Steve G.

Archive for the ‘George Bush’ Category

Yet another reason to impeach Bush

In Censorship, Congress, Corruption, George Bush, Politics on July 15, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Harriet Meiers, George BushFrom the Boston Herald:

WASHINGTON – President Bush ordered former Counsel Harriet Miers to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to testify today about the firings of federal prosecutors, while a second former aide revealed new details yesterday about White House involvement in the dismissals.

The possibility of contempt of Congress citations against both women hung over the developments. House Democrats threatened to cite Miers if she refuses to appear as subpoenaed for a Judiciary Committee hearing today. The White House said she was immune from the subpoena and Bush had directed her not to appear, according to Miers’ lawyer. Democrats said her immunity ended when she left her White House job.

Meanwhile, former White House political director Sara Taylor tried to answer some committee questions but not others, in a bid to honor the subpoena without violating Bush’s claim of executive privilege.

After first refusing to answer questions about Bush’s possible role in the firings, Taylor later told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she knew of no involvement by Bush. Further, she said, she knew of no wrongdoing by administration officials in the controversy that has dogged Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Bush administration insists no wrongdoing occurred. Bush has offered to allow his aides, including counselor Karl Rove, Miers and Taylor, to be interviewed by congressional investigators – but only in private and without a transcript. Democrats rejected the offer.

Advertisements

Happy Bastille Day. We need a new one.

In Big Brother, Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, George Bush, Guantanamo, History, Human Rights Abuses, Personal Responsibility, Police State, Politics, Protest, Second Amendment, Terrorism, War on July 15, 2007 at 6:40 am

Originally posted yesterday on my blog for Bastille day. Forgot to transfer it over til today. Oh well, better late than never…

According to wikipedia,

On 5 May 1789, Louis XVI convened the Estates-General to hear their grievances. The deputies of the Third Estate representing the common people (the two others were clergy and nobility) decided to break away and form a National Assembly. On 20 June the deputies of the Third Estate took the Tennis Court Oath, swearing not to separate until a Constitution had been established. They were gradually joined by delegates of the other estates; Louis started to recognize their validity on 27 June. The Assembly re-named itself the National Constituent Assembly on 9 July, and began to function as a legislature and to draft a constitution.

The blue-blooded Chimperror, Cesar Potus George Dubai-ya Bushitler II, has brung back the clergy and the nobility back to a level of undue influence in civic life. Perhaps we need a new storming of the Bastille?

In the wake of the 11 July dismissal of the royal finance minister Jacques Necker, the people of Paris, fearful that they and their representatives would be attacked by the royal military, and seeking to gain arms for the general populace, stormed the Bastille, a prison which had often held people arbitrarily jailed on the basis of lettre de cachet. Besides holding a large cache of arms, the Bastille had long been known for holding political prisoners whose writings had displeased the royal government, and was thus a symbol of the absolutism of the monarchy.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The general populace being increasingly outgunned by regime agents? Check. People jailed arbitrarily? Check. Political prisoners? Check. Absolutist, hereditary rulers? Check.

The storming of the Bastille was more important as a rallying point and symbolic act of rebellion than a practical act of defiance.

Shortly after the storming of the Bastille, on 4 August feudalism was abolished and on 26 August, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was proclaimed.

Ending feudalism and having citizens rights? Yeah, we kinda need that again. Check!

Impeach Bush-Cheney; Cheney goes first!

In Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Crime, Democracy, Democrats, George Bush, Libertarian Party-US, Personal Responsibility, Police State on July 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm

So I recently got me a myspace page and forwarded an impeachment bulletin.

A myspace bulletin debate ensued….

A reply to my bulletin, with my comments….

