering how the deaths in London compare to the daily deaths of Iraqis and Americans in Iraq? Basically, there are bombings daily in the country of Iraq that kill its citizens. These attacks are the product of terrorism, but they get no more than 2 minutes of mention on the evening news.
So my question is are the lives of Londoners more important than those of Iraqis? The answer is simple, no they're not, but the deaths that occur in Iraq do not support the success of the American military occupation of that country. Additionally, the deaths of the British continue to support Bush's scare tactics of the need for continued support of his foreign policies.
Ugh!
So my question is are the lives of Londoners more important than those of Iraqis? The answer is simple, no they're not, but the deaths that occur in Iraq do not support the success of the American military occupation of that country. Additionally, the deaths of the British continue to support Bush's scare tactics of the need for continued support of his foreign policies.
Ugh!
Bush Toppled in the United Kingdom
I woke up this morning to the news coming out of London. I hadn't even given thought to the possibility of an attack taking place during the G8 summit, but it makes perfect sense.
As we know, Great Britian is George Bush's lap dog in Iraq. There has been strong opposition to Blair's support of Washington. I believe, like in Madrid, this may put the final nails into Bush's metaphorical coffin, regarding his London support.
And we were all led to believe that since the fall of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, we could rest easy knowing we had destroyed international terrorism. Wasn't that they reason for invading Iraq????? Or was it???
Hmmmm......
As we know, Great Britian is George Bush's lap dog in Iraq. There has been strong opposition to Blair's support of Washington. I believe, like in Madrid, this may put the final nails into Bush's metaphorical coffin, regarding his London support.
And we were all led to believe that since the fall of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, we could rest easy knowing we had destroyed international terrorism. Wasn't that they reason for invading Iraq????? Or was it???
Hmmmm......
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Jackson Leslie, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Finally! My career change is here. Jackson Leslie for the recently vacated position of Associate Justice!
Why? Why not?
I'm up for the move to the Washington, D.C.-area. I am all about lifetime appointments, too! I get a kick ass leather chair, a fancy smancy black robe, and four law school grads to do my work for me! What's not to love?
Every American should submit his or her resume to the King George for this job! The Constitution sets up no prerequisites for the position other than being nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Who says you have to be a lawyer first? BAH!
Why? Why not?
I'm up for the move to the Washington, D.C.-area. I am all about lifetime appointments, too! I get a kick ass leather chair, a fancy smancy black robe, and four law school grads to do my work for me! What's not to love?
Every American should submit his or her resume to the King George for this job! The Constitution sets up no prerequisites for the position other than being nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Who says you have to be a lawyer first? BAH!
Monday, July 04, 2005
Independence Day
Two hundred twenty-nine years ago today, a few rebels stood defiant, in word and deed, against their colonial parent. Although, King George III recorded in his personal diary "nothing of significance happened today," he found out shortly that, indeed, something of significance did happen within his vast land empire.
So many, many years later will we, as the grandchildren of the Revolution, stand against another King George, a tyrant, bent on imperialism?
Hmmm...???
So many, many years later will we, as the grandchildren of the Revolution, stand against another King George, a tyrant, bent on imperialism?
Hmmm...???
Saturday, July 02, 2005
SCOTUS Nominee
More on this Supreme Court who-ha that is coming before long...
King George really doesn't have a choice but to nominate a woman to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy. Albeit, this will be a messy confirmation hearing in the Senate, considering all of the federal appellate court confirmations in recent months.
Even so, we must remember that an independent judiciary depends on an independence among all branches of the government! The executive branch will fulfill it's constitutional duty by nominating a candidate, and then the Senate must be left free to confirm that executive nomination. Unfortunately, when I see the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Frist, all I see is King George's puppet dancing on the puppeteer's strings. Since when does the legislative branch have to follow the agenda of the executive branch?
Only time will tell...
King George really doesn't have a choice but to nominate a woman to fill Justice O'Connor's vacancy. Albeit, this will be a messy confirmation hearing in the Senate, considering all of the federal appellate court confirmations in recent months.
Even so, we must remember that an independent judiciary depends on an independence among all branches of the government! The executive branch will fulfill it's constitutional duty by nominating a candidate, and then the Senate must be left free to confirm that executive nomination. Unfortunately, when I see the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Frist, all I see is King George's puppet dancing on the puppeteer's strings. Since when does the legislative branch have to follow the agenda of the executive branch?
Only time will tell...
Friday, July 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)