Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Subliminal Flags?

9-11 and the Twin Towers?

I came across an interesting thread at DU about the subliminal reference depicted in the flags behind Bush in his recent speech.
[snip...]Each of the flags spell out 911 it is totally subliminal, start with the small flags first. The top portion of the 9 is the area of the stars. These people are sick![snip...]

It's not as easy to see in the big flags, but stands out clearly in the smaller ones. The flag has also been cropped to achieve this effect. There are also only eight stripes when there should be thirteen and they choose to use a reversed image then rotaed it.

It's also been thrown around that the two large flags represent the Twin Towers. Another person pointed out that there appears to be an image of a person (possibly depicting Christ) in the upper right corner - Look at the top of the last full white stripe.

And what I don't really get, is what's with the image of the Moon. Bush has been promising us the Moon, and I don't just mean this sarcastically since he wants to take NASA on a mission to the moon. I think the whole Moon thing and his ambition to undertake another mission to the Moon is more of a publicity stunt in order to drum up that long-ago sense of patriotism and unity that America had when it first put a person on the Moon, and damn if they don't look like happy faces.

Monday, June 27, 2005

"Don't Call Me Crazy On The 4th Of July"

I came across an interesting post at the GNN.TV forum which linked to a video titled, "Don't Call Me Crazy On The 4th OF July."

The video and site chronicle the story of Bob Lansberry and details the history of U.S. mind control experiments and asks the question; Does silent radio control your mind?

And an even more interesting question which Lansberry asks; Why can't I get my mail? - Was he just a crazy man claiming that the government was keeping his mail? You'll be surprised when you find out the answer to that question.

As control of the media seems to be at the forefront of the government's drive to manipulate and control the thinking and opinions of the general population, one has to ask; Have they given up on a direct application of mind control or is this just the next evolutionary step of those experiments?

Website: Click Here
Video: Click Here

Sunday, June 26, 2005

A much needed forum

I just came across a great new blog, Taking The Fight To Karl -American Service Men and Women Mad at Karl Rove

It's a much needed forum in the Blogsphere, representing the views of current and former members of the U.S. Armed Forces that are mad as hell at Rove for his recent comments and the Bush Administration's defense of them.

I croped and re-sized their graphic and added it to my BlogRoll. If you want to use it, please feel free to copy the image and use it in your blog or website.

Right click - Save Picture As

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Bush nominates fox to guard the hen-house

If Bush's former chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney, who once fought on the side of oil companies in efforts against limits on greenhouse gas emissions wasn't bad enough, he's now nominating corporate attorneys that represent chemical companies for high positions at the Environmental Protection Agency.
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has nominated Granta Nakayama, a partner in a law firm whose clients include W.R. Grace, BP, Dow Chemical and DuPont, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's far-flung enforcement division.

Selecting a lawyer and an engineer with one of the nation's largest corporate law firms, whose clients have deep and occasionally controversial relations with the EPA, triggered concerns that Nakayama would not be able to aggressively enforce environmental laws.

Foremost among those concerns is W.R. Grace, which is under federal criminal indictment on charges related to the operation of its vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont. Hundreds of workers and Libby residents contracted lethal asbestos-related disease -- a situation that gained national attention after a Seattle Post-Intelligencer series in 1999.

A follow-up health screening in Libby showed that nearly 2,000 residents of the tiny Montana town have lung abnormalities that could herald asbestos-related disease.

Vermiculite ore from the Libby mine was sent around the country for processing, and asbestos-related disease followed its path. Between 15 million and 35 million homes nationwide have asbestos-tainted vermiculite insulation from Libby in attics and walls.

The trial, which is expected to begin in September, could result in prison sentences against seven current and former Grace executives. The Justice Department alleges that Grace executives knew about asbestos-related dangers in Libby but concealed those dangers from its workers, government regulators and the public.

The EPA has since declared Libby a Superfund site. In a 2003 court decision, Grace was ordered to pay the EPA $54 million in cleanup costs.

Despite the association of law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP with Grace, a spokesman said Nakayama would have no conflict if confirmed for the assistant administrator's position.

