October 12, 2006

• Keep applying pressure, and eventually you'll make a mark

  The Following is dedicated to the oh-so impatient Gopher...

   On October 2nd, 2006, I went to City Council and gave my follow up speech to the first address just two weeks prior: (The following is in original text and isn't exactly as spoken since there was some minor grammatical changes)

  "Members of Council,

    I come again before you tonight not only repeat my heartfelt request that you draft a resolution to urge the officeholders of the 12^th and 18^th Congressional Districts to support H.Res.635, but to also back my case up with the first of many arguments in favor thereof.

   

   First, I want to reply to some of the comments made in response to my last attempt to urge your immediate action:

   

   Mrs. Kennedy and Mr. Rhodes expressed their shared beliefs that this council wasn’t the proper stage to urge such action, as well as starting a “citizen’s petition” in favor of my cause. Responding first to the remarks about a petition; as you should know, I did launch a petition that targeted citizens of Newark, and received at least 50 signatures in my favor.

   

   I will have you know, that I (am/have) creat(ing/ed) a petition which will target a much larger audience centered within the entire 12^th and 18^th Congressional Districts.

   

   On the other hand – regarding my choosing this council as a stage to demand action - you ask why, but I ask why not? As a private citizen, I can not speak before Congress or the General Assembly, unless I was invited by a member of either legislative body. However, the local government is the best arena for citizens to speak out against government actions or to demand action for any level, thereof.

   

   I’ve already laid out the facts for this council regarding the numerous other local level governments across the nation that have considered and passed resolutions demanding immediate congressional action. Have there been failures? Yes. Less than half of all the local level resolutions have been shot down, but at least there was an attempt to take action.

   

   Mr. Diebold – in a respective manner – told me to be aware of the fact that only the people have the answers. I know that, otherwise, this wouldn’t be a Republic. He also said that this issue really didn’t belong in this council because it was way too divisive of an issue, especially since it regards a matter that is mostly out of the hands of Local Government.

   

   Now, I want to let it be known that I have grown to respect Mr. Diebold for his kindness to me and my family, along with his kind words regarding my cause, but I respectfully disagree on his reasoning for not wanting to take part in this debate. This council seems to be reluctant to even consider my proposals because it is “far too divisive”, but we must all remember that not everything can be unanimous. Otherwise, this would be a dictatorship, not a Democratic-Republic.

   

   On second note, this issue isn’t as far-fetched as many of you think. I want you to use your imagination for a moment to draw out the following scenario:

   

   Imagine that you are a congressman, and you are getting numerous requests for action on a certain subject. On one hand, a single petition circulator has sent you a letter with an online petition enclosed. Within that petition, a few hundred or thousand of your constituents signed – again online – in support of this proposal. On the other hand, a city council or town hall has passed a resolution in favor of the same proposal urging your immediate support. Now, which do you take more seriously? The petition that was created online, and circulated by a lone activist to thousands of your constituents via email or numerous other forms of communication, or the local level resolution that was passed by a number of people that were elected to office by the people, just like you?

   

   Get my point? Moving on; first on my agenda in defending my case is the accusation I made regarding Mr. Bush’s violation of over 750 laws. Before George took the oval office, the so-called presidential signing statement was only used by presidents a combined total of under 700 times. That’s including most of the presidents in the 20^th Century.

   

   Even after – now Supreme Court Associate Justice - Samuel Alito wrote a legal memo -when he was in the Reagan Administration – that defended a President’s so-called inherent right to interpret laws that he/she was signing with a “signing statement”, Reagan, the First Bush and Clinton all chose to use vetoes instead of the statement to express any disagreement with the bill they were signing.

   

   George W. Bush has the record as the first occupant of the white house to withhold a veto as long as he did since Thomas Jefferson. His only veto was this past summer; otherwise - according to the Boston Globe – he has chosen to use the signing statement as a way to express his strong opposition to certain language in a bill’s provision and – in effect – changing the law by his own interpretation of how it should be enforced.

