Bend Over... Dubya claims the power to "put it to ya" anytime he wants!
Bush challenges hundreds of lawsPresident cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
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.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, 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.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
More...
Limbaugh / Fraud = OxyMoron on OxyContin!
This seems like a "Captain Obvious Moment":
From CNN:
Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, law enforcement officials said.
Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant issued by the state attorney's office, said agency spokeswoman Teri Barbera.
The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and was released an hour later on $3,000 bail, Barbera said.
The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescription, Barbera said.OK, this is only related to his drug addict stint... you know: when he paid his maid to be his mule for OxyContin?
Those spinning in The Whirlpool want to know when he'll be convicted for the radio fraud he perpetrates on the American people each day!
Kraft and The Gay Games Reprise
The Whirlpool posted a
strong position over a year ago regarding Kraft's sponsorship of
The Gay Games and condemned those that would harass the progressive company.
The issue was fueled by
knuckle-draggers encouraging boycotts and other pressure tactics.
Well, it seems the
majority of stockholders agree and the sponsorship will continue.
It seems a more and more rare event when Corporate America stands up for a principle... especially against the Religious Wrong! Kraft should be commended for their position and supported.
Imposter-In-Chief
Ari Melber's, Huffington Post blog entry critical of Joe Lieberman inspired this comment by
bobeedee:
18 Connecticut Reasons NOT to Vote for Joe Lieberman:
Their date of death in Iraq is listed, as is their rank.
1)Hoyt, Robert W. Specialist 11-Dec-2004
2)Brennan, William I. Chief Warrant Officer 16-Oct-2004
3)Felder, Tyanna S. Specialist 07-Apr-2004
4)Schmidt III, John T. Lance Corporal 11-May-2005
5)Hoskins, Christopher L. Specialist 21-Jun-2005
6)Paliwoda, Eric Thomas Captain 02-Jan-2004
7)Coullard, David J. Sergeant 01-Aug-2005
8)Eaton Jr., Richard S. Staff Sergeant 12-Aug-2003
9)Philippon, Lawrence R. Lance Corporal 08-May-2005
10)Dempsey, Kevin J. Corporal 13-Nov-2004
11)Vitagliano, Thomas E. Staff Sergeant 17-Jan-2005
12)Perez Jr., Wilfredo Specialist 26-Jul-2003
13)Martir, Jacob D. Specialist 18-Aug-2004
14)Delgreco, Felix M. Sergeant 09-Apr-2004
15)Braun, Jeffrey F. Private 1st Class 12-Dec-2003
16)Heald, Barbara Civilian 29-Jan-2005
17)D'Agostino, Anthony D. Private 1st Class 02-Nov-2003
18)Chanawongse, Kemaphoom, Corporal 23-Mar-2003
All dead - and for what? Not ONE Veteran in my VFW post will support Joe Lieberman.
- bobeedee, 04.24.2006 Bobeedee's comment was aimed at the Republican's favorite Democrat and Sean Hannity's boy-toy, Lieberman. But, the same statement applies on a national level for George W. Bush: "All dead - and for what?
Where are the rest of the VFW posts and post members? When are they going to start speaking out? Shouting out? Fucking screaming out?!?!
How any American that has fought for this country can defend this Imposter-In-Chief is a mystery. The
latest polls have his regime relegated to a 32% low. How low will they have to go before more of our veterans stand up for what is right and start speaking the truth about this disaster?
Dick Cheney Makes First Positive Contribution To Meeting!
The Vice President was heard to mumble: "
Hu should go fuck himself."
The Many Loves of George W. Bush
What Cruella Wants, Cruella Gets!
Stephan Elliot describes this incredibly bizzare encounter with Katherine Harris on
The Majority Report.
Scott McClellan Resigns
"I want to get my hands around some other projects".
Jeff/James Guckert/Gannon
Beth Quinn nails it!
Recipe for Holy War: Add two nut jobs and stir
Beth Quinn
All right. I'm now officially scared.
Having just read Seymour Hersh's article about Bush's Iran plan, it appears that we no longer have a case of the good guys versus the bad guys.
What we have here is the bad guy versus the bad guy - two madmen playing an international game of chicken, ratcheting up the rhetoric to appeal to their fundamentalist followers.
There's no doubt that Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is mad in the head. In fact, it might help you remember his name if you pronounce it "Ah'm mad in ee head."
He's got a uranium enrichment program going on so he can build nuclear power plants. But since he's crazy, there's a lot of worldwide concern that he's going to build a nuclear bomb while he's at it.
The U.N. atomic watchdog agency, which paid him a little visit last week, says there's no evidence that he's working on weapons. Even so, the world is feeling a little squirmy about letting Ah'm Mad In Ee Head carry on with his nuclear program. Everyone keeps asking him to quit it, but he's dug in his heels.
So that's one madman on the loose.
The other one - our very own nut job in the White House - is licking his chops over what he perceives as a stubborn challenge from Iran's president.