"Kirkland & Ellis LLP represents W.R. Grace & Co. in litigation related to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case," said Brian Pitts, a spokesman for Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago "Mr. Granta Nakayama has had no involvement in this matter during his tenure at Kirkland."

Although Nakayama's firm represented W.R. Grace regarding their "Chapter 11 bankruptcy case," I doubt that it is not the only type of representation that they do for their clients. It would be a lot easier for companies to avoid filling chapter 11 if the reasons for it never present themselves, i.e. the EPA fails in its enforcement.
"As the EPA's chief enforcer, Nakayama would be responsible for ensuring that companies, communities and individuals adhere to laws protecting air and water and ensure that waste is properly processed and handled.

In that respect, Nakayama is well qualified. In 10 years with Kirkland & Ellis and as a practicing engineer, he represented companies whose products or services were regulated by the EPA and by state agencies"

Yes, he does have a lot of experience representing companies "whose products or services were regulated by the EPA and by state agencies," but his experience is in defending them against the EPA. That could be a good thing only if he has chosen to defect and go to the other side. Although, given that Bush is all about protecting corporations and loosening rules and enforcement, I doubt very much that this is the case.

SeatlePI:Concerns arise over Bush's pick for EPA job

Friday, June 24, 2005

It was another victory for Corporate America

This has got to be one of the biggest BULLSHIT decisions to ever come out of the Supreme Court. Taking people's property to build private business and claiming that the taxes generated constitute eminent domain doesn't cut it.

What about the profits generated from development and from the businesses? Do the city's get keep that? -Nope. If it was truly eminent domain, the city should take all of that as well.

The scary part is that it was the judges that are considered to be the more liberal one that voted for it. The same thing happened recently concerning medical marijuana, citing "Interstate Commerce" so that the federal government could trump state law.

WASHINGTON - Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

AP: Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Time to Weigh In On a Few Recent Political Issues

Karl Rove - "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." (Video at C&L)

Way to go Karl, when you have nothing to offer in the way of intelligent thought you resort to throwing mud and name-calling. But then again it is the basic tactic of the whole Neo-Con GOP campaign.

In response to Rove's statements, Sen. Harry Reid replied , “Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign."

Sen. John Kerry also went after Rove for his comments and the use of 9-11 to again drive a political wedge between the two parties.

This all followed the Republican outrage over remarks made by Sen. Dick Durbin in which he referred to the treatment of prisoners on par with that of the Nazi's, Pol Pot, or in the Gulags. Durbin finally issued an apology, which was a mistake, only to give the Republicans more ammo to attack the Democrats with.

The response by Republicans to Durbin's remarks was along the lines of -how dare they compare are actions to the actions of those that resulted in the deaths and mistreatment of hundreds of thousands of people and amounted to crimes against humanity.

Well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck. I fail to see where the argument that -we've only killed and tortured a few thousand prisoners, it's not like we've done it to a 1000,000+ (yet), is a valid one. Instead of apologizing for what he said, Durbin should have explained the context and of what he said to those who failed to comprehend it and instead used a twisted sense of logic to mount an attack against him.

I guess Durbin isn't the only one that felt that way towards the current administration and their policies. As an interesting follow-up to Durbin's remarks, I came across the following story.

RawStory: Rachel Lea Hunter - "Candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush’s administration to the “Nazis” and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as 'traitors'."


Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Republicans Burning Up Over Burning The Flag

The House of Representatives have passed a measure that would make it illegal to burn the U.S. flag, at least in this country. A 1989 Supreme Court ruling stated that burning the U.S. flag was protected under the First Amendment, freedom of speech. This isn't the first time the issue has been raised since then, but it may go through this time. It'll be a close one, that's for sure.

Supporters of the Amendment went so far as to speak for the dead, citing what people who died in the attack on the WTC would say.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

It always amazes me when the Republican Neo-Cons use the dead to promote their agenda, as if they would take their side. And why not use them, it's not like they can contradict you ... they're dead.

I hope I never die in a terrorist attack, because then I automatically become a supporter of the Bush Administration and the rightwing Neo-Con agenda. I bet if Cunningham asked the people who died in the WTC, a lot of them would tell him to f#%k off.