   

   By signing every bill that came across his desk – followed by a signing statement that laid out his desires of how the bill should become law – Bush has been able to strip Congress of its duty and authority to keep him in check by overriding a veto. Allow me to once again read from the United States Constitution:

   

   Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

   

   Article I, Section 7: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it….(It Goes on to say)… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

   

   Article II, Section 1: “…Before (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

   

   And finally, Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. - The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

   What is so important about the preceding samples from the single most important document in this nation’s existence? First off, it gives sole law making power of the federal government to CONGRESS and Congress alone. Second of all, it states that if the occupant of the oval office should disagree with anything in a bill that has been passed by both houses of Congress then he should VETO it to allow Congress to reconsider the bill.

   Furthermore, it shows that as the head of state, he/she is bound by oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution and all laws and treaties that are protected by this document. Every law that is passed by Congress and signed by the President – or even passed by a veto override – is immediately the law of the land unless it contradicts the Constitution.

   There is NO EXCEPTION in the Constitution – and you can read it for yourself – that says “by the way, if he/she should disagree with a bill’s provision and doesn’t want a veto override, then they can just rule that provision as unconstitutional in a short statement.”

   Allow me to briefly share with you some of the provisions that Bush has chosen to override on his own:

   From the Boston Globe’s report on April 30^th;

   “Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research….

   

   Bush…has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

   

   Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

   

   For the first five years of Bush's presidency, his legal claims attracted little attention in Congress or the media. Then, twice in recent months, Bush drew scrutiny after challenging new laws: a torture ban and a requirement that he give detailed reports to Congress about how he is using the Patriot Act.

   

   In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.

   

   Many of the laws Bush said he can bypass -- including the torture ban -- involve the military.

   

   Bush says he can ignore any act of Congress that seeks to regulate the military. (Contrary to constitutional law)

   

   On at least four occasions while Bush has been president, Congress has passed laws forbidding US troops from engaging in combat in Colombia, where the US military is advising the government in its struggle against narcotics-funded Marxist rebels.

   

   After signing each bill, Bush declared in his signing statement that he did not have to obey any of the Colombia restrictions because he is commander in chief.

   

   Bush has also said he can bypass laws requiring him to tell Congress before diverting money from an authorized program in order to start a secret operation, such as the ''black sites" where suspected terrorists are secretly imprisoned.

   

   (On two occasions where Congress passed laws) forbidding the military from using intelligence that was not ''lawfully collected," including any information on Americans that was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches. - On both occasions, Bush declared in signing statements that only he, as commander in chief, could decide whether such intelligence can be used by the military.”

   

   When President Clinton was in office, he used the “line item veto” to eliminate provisions of certain bills passed by the Republican Congress before he signed them into law. However, the Supreme Court would later rule that this power was unconstitutional because it gave far too much power to one branch of government. With no consistent system of checks and balances, a Democratic-Republic will fall into a dictatorship.

   

   The Supreme Court was right to strip Clinton of his line item veto, just as Bush is breaking the law every time he uses his “signing statement” to overrule a provision that was voted on and passed by concurring houses of Congress.

   

   In school, you learn the roles of each branch of government. The Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive Branch enforces the laws and the Judicial Branch interprets the laws. There is NO sharing of duties. Each branch is designed to keep the other two in check to protect the constitution, and the people from an overzealous government.

   

   If Bush is permitted to continue using the Signing Statement – as he has - without recourse, then there might as well be no Legislative Branch. The Congress will have no reason to exist, as the Executive Branch will have inherited the authority to do whatever it pleases as long as it fits their interpretation of constitutional law. In fact, Congress will have taken on the role as the lapdog of the Executive Branch with the chief role of doing the bidding of the Chief Executive or be silenced by the almighty “statement”.

   

   The American rule of law is the most important foundation which holds our rights in place, but if the Head of State, that has the rule of Chief Law Enforcer has no respect for the law, and makes the law as he goes, then the rule of law is no more.

   

   Before I close, let me quote Thomas Jefferson:

   

   “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

   

   Just ponder those words. Thank you."

   

   After the Council dealt with pending legislation, they would soon reply to my presentation:

   

  Minority Leader/Councilman Rauch (D): Expressed that he still didn't think that the local government for Newark, Ohio was the proper stage for such a debate. He stated that although he felt taking on such a task would be "fun", the council is "nuts and bolts" for local issues only. This one is going to be difficult to convince, because he closed by saying that we should use the upcoming election as a way to send a message to BOOsh and possibly Congress. What if we DON'T regain control of Congress?