Bulletin Message —————–
From: Shane
Date: Jul 8, 2007 2:27 PM

Where were these people back when all this was started? They were going along with it. The Democrats voted for the USA PATRIOT ACT without even reading it; now they’re all horrified about it.

paul) Why assume it’s all Democrats? Numerous people for impeachment from all parties, and independents, even some Republicans! And some people did back the “war on terror” in the beginning and have come to realize they were wrong. Glad to have them on board. Others, like me, strongly opposed the wars, the invasions of our civil liberties, the massive growth in government spending under Chimperror George II, the dictatorial powers he has claimed in violation of the constitution, and have called for impeachment for quite a few years now. I’m happy so many people are agreeing with me now – even Democrats!

As to why any Libertarians would oppose impeaching the Bush fascist regime is beyond me. The LP called for Clinton’s impeachment, but not for the same reasons the Republicans did. If anyone thinks Dubai-ya! has been more faithful to the constitution, can I please get an intro to your drug dealer? Why the double standard?? Impeach Bush-Cheney!

Shane:

The Democrats voted for the authorization for the Iraq war when there was plenty of evidence it was all a fraud; now they’re all horrified that they were “lied to.” The Democrats voted for the military tribunals, and now they’re all horrified about the treatment of prisoners. The Democrats voted for the Military Commissions Act and the suspension of habeas corpus, and now they’re all horrified at the loss of our rights.

paul:

Individualists ought not refer to people collectively. Democrats are tens of millions of people, the vast majority of whom don’t get to vote on these things.. and many opposed them, including some of the ones who did get to vote on them, they were not unanimous votes. Some voted wrongly in the past and have admitted so; others are still voting wrongly on these matters, and should be pressured to change their votes or be removed from office in the next election.


congressional democrats: not too old to be spanked

Shane:

Why now? Why did they wait all this time to turn against it all and call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney? Because now, their impeachment and removal from office would mean that a Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, would become President. That’s the only reason. They don’t care about your rights; they only care about power.

Stop being conned. Support Ron Paul and your local Libertarian candidates. That’s the only way out of this mess.

paul) I support
Steve Kubby

I like Ron Paul, and I wish he would introduce impeachment formally in Congress. It’s the right thing to do and would be great for getting him attention! The best thing he has done so far is stand up to
Ghouliani
.

Most of the people backing impeachment are not doing it because of Pelosi.
I know I’m not. I supported impeachment ever since Dubai-ya stole his FIRST election and have even circulated a petition for impeachment and got thousands of signatures, and that was in 2003.

To the ones who only now have realized that the Chimperror and puppetmaster Cheney are war criminals: welcome on board! To those who are still not on board, what are you waiting for?

Demand impeachment NOW…while we are still allowed to!

paul

http://pauliecannoli.wordpress.com

Last Free Voice

facebook

>—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: paulie
Date: Jul 8, 2007 8:47 AM

—————– Bulletin Message —————–
From: Cops Say Legalize All Drugs
Date: Jul 7, 2007 4:38 P

How to be a successful drug dealer and get away with it

In Big Brother, Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Drug War, Fraud, George Bush, Health, Human Rights Abuses, Law Enforcement, Nanny State, Personal Responsibility, Police State on July 6, 2007 at 10:49 am

Also posted at Leave the Gun, Take the Cannoli

If The Chimperor Told The Truth…

In Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, George Bush, Human Rights Abuses, Humor, Media, Police State, Politics, Taxation, Terrorism, War on July 1, 2007 at 11:22 am

Yes, I know, I already had this up in the comments section, but more people probably read this than that, so I thought I’d put it up on the wall too…

Imagine our embarrassment…

In Big Brother, George Bush, Obituaries, Personal Responsibility, Politics on June 29, 2007 at 9:52 pm

First, the American people – or, at the very least Florida SOS Katherine Harris and 5 of 9 Supremely Kangaroo Kort “justices” ruling in a case over which they had zero jurisdiction (2000) and Ken Blackwell (2004) – picked a friggin’ Chimpanzee as POTUS. Twice.

poodle-chimp-sm.jpg

Now, it turns out that one of the leading contenders for the NSGOP nomination may very well in fact be a reanimated corpse who feeds by draining and consuming the blood of living beings. Holy shit – what are the odds on that?