Seriously, does Cunningham think that a ban on flag burning would have stopped the WTC attack. Hell, they burned a lot of flags that day and I doubt any law against it would have deterred them in any way.

In a response against the proposed amendment, I think Nadler said it best.
"If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

Sadly this administration and its supporters are all about symbolism and catchy phrases. It's magnetic yellow ribbons on the SUV's and slogans such as "Freedom Is On The March" which drives this group. Yet they fail to realize that those yellow ribbons do more to support the economy of China, which makes them, while freedom is marching down its own Trail of Tears.

AP: House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag Burning

Monday, June 20, 2005

Bolton blocked again, but Bush might pull a fast-one to push him through

Democrats have again blocked Bolton's nomination to the U.N. in a vote that was just six short of going to a final vote.

The White House has continually refused to hand over documents that they have requested, some of which are classified, in order to evaluate whether Bolton is the man for the job.

Bush has stated that, “I think it’s time for the Senate to give him an up-or-down vote. Now.” He has not said if he will circumvent the Senate and appoint Bolton, but he has not ruled it out either.

Given Bush's child-like determination to get his way, and his complete disregard for the due process and the Democrat Minority, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he decides to pull a fast-one and make Bolton a temporary appointment to the U.N., regardless of the concerns in the Legislative Branch.

Senate Democrats Block Bolton Confirmation
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats blocked John Bolton's confirmation as U.N. ambassador for the second time Monday and President Bush left open the possibility of bypassing lawmakers and appointing the tough-talking former State Department official on his own.

The vote was 54-38, six shy of the total needed to force a final vote on Bolton, and represented an erosion in support from last month's failed Republican effort. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who voted in May to advance the nomination, switched positions and urged Bush to consider another candidate, while only three Democrats crossed party lines.

Click here to read the full article.

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Bush Again Spouting BULLSHIT About The War In Iraq

Bush claims that America was forced into the war because of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

In the recent radio address to the nation, Bush states that "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," referring to why we went into Iraq.

Even though none of those involved in 9-11 were from Iraq and it has been proven that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Quida, Bush continues to maintain a connection of Iraq to the attacks of 9-11.

Bush also says, "Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror."

No, I don't agree that terrorists have made Iraq the central front. Bush made Iraq the central front by invading a sovereign middle-eastern nation based on a pack of lies, which he continues to tell.

Bush continues to re-use his favorite catch-phrases when he states, "Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."

The people we are fighting in Iraq are not terrorists, they are insurgents. There's a big difference. An insurgency is defined as an uprising against an established authority. In the case of Iraq, it is the people who are fighting against the political and governmental authority the U.S. put in place.

They don't want a puppet regime with America pulling the strings. They don't want us occupying their land. They don't want us destroying their cities, blowing up their schools and hospitals, killing inocent Iraqis, dumping toxic depleted-uranium everywhere -which causes sickness and death not just in the people exposed but in future generations for thousands of years.

Terrorism knows no boundaries. It can not be contained by borders, oceans, or mountains. There is no way to stop a terrorist organization from launching an attack on U.S. soil.

Sure we may have taken the fight to them, forcing members of terrorist organizations to engage in fighting away from America, but how much longer will it be before we're flanked and IED's start going off at Wal-Mart?

The longer we continue this exercise in empire building, the more enemies we are going to make, and the sooner we'll see the fight brought back to us.

AFP: Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US

Saturday, June 18, 2005

HaloScan Added

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog. Unfortunately all previous comments were lost in the process. Sorry about that.

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

Below are two quotes from a recent article by the AP.

"The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic system in which elections are honest and in which their leaders answer to them instead of the other way around," Bush said in a statement released by the White House Thursday. "And to the Iranian people, I say: As you stand for your own liberty, the people of America stand with you."

"Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world," Bush said. "Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy. The June 17th presidential elections are sadly consistent with this oppressive record."
Click here to read the full article.

I say -The American people deserve a genuinely democratic system in which elections are honest and in which their leaders answer to them instead of the other way around.

Bush wasn't elected to his first term, he was appointed by the Supreme Court. This administration has been the most secretive in the history of this country. They refuse to be held accountable or to even answer questions that Americans have the right to hear. Bush was opposed to a 9-11 commission. Testimony by members of this administration is done behind closed doors and without an official record.

