March 28th, 2006
Kevin Phillips, author of American Theocracy, where he concludes that the republican party is the first religious party in American history, offers us this provocative thought on Bush’s failed presidency:
[T]he possibility of having an "incompetent" president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order [to remove Bush from office].
Read this very provocative and damming post over at HuffingtonPost.com.
March 28th, 2006
This is truly remarkable: now bills can become law without going through the constitutionally mandated process. Incredible! Don’t republicans have any respect for anything that the constitution stands for? Are they so contemptuous of what our founding fathers fought for that, it seems, at every turn republicans wantonly disregard and trash the principles enshrined in our constitution? The truth is that, in spite of what they claim, of course republicans don’t value nor respect the constitution, since it reminds them of everything that their party stands against. Habeas Corpus, who needs that? republicans ask. Privacy? Pluuuze, republicans respond. First Amendment? What’s that!? Separation of church and state? Come on, that’s so post Enlightenment, we don’t need that. On and on republicans go on trashing the very core of our democracy.
And now we have the latest from the anti-constitution republicans: a bill no longer needs to pass the House for it to become law.
For anyone who took fifth-grade social studies or sang "I’m Just a Bill," how legislation turns to law always seemed pretty simple: The House passes a bill, the Senate passes the same bill, the president signs it.
"He signed ya, Bill — now you’re a law," shouts the cartoon lawmaker on "Schoolhouse Rock" as Bill acknowledges the cheers.
But last month, Washington threw all that old-fashioned civics stuff into a tizzy, when President Bush signed into law a bill that actually never passed the House. Bill — in this case, a major budget-cutting measure that will affect millions of Americans — became a law because it was "certified" by the leaders of the House and Senate. [Washington Post, Wednesday, March 22, 2006]
That’s right, under these anti-constitution republicans the supreme law of the land can be ignored in place of political expediency. Since this bill was signed by Bush, pro-constitution and other concerned groups have come forward to defend our founding document from the onslaught of republican attacks.
Public Citizen, a legislative watchdog group, sued yesterday to block the budget-cutting law, charging that Bush and Republican leaders of Congress flagrantly violated the Constitution when the president signed it into law knowing that the version that cleared the House was substantively different from the Senate’s version.
Keep in mind that, as anti-constitution republicans have done in the past, for example when Bush admitted to breaking the FISA law, republicans don’t dispute that they have chosen to ignore the constitution; they simply argue that, for reasons of convenience, that it is simply easier to skirt the constitution (and any law that stands in their way):
No one disputes the central facts of the lawsuit: Last December, Vice President Cheney broke a tie vote in the Senate to win passage of a bill that would cut nearly $40 billion over five years by reducing Medicaid rolls, raising work requirements for welfare, and trimming the student loan program, among other changes.
[...]
As the measure was being sent to the House last month, a Senate clerk inadvertently changed that 13-month restriction to 36 months, a $2 billion alteration. With the mistaken change, the measure squeaked through the House, 216 to 214.
Once the mistake was revealed, Republican leaders were loath to fight the battle again by having another vote, so White House officials simply deemed the Senate version to be the law.
How convenient, a Senate clerk inadvertently made a mistake. Please, if the immediate past serves as any lesson, at all, then it is this: republicans don’t simply make mistakes; in stead, republicans believe that they can get away with anything, so they ignore procedure and the law, knowing full well that in all likely hood they’ll get away with their law breaking or misdeed. Just think of it, midterm redistricting in Texas, a stolen election in Florida, collaborating with ENRON to create an energy crisis in California that lead to the recall of a Democratic governor, and, of course, there’s their war of choice, and on, and on, and on. Anti-constitution republicans believe that they are above the law and that they can get away with anything — this was no mistake, no way. They simply were too careless in their eventual cover up, that’s all.
As this case makes its way through the courts it’ll be curious to see where it ends up. If it ends up before an anti-constitution republican appointed judge we may see a new precedent being set, wherein a bill need not be approved by Congress as long as it’s signed by a quasi-monarchial president. However, if the judge that hears this case has any integrity, the only conclusion should be obvious:
"The Constitution is broad and vague on a number of things; this is not one of them," Zeigler said. "The same bill must be passed by House and Senate and signed by the president. Otherwise it’s not law. Case over."
September 4th, 2005
These are some responses from Freepers, over at FreeRepublic.com, the “premiere” forum for Republican/Conservative grassroots supporters:
Iraq-tested soldiers in New Orleans with shoot to kill orders Agence France-Presse ^ | September 1, 2005
Posted on 09/01/2005 7:03:05 PM PDT by HAL9000
A detachment of 300 Arkansas National Guard troops landed in anarchic New Orleans on Thursday, with the authorization to shoot and kill “hoodlums” Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco said.
“Three hundred of the Arkansas National Guard have landed in the city of New Orleans,” said Blanco.
“These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets,” Blanco said.
“They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded.
“These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will,” said Blanco.
To: HAL9000
‘shoot to kill’
FINALLY!
“Can you hear me now?”