   

  Majority Leader/Councilman Rhodes (R): Strongly agrees with Rauch.....how disappointing. After the meeting was adjourned, he approached me and gave advice for how to start a petition to put an initiative on the ballot. Like I'm going to start a new petition and wait a whole year until it could take effect, I want action now, nut 13 Months from now!!!

   

  Councilwoman Kennedy (D): She said that she wanted to talk to me in private. Irene told me that she didn't understand exactly what it was I wanted the Council to do. She kept trying to get me to give this all up and merely use the opportunity to address council as a way of asking people in attendance to sing a new citizen's petition. She hinted that she thinks this is some sort of a publicity stunt...argh.  I have it planned to directly reply to that, that insulted me. She claimed that the only reason those other Local Governments only took the issue up because they were in "good areas". Then, in closing, Mrs. Kennedy did her best to get me to make a deal where I would bring in the petition and just ask people to sign. I agreed...to bring a petition in, not to shut up. I guess the most insulting part of this whole encounter was when she stated that "anything not in the Council's mandate CAN NOT BE DONE."

   

  So, I decided to investigate the statement regarding mandated and "non-mandated" resolutions.

   

  My Email to City Council President Marc Guthrie:

   

  "After the meeting last night, Mrs. Kennedy privately expressed to me that if something isn't a part of the Council's mandate (like the resolution that I'm requesting), then it "can't be done". Those are her exact words. I was just wanting to confirm with you whether or not that was true.

   

  I honestly don't think it is, especially since local governments across the country have done what I'm requesting, combined with the fact that you have even told members of council that they can take up the legislation that I'm requesting if they want.

   

  I was just wanting to know if there are any ethics laws or other rules that may prohibit City Council from taking action on this issue.

   

  By the way, I plan on sending the references/links to the information I used last night to each and every member of council before the end of the day.

   

  Hope to hear from you soon."

   

  Guthrie's Response:

   

  "Daniel, to my knowledge there is nothing in Ohio law, which prohibits city councils from passing resolutions similar to the one we had on our agenda last night in support of the park levy. 

   

  Most members are simply trying to avoid a partisan conflict, knowing that the Republicans will not allow a resolution, such as you have propose to be approved.  I will admit that council seldom passes legislation that does not pertain to city government.  I lad a difficult time last year getting them to approve a resolution opposing cuts to the local government fund, which directly impacted our city.

   

  You saw last night how partisan that it got, simply because I was trying to prevent Mr. Marmie from crossing the ethics line; the display was ridiculous and my fellow Democrats voted with the Republicans to overrule my ruling, which was based on Ohio's ethics laws.

   

  Mr. Rhodes, the majority leader advised me that they would not allow a resolution regarding Bush to come to council floor.

   

  I don't know what to tell you Daniel.  You are welcome to keep speaking at council meetings on the subject; however, it likely will not result in what you wish to achieve."

   

  Me:

   

  "I'm well aware of the challenge at hand. You have provided me with the information I needed to prepare for the 16th. I assure you, that I will keep coming to council, and even if I am the ONLY American that is demanding such action, I will continue to fight tooth and nail. To be honest, I figured that the "avoiding partisan conflict" scenario was the issue, but just wanted to make sure.

   

  I honestly think that it is sad, pathetic, and hilarious at the same time that the Republicans on Council are so reluctant to bring this issue to a vote. It shows a cowardice on their part. I will once again underline just how important this is to me; it is a defining issue of true patriotism.

   

  When a public servant can forget about partisanship for one second to do what is right in defense of our nation's most treasured document, as well as the equal rights of every individual - protected by that document - then the official in question shows that the overall importance of honoring the supreme law of the land means more than doing the bidding of one's party.

   

  As I told Mrs. Kennedy last night, I am going to contact the Federal and State Government about this issue as well. I'm seeking an endorsement from our Club (LCDC) in favor of Bush's Impeachment, and - as I have mentioned to council before - am listening/waiting for the state and national Democratic Parties to take similar action as well.

   

  The effort to avoid "partisanship" is because of partisanship itself. The republicans are so willing to block a mere investigation for politics and - probably - out of fear of what such and investigation might uncover. Democrats on Council seem to be afraid of looking too radical, and instead preach "we must stay focused on local issues." It all sounds the same to me. I expected this, and will continue to humiliate myself every meeting until one of the three dates that I mentioned have passed."

