Friday - Sunday, January 20-22, 2006
GOP IS Jack Abramoff - A Quote in the Lead
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him,"
-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, regarding Jack Abramoff, a "Bush Pioneer", from Time Magazine
"The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed."
Bush has been caught in yet another lie. He knows Abramoff all too well both in the White House and as Texas governor. That is why the White House was so aggressive about spinning the Abramoff situation as a bipartisan issue. From what I read, Abramoff charged clients up to $25,000 to arrange lunches with Bush at the White House.
-Forwarded and Commented by Robert Scardapane
(A "Bush Pioneer" is someone who personally had raised in excess of $100,000 for Bush-Cheney 2004. -NG)
The GOP IS Jack Abramoff - Another Quote, Up Second
"I would say if he asked me to step down that he'd better look in the mirror because glass houses break easily."
-Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH), replying to Ohio Republican Chairman Bob Bennett who said that he'd ask Rep. Ney to resign from Congress if he were indicted on felony charges
I love it when the crooks hammer each other. That 's a good plan - all of the Rethuglicans paid directly by Abramoff should step down! Fergy (Mike Ferguson [R-NJ] - destiny is calling you, listen carefully.
The GOP IS Jack Abramoff - And Yet Naother Quote, Up Third
Senator Conrad "Burns (R-Montana) was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the money Abramoff lavished on Capitol Hill - a connection some say could make the third-term lawmaker one of the Senate's most vulnerable incumbents come Election Day."
-Matt Gouras, an Associated Press writer, as taken from his article "Sen. Burns Can't Escape Abramoff's Shadow"
Montana, a Red State that many believe is Blue on the inside will have its mettle tested come this November. It has recently elected a Democratic governor and now has the opportunity to say to themselves and the rest of the country that "We don't elect crooks." We'll just have to see. Remember, although in 1999 Burns called all Arabs "Ragheads" and asked a woman with a nose ring "What tribe are you from?". He was still re-elected by the "Big Sky State" faithful in 2000.
Maybe racism, bigotry, an aversion to women's rights and bribery are "okay" with some Right-Wingers, but I have more confidence in the people of Montana than that.
-Noah Greenberg, from a forward by Jenny Hanniver
The Misplaced State
Free or Die" to "If You're Pregnant, a Teenager and Sick, Just Die"
By now we all know the US Supreme Court decision that was no decision at all. The New Hampshire state legislature had passed a law that required doctors to notify the parents of any under-aged woman who asked for an abortion after a two-day waiting period. The problem with the law, according to the Supreme Court, is that it doesn't take into account the health of the woman. As the law is written, if a young, pregnant woman, even one of 17 years and 364 days, were rushed to Concord (NH) Hospital's Emergency Room needing an emergency procedure to save her life, that would result in the loss of her fetus, she would simply have to wait for the life-saving procedure.
In other words, the New Hampshire law judges the life of the fetus to be of more importance than the mother, regardless of any other circumstances.
Although originally the US Supreme Court shot down the law due to its lack of an emergency provision, it revisited its earlier decision telling the lower courts (the Federal District Court in Concord, N.H., and then the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston) that they should revise their decision and, basically, re-write the law to include an emergency provision.
"We try to limit the solution to the problem,"
-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, for the US Supreme Court's majority
Now I know that the Right to Life side is claiming this decision as a victory for their side, because any law that opposes any woman's right to choose, to them, is a good law. Similarly, I know that the Right to Choose side, my side, claims it as a victory as well due to statements like this:
"We're very happy that the court reaffirmed the need for a medical emergency exception." It "tells politicians that they can't jeopardize women's health,"
-Jennifer Dalven, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued the case for the plaintiffs in theUS Supreme Court
Maybe they're both right, somehow, but I don't think so.