In last week's New Yorker magazine, Hersh provided a detailed look at Bush's response to Ah'm Mad In Ee Head. According to Hersh's sources, Bush wants Ah'm Mad In Ee Head to defy U.N. demands to quit playing with uranium.
You know why? Because our own madman wants to trot out one of our own nukes and bomb Iran's madman out of business - along with a few hundred thousand other Iranians, of course.
As one congressman told Hersh, "The most worrisome thing is that Bush has a messianic vision." Bush is waging a holy war. He's on a crusade. And so is Ah'm Mad In Ee Head.
One nut-job fundamentalist Christian plus one nut-job fundamentalist Muslim equals one nut-job Holy War.
more...
Where are the Wrong Wing Whackos Now?!?
Conservative Icon, former Republican Speaker of the House,
Newt Gingrich told students and faculty at at the University of South Dakota Monday that the
United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.
"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."
This sure sounds an awful lot like the comments made
by Rep. Jack Murtha.
Republican wingnuts like Jean Schmidt and Wrong Wing pundits like Hannity, Limbaugh, and Savage were calling Murtha un-Patriotic and a traitor. They said he wanted the US to "cut and run". They said he didn't support the troops.
So, when do we get to hear these hypocritical lambastards call out Newt?
The Hypocritical Bush
From the President's September 30, 2003 Press Conference:
THE PRESIDENT:
... "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; .... And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
And so I welcome the investigation......
I want to know the truth....
... Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action....
...And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.
...leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. ... And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, ...and I want to know who the leakers are." The entire transcriptSo, you really have to wonder: if Dubya really wanted people that had the information to "
come forward and speak out", why didn't he? He knew the answer. He was the "leaker"! How many millions of dollars could he have saved by telling the Nation that he had authorized the divulging of the information. End of story... investigation over.... money saved.... Agent outed.....
Remember this? A blast from the past... 1998
Rep. Jim McDermott may have lost this
battle, but he won the war.
Here is a partial transcript of the telephone conference call with Speaker Newt Gingrich, his lawyer Ed Bethune, and other House Republican Leadership. They are discussing an agreement Gingrich made promising not to orchestrate a Republican counterattack against ethics charges that were about to be filed against him.
GINGRICH But Ed, is Cole [James M. Cole, the ethics committee's special counsel] aware of our talk today?
BETHUNE He is aware that you are going to talk to the leadership. That is correct.
GINGRICH He was going to brief the subcommittee. The message we got yesterday was they fully expect me to campaign for Speaker, and that that in no way violates the agreement. So that stirring up support for me as Speaker in their judgment, as long as it isn't done in a way that undermines the committee.
BETHUNE Newt can campaign for Speaker, no problem. Newt cannot himself say anything publicly about this because that is what he has agreed. He will make no public statements.
GINGRICH Beyond the statement, we are releasing ----.[inaudible]
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE Can we characterize that agreement? That's an agreement as part of our ----.
BETHUNE No. I didn't say there was an agreement. I said there was a delicate process under way and that this is what Newt is going to do, in response to the delicate process. There is no agreement, no deal. We are not authorized to say that. Now if I can be very delicate here. There is one other constraint. He can run for Speaker, but he must maintain his confidentiality as far as public statements. And then, finally, Newt will not orchestrate, nor will he be -- he will not orchestrate any attempt to spin this in such a way that it belies what he is admitting today in the statement of alleged violations.
And so, now having said that, having served as a member, you know when documents become public, I as a member, am entitled to say whatever the hell I want to say about those public documents. I guess that applies to any of you all who may be listening. But we want the record to be absolutely [inaudible] and clear here that Newt is not, nor does he desire for anybody in his [inaudible] to go out and try to help him. As you saw this week, we had a bad press day on Friday because on Thursday some of our dearest friends went out with an intention to help but in fact caused more harm than good. And, you know, with friends like that.
DICK ARMEY Ed, I think that the statement that Bill read though is in compliance with all those points.
TOM DeLAY Sounds to me like you're just saying that it might sit better, and I think it wouldn't look like it was part of some cooked operation if it came maybe as part of a [inaudible].
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE I understand what you guys got to do in the Speaker's office. We cannot let a news cycle go by, not even let several hours go by.
ARMEY Right.
BILL PAXON So when the committee issues that report, before we have an immediate response. Because they will certainly have a war room set up on the other side, and if we have several hours or a day go by when our members are out there without response, it will be a disaster, that's right.
ARMEY And Bill, I think Bill's right on that. I think the statement as I recall hearing it is acceptable, and it probably could go a couple of hours.
PAXON When will we see your statement, Newt?
GINGRICH My guess is, and I think they are running about 15 minutes late, my guess is we will have our statement out before noon. And if there was a way, I'm not an expert, but if there was a way to have by two or three to have some kind of statement also on the wire.
ARMEY Oh, yeah.
GINGRICH At that point we're in by the evening news, catch the morning papers.