   

  Guthrie:

   

  "Thanks Daniel.  I've simply tried to be honest with you that the votes are not there. 

   

  I will continue to respect your right to speak before council; however, I feel that they will likely pressure me to cut you short at some point if they feel you are continuing to raise the same subject.

   

  I encourage you not to take exception to individual council members by name, because the precedence set by council is that I can not allow you to do so."

   

  Me:

   

  "Ok, thanks for the warning and advice"

   

   I then sent an email to the Licking County Democratic Club, requesting permission to address the club and request their immediate endorsement of H.Res. 635 or any other Congressional Action that leads to the Impeachment of BOOsh and others...

   

  Club President Cary Rader's response:

   

  "Dear Daniel,

  
  

  I am sorry, but the bylaws of the Licking County Democratic Club and Laws 

  governing the kind of PAC we are do not allow us to endorse issues, only 

  candidates.  Right now, just before the election, we want to concentrate on 

  the mechanics of getting our people elected.  As justified as you may feel 

  that Bush-Cheney should be impeached, I think right now we need to 

  concentrate on getting a Democratic congress elected so they can make

  the last two years of the Bush administration completely ineffective.  They 

  will have the subpoena to investigate effectively, and if justified, create a 

  groundswell for impeachment.  

  
  

  Cary Rader"

   

  My response to him:

   

  "Mr. Rader,

   

  I've come to respect you in the past, but the bylaws are in contradiction to what the Club has done in the past. Have you forgotten that in October 2005, the Licking County Democratic Club endorsed Issues 1-5 at the request of Marc Guthrie? The cowardice of the National, State, and apparently the Local Democratic Parties in taking a stance on the issue of Impeachment by endorsing this constitutionally mandated duty to keep the Judicial and Executive Branches in check (as well as keeping the system of Check and Balances intact) has been completely revealed in all its glory.

   

  It is evident to me that the leadership of the ENTIRE Democratic Party (at all levels) cares not about protecting this Democratic-Republic from becoming an Aristocratic, Fascist Dictatorship. They cower from endorsing or even mere saying "impeach" because they fear losing their chance at gaining more power.

   

  I don't want to make Mr. Bush's last two years in office INEFFECTIVE, I want to ensure that we won't have to make his tenure ineffective. Why should we have to sit here, whining and complaining about how bad it is, when we don't look at all possible remedies to the problem? Am I advocating impeaching and removing all presidents that don't reflect our political ideals? Hell no. That's an abuse of power, and is a mockery of the congressional duties that were laid out before us by our forefathers.

   

  What I am demanding, is that Congress do its job when it has to. That means, whenever someone in the Judiciary or the Executive Branch qualifies for impeachment; they better be on top of it. Does the legal system take a break from trying murderers and thieves just because they are tried back to back, day after day? No, neither should Congress in this situation.

   

  It's this cowardice in holding officials accountable that has led to the degradation of our society, and it is the greed of both parties that will eventually lead to the downfall of this so-called Democratic-Republic. I'm so very disappointed right now.

   

  In December, at the last meeting of the year, I'll attempt one more time to gain permission to speak to the club and to get the club's endorsement for Congressional action that could resolve this Nation-wide CRISIS. If the Club again fails, not only to allow me to bring the issue up, but also to even endorse it; I will NOT renew my membership for 2007.

   

  To think, I was merely checking my e-mail to apologize for either not showing up or being late because I couldn't find an umbrella. Now, I'm sorry to say that I will not show up to the meeting simply because of this pathetic political excuse. Right now, I hold the image of the Local party no higher than I do for the two traitorous candidates for the Senate (Dewine and Brown).

   

  I'll see you later..."

   

   I guess we'll just have to wait and see how things turn out this upcoming Monday...

   

   (In other news....)

   

   Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has implied that Repugs in the House were right not to act on the knowledge they had of the Foley-Page Scandal because they would’ve been accused of “gay bashing”. Bulls**t!! This wasn’t a matter of two males involved in some private romance, it was a matter of a supposedly responsible adult taking advantage of a naïve and curious underage male, plain and simple. Anyone involved in this, that had knowledge of these communications for a while and didn’t act until now (no matter what party they are from) are equally responsible and should all be held to account!!