I say -America is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy.

Bush has people thrown out of tax-payer funded events because they do not agree with him. Protesters are corralled, falsely arrested, and attacked because they disagree with him. He is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 in Iraq alone. The people of that country now live in a state of terror that far exceeds anything under Saddam Hussein. Electronic voting with no way to verify the actual vote does not constitute an electoral process that meets the basic requirements of a democracy.

Bush is not talking about Iran, he is talking about America.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Conyers Delivers Petition

White House Aid Reluctant To Accept
-AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Updated 6/19/05: Just added a video link to Take Back The Media. It was amazing to see how many stacks of papers this petition was comprised of.

Americans want answers.

Congressman John Conyers hand delivers a petition to the White House demanding that Bush answer questions regarding the Downing Street Memos. Conyers was not allowed past the gates and an aid finally came out to retrieve the petition. Given the clutched fists, I'd have to say that he didn't want to accept it. It's looks like he was being served with a subpoena and there was no way in hell he was going to let that happen. Sadly I'm sure Bush probably filed it in the round filing cabinet (trash) after it got to his office, that is if the aid wasn't instructed to do so already.

"Conyers and a half-dozen other members of Congress were stopped at the White House gate later Thursday when they hand-delivered petitions signed by 560,000 Americans who want Bush to provide a detailed response to the Downing Street memo. When Conyers couldn't get in, an anti-war demonstrator shouted, "Send Bush out!" Eventually, White House aides retrieved the petitions at the gate and took them into the West Wing."
Click here to read the full article at Yahoo.

Video from: Take Back The Media

Finally The MSM* Covers The DSM**.

Last night I finally saw coverage of the Downing Street Memo (or Memos, since there have been others released) on CBS's 11-o'clock news. The coverage was decent, not the greatest but at least something. They also had a Republican commentator that tried to brush off the Memos by asking if they had even been verified as authentic (which they have) and he lumped them together with the "Rathergate Memo" and the retracted Newsweek story.

One needs to remember that the faked memo in Rather's report of Bush being AWOL was only one of several documents, which were authentic. Yet the forged memo was used to discredit the entire story. As far as the Newsweek retraction regarding Gitmo, please read my previous post "How To Kill The Messenger and Get Away With It" for details on that little spin job.

The attention is probably due to the C-Span coverage of Connyers forum, which they finally got a room for. Sensenbrenner wasn't able to shut them out after all.

Conyeres DSM forum also made the Yahoo front page with the story "Democrat Urges Inquiry on Bush, Iraq"

The White Press Secretary Scott Mcclellan was finally questioned on this by reporters as well. Mcclellan's response to whether Conyers would get an answer could basically be summed up as - well if he voted against the war, then we don't care.

Below is a snip from the press briefing.

Q Scott, on another topic, has the President or anyone else from the administration responded to the letter sent last month by Congressman John Conyers and signed by dozens of members of the House of Representatives, regarding the Downing Street memo? Has the President or anyone else responded?

MR. McCLELLAN: Not that I'm aware of.

Q Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Why not? Because I think that this is an individual who voted against the war in the first place and is simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq.

These matters have been addressed, Elaine. I think you know that very well. The press --

Q Scott, 88 members of Congress signed that letter.

MR. McCLELLAN: The press -- the press have covered it, as well.

Q What do you say about them?

Q But, Scott, don't they deserve the courtesy of a response back?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this has been addressed. Go ahead.

Iran was another subject of that press briefing and the Q&A was interesting. The questions were good, but the answers were a bunch of crap.

Below is a snip from the press briefing..

Q Can I turn you for a moment to the Iran statement that the President issued earlier today. I'll read you three lines from it: "Iran's rulers denied more than 1,000 people who put themselves forward as candidates, including popular reformers and women who have done so much. The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic system in which elections are honest. They deserve freedom of assembly so Iranians can gather and press for any reform in a peaceful, loyal opposition that can keep the government in check." Scott, can you tell us, if we wanted to insert the word "Egypt" every place you had Iran, and "Egyptians" everyplace you had Iranians, would you consider that also a fair statement of the administration policy?

MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. First of all, just on the general statement, different circumstances require different strategies, and people are going to proceed at different -- at a different pace in different parts of the world. The President has said that in his remarks. You heard it in his inaugural address.

In terms of Iran, this is a message to the people of Iran. The President is saying that we stand with the people of Iran who seek greater freedom. You have an unelected few mullahs who are denying the people of Iran their rights. This is a country run by an unelected few who threw a thousand people off the ballot, including all the women who were seeking to run for office. This is a group of an unelected few that are denying the people their rights. They're denying freedom of press; they're denying freedom of assembly; they're denying rule of law; they're denying equal justice; they're denying religious freedom to the people of Iran. And we are going to stand with the people of Iran and the people elsewhere in the world who seek greater freedom.

In Egypt, the President has made it very clear that we appreciate the step that they are taking to have multi-candidate and multi-party presidential elections. That's an important step. And it's important that Egypt follow through on that commitment and have free and fair elections.

Iran is not having truly free and fair elections. This is something being driven by the unelected few.

Q Would you say, Scott, just to follow up on that, that the Iranian election that takes place tomorrow -- which does have at least some multiple candidates -- it clearly is not a form of Jeffersonian democracy -- but would you say that it is a more advanced democratic step than, say, an ally like Saudi Arabia has conducted in the past year?

MR. McCLELLAN: I would say what we've said on Iran, and you know what we've said on Saudi Arabia, too.

Q My point here is --

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, different countries are going to proceed at different -- at a different pace --

Q I understand that different countries --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and we're going to be there to support them and urge them to continue moving forward. That's why Iraq is so important, because Iraq will help send an important message to the rest of the Middle East about freedom. All people, the President believes, want to live in freedom. And we are going to continue to stand with all those who want greater freedom. That -- advancing freedom and democracy is critical to peace and security for generations to come. And that's why we are standing with those different countries. We've pointed out when they've taken steps to move on the path of reform and we've also expressed our concerns when they have moved back, or not taken steps to move forward. And we will continue to make our views very clear to all leaders and countries and urge them to continue moving down a path of reform and freedom.

Q Understanding, Scott, that different countries move at different paces, at the same moment, do you find any internal contradiction in the fact that when some nations make a move toward democracy, as Egypt did, you praise them, and then the President steps out and says, look, even our own democracy didn't come together instantly. And yet, when other countries do that, you turn out a statement like today. How do you make that judgment?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, David, and like I said at the beginning -- I think you're very well aware of this -- different circumstances around the world require different strategies and different approaches. The President talked about that in his inaugural address, and that's the way it was squared. It was squared in his inaugural address; you ought to go back and read it. Maybe you haven't had a chance to look at it recently.

As far as the Bush Administration is concerned -If you're a country they consider a friendly to the U.S. then small steps towards democracy is a great thing, but if you're not considered friendly to the Administration then anything short of an overnight change to democracy isn't good enough.

There was also rhetoric about standing behind the people for change. It sounded a lot like what they said about Iraq right before the invasion. It looks like Iran is next on Bush's hit list and they're doing the exact same thing they did for Iraq. They're using the same lies and same excuses. It seems that nothing short of a world-wide blood bath to achieve Bush's ideology of the world will appease these war mongering money grubbing liars.

* - Main Stream Media
** - Downing Street Memo

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

John Conyers Gets Shut Out By GOP Thug Sensenbrenner.

After Sensenbrenner repeatedly refused to hold hearings over the Downing Street Memo, Conyers and other Democrats decided that they would hold their own meetings. C-Span decided to broadcast the events, which I'm sure Sensenbrenner got a bit pissed over. He tried his best to ensure that it didn't get the attention it deserved, and now he's trying even harder to put a complete stop to it.

Judiciary GOP pulls the plug on Conyers 'forums'
By Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour

In December, ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) began holding "forums" - gatherings with all the trappings of official hearings - after Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refused to hold hearings on topics Conyers requested. The forums have been held in smaller committee rooms, often with C-SPAN coverage and formal witness lists.
Click here to read full article.