Here is my take on the US Supreme Court's decision: It, in itself, is a violation of the US Constitution. Yeah, yeah... I know I'm no Constitutional lawyer or scholar... In fact, I'm not a lawyer or scholar at all. But I do know one thing, and that is this: It is the job of our courts not to write law but to interpret and decide the constitutionality of the laws written by our representatives. Just how can our justices send a law that is unconstitutional back to the lower courts to have them strike down one single part of that law? Even the president doesn't have the kind of line-item veto power that the Supreme Court seemingly is empowering the lower courts with. (It's a good thing too, because GW Bush would make it a word- or letter-item veto power and strike out words like "NOT" from "WILL NOT" - Such as, "The president 'WILL NOT' abuse his Constitutional powers" would become "The president 'WILL' abuse his Constitutional powers.")
There is no "gray-area" when it comes to laws. They are written to eliminate confusion, not add to it. You can't tell a judge, or a panel of judges, to strike down a part of a law because it changes the whole law. Imagine telling jurists to go through all of our laws, and re-write them as they see fit.
I thought it was the job of our elected representatives to write the laws of our land. Just when did our judges start writing and re-writing laws? This Republican-Conservative Court, which is about to become more Republican and more Conservative has ordered the lower court to do just that.
A law is a law. If part of it is unconstitutional, then the whole law needs to be thrown out. Again, for good or for bad, the only ones who can re-write it (or write a newer, better law) are our elected officials. We're not open to activist judges pronouncing THEIR laws to be OUR laws of the land.
The federal courts are now more than ever, activist courts. And it appears that is just how President "G"lobal "W"arming Bush likes it.
A Good Reason to Make Some Noise
History Repeating Itself
"In large cities and small towns all across the country, join in rallies
one hour before Bush’s address as we make our determination to 'Drive
Out the Bush Regime' the political message of the
"At 9:00 PM EST (January 31, 2006 - The State of the Union Address), just as Bush starts to speak, everywhere we will BRING THE NOISE. In a cacophony of sound, we will drown out his address with music: from drums to violins, from hip hop and classical; and with noise: banging pots and ringing church bells, sound car horns and lifting our voices."
-Forwarded by Jenny Hanniver
Just as in the Jewish holiday of Purim, which celebrates a time when the Jews of Persia were saved from extermination, we now have own own very own Haman in the guise of President Bush. During Purim services, whenever the name Haman is mentioned, all are encouraged to make noise to "drown out his name". (Haman was the devious and murderous advisor to King Ahasuerus, the King of Prussia, who desire was to have all of the Jews in Prussia exterminated. For more information on Purim, I recommend: http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday9.htm)
Maybe this day will become the American middle class' modern day "Purim", or our "Purim Katan": A day that we will commemorate as the day we were saved from catastrophe.
Remember, when Esther revealed Haman's plot to the King at her cousin, Mordechi's, urging, Haman was hanged for his deeds.
(Speaking of Presidential advisors, does anyone know where Karl "The Traitor" Rove is?)
BUSH SPIED - BUSH LIED - BUSH MUST BE SET ASIDE.
In response to, "This does not mean that I am comfortable with a nuclear armed Iran. In fact, I would be comfortable only if no nation has a nuclear weapon. But, Americans need to realize that our policy has unintended effects - blow back if you will. The first step in calming this situation down is to get out of Iraq. Next, there must be a well coordinated diplomatic effort to get Iran to comply with the IAEA and not enrich uranium themselves. They don't need to do that to utilize nuclear power. They could buy the fuel rods from a nation such as Russia. Please note that there is no immediate crisis - despite what Bush wants us to believe. Iran is several years, perhaps as much as five, away from a nuclear weapon," Rhian writes:
In a not so recent Star Trek movie with all the original actors, only older, a great evil threat appeared out of the cosmos, entering the skies of planet earth and destruction was imminent because communication could not be established with, of all things, whales.