   

   Some Right-wingers are actually trying to blame this scandal on the under-aged pages, the following are from a number of clips on the Matt Drudge Radio Show: “(these 16 and 17 year-old beasts) are less innocent…Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth?  The kids are egging the Congressman on!  The kids are trying to get this out of him. - These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth….they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend…all these things and these "innocent children."  And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any.” So, we are to blame the teens, who took advantage of a poor, old, impressionable, 50+ year old Congressman? That’s just pathetic. Maybe it’s a sign that more hard-lined, strong spirited (meaning not so easily tempted by greed and lust) politicians are needed for a less corrupt Congress.

   

   The people at Fox News have become so desperate in the wake of the Foley scandal that they have brought up their favorite scandal of Democrat’s past in their defense; Monica Lewinsky. These people are obsessed with pointing fingers at Clinton EVERYTIME they are in political trouble, it’s just pathetic. Sean Hannity recently claimed that Lewinsky “was a teenager” at age 19 when she and Clinton were involved in that scandal. The fact is that she was 22!! (Born July 23, 1973 and met Clinton in 1995) I can’t express how much I honestly hate the right-wing…It is just sad to see all of these right-wingers in the media doing all they can to point the fingers at the Democrats when their side of the spectrum seems to have messed in their pants!!

   

   Something very disturbing regarding the Foley Scandal has recently been uncovered, it is very possible that the Republican controlled House has done everything they can to cover up Foley’s taste for underage pages since 1995!! That’s right, the year they were sworn in to control Congress, their cover up began. Possibly to prevent any possible backlash and return to Democratic Control. I think a review of the “Contract with America” is needed to look for anything in fine print that says the Repugs – when control was gained – would do all they could to spend millions, even billions on investigating Democratic Scandals, and would do all they could to protect their own from such scrutiny. A decade of Congressional pedophilia, that’s what America got when it handed the Repugs control of Congress in the 1994 Mid-term elections!!

   

   This whole Foley fiasco had unveiled the worst in the Repugs, as well as their fundie supporters of the Ultra-right Wing. James Dobson – leader of Focus on the Family – has come out defending Foley and taking a page out of Savage’s book by blaming the impressionable for forcing themselves upon a helpless old man!! HOW DARE THEY?!!!

   

   Lord Cheney tells a group of followers that a Repug Controlled Congress is needed to help empower the Dictator’s agenda. Hey, Cheney, that’s exactly why people are supporting the Democrats by a large margin this year (or so the polls say)!!

   

   In a Repug attempt to drag a Democratic challenger’s image down, the plan backfired, when the Repug candidate for Congress in Florida sent a “doctored” picture of a Hustler Magazine cover to criticize the Dem for the support of Larry Flynt. A very concerned mother reacted in very serious form by insisting that such smut never be sent to her email ever again!! How sad is that?

   

   A new scandal is underway, it appears that Fox News has a plan with regards to reporting polls; If Repugs are down in the polls, just switch the party labels around to make it seem like the party is doing well. Such was the case when they reported the recent poll in the Rhode Island Senate race between Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (R) and his opponent Whitehouse (D)…so funny and sad that it makes me crack up with a few tears in my eyes…lol.

   

   Wouldn’t you love to send your kids to a school in an area where teachers and other staff members tote guns? One Repug has suggested that allowing teachers to carry guns in public schools would deter crime in schools…wtf? Talk about scaring the hell out of some students, what if the gun accidentally goes off, are you prepared to sit there and justify the loss of an innocent student with “guns in school are absolutely necessary”? Sick ass people…

   

   What is the Repug solution to the rising insurgency in Afghanistan? Restore governmental relations with the group of people we kicked out of power in November 2001!! That’s right, Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist has proposed that we bring the Taliban back into the Afghan political fray to restore peace. That’s definitely not the way!! So – based on that logic – I suppose the only way to restore peace in Iraq is to bring Saddam and his people back to the political limelight in that country.