3 posted on 09/01/2005 7:04:22 PM PDT by WestTexasWend
To: HAL9000
I am going to be so pissed if any Guardsmen die at the hands of the Democratic base.
8 posted on 09/01/2005 7:06:06 PM PDT by faithincowboys
To: HAL9000 Yo Hal…
((((PING)))) the thread…POP the looters…scopes up!
5 posted on 09/01/2005 7:07:29 PM PDT by antaresequity
To: HAL9000
Sounds like Blanco just switched to the Republican party.
I think this RAT bitch knows that in the end, it will be her and Mayor Nagin who will have the blame pinned on them for the open door given to the thugs.
I hope all the RATs see what their 40 years of law and order neglect has brought to this nation.
38 posted on 09/01/2005 7:10:48 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush’s #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
To: antaresequity scopes up
Lock and load baby! The calvary is here! woooooooohoooooooo
39 posted on 09/01/2005 7:10:48 PM PDT by rockabyebaby (I’m not afraid to say out loud what the rest of you are afraid to admit.)
To: inquest I hope they don’t rotate duty too much. There’s a downside to having too many soldiers get too comfortable with the idea of shooting at civilians, even if it is a necessary evil at this time.
I don’t see it. Their aim is precise, and they are a last resort.
The trash that’s left are not going to leave, so they may as well join the rest of the floaters in the water.
51 posted on 09/01/2005 7:13:44 PM PDT by sinkspur (We who have been given much must help those who now have nothing.)
To: sinkspur
Lock and friggin Load……. Shoot to Kill, go go go go go.
Bout time too.
96 posted on 09/01/2005 7:35:24 PM PDT by billygoatgruff
That’s enough… you get the idea. And, remember, this is the premiere site for the Republican grassroots movement… Shit, I can’t belive these assholes are beating our asses in the national political arena.
April 10th, 2005
Has there ever been a bigger group of hypocrites than the Republican party and its supporters? Don’t answer, of course there hasn’t been. Around here we’ve known that they’re hypocrites, but of recent it seems that Republicans are finally ready to come out of the closet and show the rest of the country what it is that the Republican party really stands for:
- Big intrusive government (i.e., government intervention in private/personal issues such as end of life decisions.)
- Deficits Run-amok (i.e., record deficits by the Bush administration, even though it inherited record surpluses when it first came into office.)
- War based on hype and lies (i.e., Iraq — enough said.)
- Advocates of institutionalized discrimination against fellow Americans (i.e., the anti-marriage amendment against same-sex couples.)
- Anti-Constitutionalists (i.e., mounting attacks against a co-equal branch and undermining its legitimacy.)
This list could go on and on, but I need to get to what inspired this rant: the latest hypocrisy by a Republican operative. Over the years we’ve seen Republicans use all sorts of social issues to drive wedges between Americans and to agitate the Republican base. In the last election we saw how Republicans used the anti-marriage amendment to get their base out on election night and, in part, to somehow unilaterally claim the mantle of being the party of “moral issues.” Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, far from being the the party of “moral issues,” Republicans are the party of moral opportunism — as illustrated by their crass misuse of the Schiavo tragedy. And now we have another example of the lack of moral integrity that the Republican party and its operatives lack, from the NYT (April 9, 2005):
Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.
Here’s a Republican that, according to the article, has worked for the past 25 years to defeat “Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal,” and yet when it comes to his personal life he rejects his party’s platform and, instead, avails himself of the rights “Massachusetts’ Liberals” have afforded him. What’s more, here’s a Republican that has surprised many of his conservative associates:
[T]hey were startled to learn that this prominent American conservative had married a man, given his history with the party, especially at a time when many Republican leaders, including President Bush, have campaigned against same-sex marriage and proposed amending the Constitution to ban it. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy.
And here’s the clincher, this hypocrite rationalizes his lack of moral integrity by, according to an associate, claiming that:
[He] did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. This associate argued that over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.
This Republican’s lack of a moral compass — and the many others like him that exploit base social issues to ride the resultant backlash to power — fostered a climate wherein Republican politicians see the threat of violence against judges as a legitimate political tool and, too, a climate wherein dissent is considered nearly treasonous. And, while I wish the happy couple a long and joyous life together, I sincerely hope that Mr. Finkelstein, and all the other Republican collaborators that deny responsibility for the uglier element residing in the underbelly of their party, soon realize that they’ve violated this old axiom, leave the world a better place than how you found it; and, too, they’ve created an America that has stopped and may, in fact, be taking a few steps back on its long march towards democracy and towards a guaranteed equal protection for all its citizens.
April 7th, 2005
Nothing like seeing the Republican Noise Machine (RNM) at work. Of course, we’ve seen the RNM do its thing before (think of the Swift Boat ads and of all the so-called scandals that we’ve seen in recent years), and we’ve also seen how the mainstream media predictably becomes a lap dog at the hands of the RNM, which is exactly what occurred in the early phase of the Schiavo “GOP Talking Points Memo” fiasco. But, even if one is familiar with the tactics of the RNM, there’s nothing like having a case study to look at; and now, thanks to Media Matters, we have a rundown of the RNM at work, see TIMELINE OF A SMEAR.