Monday, June 13, 2005

The Path of War Timeline - By Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane, Raw Story

Kudos to Larisa Alexandrovna, Muriel Kane, and everybody else at TheRawStory for taking the time and effort to put this together. With the recent release of the British documents, all the pieces are now falling in place. It is by far the most in-depth and well researched look at the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Click here to read: The Path of War Timeline - By Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane, Raw Story

Sunday, June 12, 2005

How Dare Dean Say That The Republicans Are "Pretty Much a White, Christian Party." ... Yeah Sure ...It's Not Like It Isn't True.

Below is s screen-shot from Yahoo News. The top story is where Cheney goes on the attack against Dean for having said that the Republican Party is "pretty much a white, Christian party." In the article, Cheney even goes so far as to say, "I've never been able to understand his appeal. Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does. He's never won anything, as best I can tell."

I guess Dick doesn't get out much. From 1992-2000, Dean was elected five times as governor of Vermont, and there seems to be a lot of folks who seem to love him even more these days for what he's been saying.

The second story, well what can you say about it except that it shows that they are, "pretty much a white, Christian party." The Republican Governor of Texas signs legislation in a church as Evangelicals mobilize to help ensure his bid for the Republican spot in the Presidential run of 2008.

Friday, June 10, 2005

America's Democracy Gets a Kick to the Head.

Not liking what was being said, the hearing reagrding the extension of the Patriot Act was abruptly closed by Republican chairman Sensenbrenner. Republicans walked out in the middle of testimonies and the microphones were cut off. Sensenbrenner was one of the authors of the Patriot Act.

This is NOT what a democracy is about. It’s what one would expect from a fascist or totalitarian government, but not America’s democracy. The Republican controlled committee has not only shown a complete disregard for the "rules of order", but also a complete disregard for democracy.

Screenshot from

"WASHINGTON - The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act."

Click here to read the story:GOP Chairman Walks Out of Meeting

Click here for video: Video located at

Click here for even more info: Bradblog has alot of info and is keeping updated about this whole debacle.

Thursday, June 09, 2005

The Big Brass Alliance

The Big Brass Alliance
Big Brass Alliance

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

U.S. Again Taking Hostages in Iraq.

Published on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 by Reuters
Iraqi Suspect Says US Troops Took Mother Hostage
by Waleed Ibrahim
A handwritten sign in Arabic on the front gate of their house read: "Be a man Muhammad Mukhlif and give yourself up and then we will release your sisters.

"Otherwise they will spend a long time in detention."

It was signed "Bandit 6," apparently U.S. Army code, possibly designating a company commander.

On raids like this, GIs must be sleuths in armor
By Kirsten Scharnberg
Tribune correspondent
Published June 7, 2005,1,7360685.story?page=1&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

One soldier instructed the women, "Tell your father that if he wants his sons back he needs to come to the base and talk to us about who he is."

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Find the Lie...

Below are two paragraphs from a CNN story.
( Iraq war plans memo wrong

Blair - "And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November 2002 United Nations resolution to give a final chance to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so, and that was the reason why we had to take military action."

CNN - "U.N. weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November 2002 and stayed in the country until March 17, 2003, when Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam to leave power within 48 hours or face war."

Do these people ever stop with the bullshit??? Bush just claims the memo is false and that it couldn't be further from the truth. Blair offered up the, we went to the United Nations bit and how Saddam Hussein didn't comply with international law. Apparently he had complied, and that the weapons inspectors only bailed when Bush gave a 48 hour ultimatum for Saddam to leave power or face war.

Granted, Saddam is a bad man, but the world is full of bad men. A lot of them are even worse that Saddam. So I'm not going to buy that as an excuse to have invaded Iraq.

Is The High Court High or What?

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, patients that grow their own marijuana without purchasing it, affects the cost of such drugs in other states. Therefore the federal government can prosecute medical marijuana users even though it is legal in their state and they have a prescription because it affects the cost of these drugs being sold illegally in other states.

"In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court had opened the door to nearly unlimited government regulation."

According to Justice O'Connor, "The court's definition of economic activity . . . threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach, ... To draw the line wherever private activity affects the demand for market goods is to draw no line at all. We have already rejected the result that would follow - a federal police power."

Full article here: High court sides with feds, OKs medicinal marijuana prosecutions

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Bush ... Leading The World In Terror!!!