Ghouliani or Nosferatu? We report, you decide…

source:

Prose Before Hos

rudyorvampire2.jpg

rudyorvampire3.jpg

This is really scary…we must take all due diligence to keep this unclean, living undead, blood-sucking creature out of the white house, or else face even more international shame – and who would have thought it possible, after Clinton and Bush? – for our presidential selection.

God forbid that detainees should actually have rights …..

In Constitutional Rights, George Bush, Guantanamo, War on June 21, 2007 at 9:31 pm

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 7 minutes ago

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move its terror suspects to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.

President Bush’s national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay’s status is imminent.

“It’s no longer on the schedule for tomorrow,” said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “Senior officials have met on the issue in the past, and I expect they will meet on the issue in the future.”

Three senior administration officials spoke about the discussions on condition of anonymity because they were internal deliberations.

Expected to consult soon, according to the officials, were Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace.

Previous plans to close Guantanamo ran into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon and the Intelligence directorate.

Cheney’s office and the Justice Department have been against the step, arguing that moving “unlawful” enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights. Read the rest of this entry »

Vast Majority of Americans Think Bush and Congress Both Suck For Air

In Democrats, George Bush, Immigration, Iraq War, Middle East, Republican on June 13, 2007 at 10:08 pm

Bush monkeyFrom Reuters:

President George W. Bush’s approval rating has dropped to 29 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday, his lowest mark ever in that survey, which also found only 23 percent approved of the job Congress was doing.” President George W. Bush’s approval rating has dropped to 29 percent in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday, his lowest mark ever in that survey, which also found only 23 percent approved of the job Congress was doing.

Bush’s approval rating slid 6 points from 35 percent in April, NBC said, citing a decline in support within his own Republican Party. Sixty-six percent said they disapproved of Bush’s job performance.

In the poll, 62 percent of Republicans approved of Bush’s job performance, down from 75 percent in April. Thirty-two percent of Republicans in the latest poll disapproved of Bush’s performance, up from 21 percent in April.

NBC tied the drop in Republican support to Bush’s efforts to promote an immigration reform measure that many conservative Republicans oppose. Polls have also shown a decline in Bush’s popularity due to the war in Iraq tied the drop in Republican support to Bush’s efforts to promote an immigration reform measure that many conservative Republicans oppose. Polls have also shown a decline in Bush’s popularity due to the war in Iraq.

The latest poll also found Americans growing more discontented with the Democratic-led Congress, with 64 percent disapproving of Congress’ job performance. Only 23 percent approved, down 8 points since April.

Sixty-eight percent believe the United States is on the wrong track. Only 19 percent believe the country is headed in the right direction — the lowest number in nearly 15 years, NBC said.

The poll of 1,008 adults conducted from Friday to Monday had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

GOP state chairman wants more terrorist attacks

In George Bush, Law Enforcement, Military, Republican, Terrorism, War on June 4, 2007 at 11:04 am

This man is truly evil and insane. As the newly elected chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, he thinks Americans deserve more deadly terrorist attacks.

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001],” Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”

Sheer insanity. That’s like saying, “we need more women to be raped so they can appreciate what our law enforcement is doing to protect them” (not that law enforcement really is doing any such thing), or, “we need more people to contract tuberculosis so they can appreciate everything the medical industry is doing to wipe out deadly diseases.”

Uh, excuse me, Dr. Evil, but if we were to experience yet another horrific terrorist strike, wouldn’t that be clear evidence that your dear leader is NOT capable of protecting this country?

In my view, this is all the more reason why Ron Paul is needed on center stage to show ignorant and/or forgetful Republican voters that a constitutionally limited government based on peace and free trade is still a viable option.

A bird in the Bush….