Whales in this future, which Jim, Spock and 'dammit Jim I'm just a doctor' Bones, had traveled back to, to save the earth, were extinct. With more time travel, with the Starship Enterprise refitted as a giant aquarium, whales from a more distant past were brought into the future, dumped into the oceans, communication was established with the lurking cosmic evil, and the earth was once again, saved.
Most of the movie time was taken up by the event and thought process of Jim, Spock and Bones, which resulted in the the realization that the cosmic threat was not about the humans, but about the whales. The cosmic threat of destruction was not evil, it was just big and wanted to establish communication with whales.
In reality, on earth today, at present, I can't help but notice the same scenario being played out by the US, Islam and Israel. Do I really need to point out that the whales are being played by Israel, the Starship enterprise would be the US, and Islam the extinction?
No matter how destructively or constructively the US interjects itself into the middle east, the real war is between Israel and Islam. No matter how ably the Bush administration uses the war between Israel and Islam to destablize the Americans, in order to attempt to establish a one world government, the main event, stage one, is not the Americans.
The point of view of the Iranians, and every other flavor of Islamists, is so simple and so barbaric and so evil that most Americans cannot even comprehend it. WASP Americans operate in a divided state of mind. Seperation of church and state. Seperation of personal and professional, seperation of powers, seperation of logic and emotion, etc. They are unique among humankind in the history of humankind. No other race/culture operates, nor understands this typical American modus operandi.
Picture for a moment, your mind (if you are mainstream American) without the divisions, and while you are at it, throw out logic entirely, because it cannot begin to function in conjunction with emotion. If you can do that, you are at the starting point, of being able to asses the Iranian point of view, or Iraqi point of view. To take the next step, put yourself under the yoke of Islam, from birth, where there are no words for tolerance, for cooperation, for kindness, nor for forgiveness. Not between mother and child, not between husband and wife, not between those at work. Everything is the demand of Islam. What you pray about, how you pray, the fact that you must pray on a schedule, with certain accouterments.
What you wear, the hand you use to eat, your hygiene (or lack thereof), your marriage arrangement, the punishment you mete to your fellow man or woman, the rituals of life, of barbarism, all, all and all are the demand of Islam. The expectations of your ancesters, your offspring, your Imam, your reward in heaven (40 virgins is it, or 72) is all the product of Islamic teaching.
You have one enemy. The enemy has been the same for nearly 3000 years of generations.
It is Israel. Your goal is not to be clean, for forgive, to have a nice house, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is no safety in free agency. The only safety is in Islam, because there, everyone is controlled by the same dogma. It is dirty, and it is barbaric, but it is the same and always has been the same and always will be the same, (you think) so it is safe.
Because Israel is different, it is wrong. Because Christianity is different, it is wrong.
Choice is to be feared. Freedom is evil. Threatening. Any individual who is different is wrong and should be killed for everyone to be safe, in Islam.
The people in other countries develop interesting tools, to use to accomplish the eradication of everyone but those of Islam. It's okay to use those tools. It's okay to entice those people, whom you secretly hate, to trade or give their tools to you, if those tools will help you to Islamitize the entire world. It's okay to lie, to accomplish the main objective also, which objective is to kill or convert everyone in the world to Islam.
This is the viewpoint of an Iranian, or an Iraqi, or a Saudi, or anyone, anywhere in the world, who is Muslim. No subterfuge, confusion, lie, doubledeal, doublecross, bomb, mutilation or indiginity is too low to stoop too, to accomplish the goal of Islam, which is to eradicate everything in the world not of Islam. Their best lie, is 'we are a people of peace.'
Knowing this, what everyone in the world better consider, is how to conquor Islam, and the first best line of a good offense is to 'know the enemy.' If American thought process is ascribed to the leadership of Islam, whether they are insurgents or not, Iranians or not, Iraqis or not, the Americans lose.
Nevermind democracy in the middle east. Muslims only see that effort as a tool to be used against anyone they can. What we should be worried about is containment of Islam, and eradication of Islam among free societies.
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org