BETHUNE Let me explain a technicality here which will help you all understand the time frame. Of course the subcommittee is bound to confidentiality by the rules of the committee until such time as an answer is filed. No answer has been filed. Because the subcommittee is meeting today, here, personally, because they are today voting the statement of alleged violations.
Obviously, you can't answer something until it has been voted. So they are meeting soon, as we speak, I guess. They will discuss and then vote the statement of alleged violations. That, the confidentiality rule is still in place until Newt files his answer. Newt is sending through me an answer that he is signing today, which essentially says I admit the statement of violations. I will hand carry that to the committee room and deliver it to the special counsel.
At that moment the committee is authorized to release its statement of alleged violations. But the committee does not wish to release its statement of violation at that point because it feels that it owes an obligation to the full committee members to give them a heads up about what they are about to do. And so they have asked for a two-hour embargo after we hand in our answer, during which time they contemplate a conference call to discuss with the full committee members all the ramifications of this, and that would be the first time the full committee members would hear whatever it is the subcommittee members intend to say to them.
And it would also be a time when we are authorized to have the conversation that we are having now, a little prematurely. But I don't think it would be troubling to anyone that we are a little ahead of the gun. We are also asked to embargo our response so that we don't get ahead of the committee.
ARMEY Ed, we all, guys, let me suggest this. I'd like to hear the statement one more time, and then perhaps what we could all, if we all think it is complete, agree to it, and let Ed then determine the appropriate time as quickly as is appropriate that it be released. Does that work? Him being on the ground and having----.
PAXON I don't know. Ed can you, can you be involved in orchest----, you know, if we----.
BETHUNE No, I think all I can do, Bill, is, Ed, tell me who to call, and I will say that it is now perfectly acceptable -- for----.
GILLESPIE As soon as Ed gives us the word to put out the statement Mr. Paxon read, because we know that Bonior is going to be having a press conference shortly thereafter, alleging a bunch of things that go too far. Once he has kicked that off, that would give us an opportunity to then go back and refute what he has said, and we have not jumped the gun on anything and we have simply responded ----.
GINGRICH Ed's very clever [inaudible]. Walker said why not have Bonior up for tomorrow, then, because he will undoubtedly say things that are not true, will exaggerate what the committee has done.
PAXON How do you expect to do it, at a press conference, or a statement, or, after Bonior?
GILLESPIE Yes, a press conference, right after ----.
DAN MEYER: Ed, tell me if this crosses the line. Is it possible to include in the statement that Bill read some language that says you know why he is taking responsibility although it is clear he never intended to mislead the committee? I'd fix it over to see if you could repeat that since, you know, it, it, members need to understand that, and it then will be fine.
BETHUNE Newt cannot be party to crafting any such or orchestrating, but as I said earlier, a member of Congress having received those documents is entitled to say whatever they want to about them.
PAXON We could say, we have every confidence that Newt did not intend to----.
BETHUNE If I could strongly make this one point. It is very important for me to be able to say to the special counsel and if necessary to the committee members that we -- and by that I mean the other attorney, Randy Evans, and I, and Newt -- have done everything in our power to try to stop all things that might be construed in any way as an orchestration attempt by Newt Gingrich . . .
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE In his statement today, the Speaker accepted full responsibility for the mistakes he has made. He also showed that he remains an idealistic and determined leader, that he can learn from those mistakes. One month ago, we issued a statement pledging our political support for Newt's election as Speaker in the 105th Congress. Today, with the work of the subcommittee completed, we reiterate our political support. Now what do you want to add?
GINGRICH Why don't we pick up Ed's language: "Although there is no charge that Newt intentionally misled the committee, Newt was responsible for the mistakes that were made?"
GILLESPIE And something like: "With this now behind us, it is clear that Newt will be re-elected Speaker on Jan. 7."
ARMEY I am not sure you are ready for this, but you could quote Larry Gatlin and the Gatlin Brothers.
GINGRICH Which one is that?
ARMEY "I did not mean to deceive you. I never intended to push or shove. I just wish that you was someone that I love."
McKinney Totally Screwed Up!
Congresswoman
Cynthia McKinney appearing on The Situation Room clearly states her situation is a result of "racial profiling". When Wolf tried to follow up after the commercial, the Congresswoman backtracked, "Wolfe, don't twist my words. Don't even go there. You know that's not what I said."
Bull shit! It's exactly what you said, you dip stick. Stand up, admit you fucked up and take your medicine.
According the the Congresswoman's actions, her comments to her constituents would be, "If a law enforcement official stops you and asks for identification, hit them!"
How stupid can you get?!?!? Even the
statement she issued is a bunch of wimpery whiney crap rather than the actions that a leader should take.
Hey, Cynthia! When a security officer stops you, STOP! Don't hit, push, yell, etc. Duh?!?!?
We think Congresswoman McKinney may be joining Congressman Delay soon.
Yellow Dog Bingo!
Hat tip to the
General for leading us to this nifty game.