   

   The best way to bring peace is to follow a simple step plan: ensure the people of both countries that we will NOT have permanent bases, (affirm this with Congressional resolutions, officially making it US Law) urge the United Nations to get more involved with the effort, and as more peacekeepers come in, bring more US troops home (until every country involved has an equal or near-to amount of troops on the ground, or until all US troops are home) then use all possible resources to help rebuild the infrastructure (basic services; schools, water, electricity, gas, trash, etc.), create more and more jobs, and eventually hand control back to the Iraqi and Afghan Governments. With their infrastructure intact, and good paying jobs available, people are least likely to be suffering. Without the suspicion of imperial aspirations, the people are less likely to complain about foreign involvement in their affairs…with these two things combined; the terrorists are least likely to find new recruits on these fronts.

   

   The new Bob Woodward book “State of Denial” has put BOOsh and company under the hot light (reportedly causing BOOsh to fume over the factor that some of his underlings aren’t as loyal as the animals he used to torture), especially with a revelation that former CIA Director George Tenet briefed Condi Rice – who then reportedly passed the info to “others” within the regime - on 7/10/01 regarding the imminent threat posed by al-Qaeda. Of course, Rice has denied that the meeting ever took place, but recently uncovered White House records have confirmed the reports; and the Dictator strikes out again with regards to defending this great nation from our enemies!!

   

   Our country is really in bad condition when some soldiers are openly bragging about abusing detainees!! It seems to be all fun and games for these tough guys as long as BOOsh says it’s ok. Hell with the passage of H.R. 6166 (War Commissions Act, the Torture Bill), Habeas Corpus, the Sixth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution are as good as used toilet paper. Thanks to all the stand up guys in Congress that did their damnedest to ensure the protection of our civil liberties.

   

   It’ s disturbing to know that some people listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, especially when Beck says (with regards to Bush and Nukes): “he's a cowboy, … he's got kind of that nervous twitch to him. And I like our enemies' thinking, "That guy might just push a button.” He then would agree with fellow nutcase in saying that BOOsh needs to be a little bit more like Kim Jong Il (North Korean Dictator). No regard for the suffering of the innocent, just pure chest thumping imperialist/militaristic ignorance…

   

   Can you imagine the fact that we barely have 33 members of the FBI’s Counter-Terrorism that know Arabic? It’s truly pathetic and is a sign of BOOsh’s failure to better fund this fight against terror. How in the hell can we fight terrorists if most of them speak Arabic, and so few of our guys here at home on the defense can translate? Make sense? Thought not.

   

   If you think that a free press matters to Pax Americana; think again. Fact of the matter is this, Insurgents kill members of the press, Imperial Troops hold them in jail, and now the Iraqi Bitch Government is cracking down on any media that is critical of public officials…”Got Democracy?”

   

   Do you remember the “Mission Accomplished” sign that BOOsh and Company claims the crew of that ship put up without their knowledge? Well, recently disclosed information has revealed that the BOOsh Regime lied about why that sign was hanging up. It is apparent that “Mission Accomplished” wasn’t only a sign that the Regime wanted to be visible on May 1^st, 2003, but the phrase itself was originally in the speech that BOOsh planned to give on the ship!! I guess Rums-failed failed at making sure the sign was removed before BOOsh arrived; so, they conceived their plan to blame it all on the crew that isn’t even permitted – by oath – to rebut such a claim….pathetic.

   

   Responding to a question regarding a recent report that says over 600,000 Iraqis have been slaughtered by the War in Iraq, BOOsh said the following: “I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to…you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.” They don’t tolerate the violence, they are FORCED to live with it daily because of your incompetence, because of your ignorance, because of this global quest to establish “peace through American rule” (Pax Americana), it is empire, not the will to “tolerate violence” that has killed so many in this endless war…willful ignorance is indeed a plague.

   

   How does at least four more years in Iraq sound to you? That’s what the pentagon is planning, just imagine, four more years of death, destruction and deficits!! Yay!!

   

   In the wake of North Korea’s nuclear test, it appears that the DPRK’s troops along the Demilitarized Zone are trying to test the anger of their South Korean counterparts. Are they trying to provoke something? These guys have even reportedly been making throat slash hand gestures. I hope I’m wrong, but is it possible that these soldiers know something else that we don’t? Is their government planning another surprise? Pray that this is wrong.

  Tonight's Conclusion

   I hope that I made one boy's dreams come true...

   My head is pounding, and I have my eye on the prize... just four days from today...

   Stay tuned...

  TAKE CARE AND GOD BLESS

  • 7:28 pm
  • 4 Comments