In George Bush on June 1, 2007 at 5:15 pm

One of my favorite childhood memories is a bird taking a dump on a statue of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov “Lenin” just as our tour guide was uttering solemn inanities about the Glorious Leader. Like Comrade Lenin, our own Bushevik apparently believes that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Here is First Comrade Bushling getting carpet-bombed by a bird (which was no doubt a mind controlled puppet of Al Qaida terrorists):

Bush Administration Declares Anti-War Nobel Peace Prize Winner “Irrelevant”

In Big Brother, Censorship, Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Corruption, Crazy Claims, Democrats, George Bush, Guantanamo, History, Iraq War, Middle East, Military, Police State, Politics, Republican, Terrorism, War on May 22, 2007 at 7:43 am

Jimmy CarterCRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) – The White House on Sunday fired back at former President Jimmy Carter, calling him “increasingly irrelevant” a day after Carter described George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history in international relations.Carter, a Democrat, said on Saturday in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that “as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”White House spokesman Tony Fratto had declined to react on Saturday but on Sunday fired back.“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” Fratto told reporters. “I think it’s unfortunate. And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”Carter has been an outspoken critic of Bush, but the White House has largely refrained from attacking him in return. Sunday’s sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.In the newspaper interview, Carter said Bush had taken a “radical departure from all previous administration policies” with the Iraq war.“We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered,” Carter said.In a separate BBC interview, Carter also denounced the close relationship between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.“Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient,” Carter said when asked how he would characterize Blair’s relationship with Bush.”I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world,” Carter said.Carter, who was president from 1977-1981 and won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his charitable work, was an outspoken opponent of the invasion of Iraq before it was launched in 2003. [Source: Reuters.com]

Across the blogosphere, conservatives are now making the rather shocking claim that 9/11 occurred as a result of Jimmy Carter’s policies. In a way, it’s amusing, since most of those bloggers are too young to even remember the Carter presidency. As a middle-aged left Libertarian, I remember it well. Jimmy Carter was the first president I ever voted for, although he lost that time around to Ronald Reagan. I voted for Carter because he is a humanist who believes in a strict policy of non-military intervention in international affairs, opting instead for diplomacy, except if our national security is directly threatened. After all, I was alive during Vietnam, and during the height of the Cold War, so that was (and will always be) an extremely important issue for me.

At the same time, it’s typical that conservatives would find a way to blame the actions of George W Bush – decades after Jimmy Carter left office – on a liberal. After all, they can’t blame themselves for re-electing a known warmonger who openly advocates torture and the erosion of our civil rights …. can they?

Let’s compare the two presidents.

Jimmy Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize. George W. Bush couldn’t even win second prize in a beauty contest on Monopoly.

Jimmy Carter is known as a peace-advocating diplomat, and a humanitarian. George W Bush is known as a lying, draft-dodging, bloodthirsty warmongerer.

Don’t blame a man, who advocated peace, for a war that started decades after he left office. And don’t just dismiss him because he dared to say what many, if not most, politically active Americans are already thinking.

Put the blame where the blame is due. This is a war based on lies and deceptions, all of which are directly traceable and attributable to the Bush administration. There were no WMDs, folks, and Bush knew there were no WMDs; but he attacked Iraq anyway because they might one day get WMDs. Huh? I’m still scratching my head about that one. Now, Bush wants to attack even more countries, and the Democrats have already backed off the promises they made when they were elected, to end the war in Iraq. Is it therefore any wonder that third parties are more attractive than ever to voters during the 2008 presidential election cycle? Read the rest of this entry »

Immigration hysteria being used as an excuse for rise of US police state

In Civil Liberties, Communism, Constitutional Rights, George Bush, History, Immigration, Nanny State, Police State, Terrorism on May 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm


“And he causes all, both great and small, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark” (Rev.13:16-17)

Earlier we reported that the illegal immigration hysteria is being used to justify the construction of an American gulag, which has been the subject of plans for rounding up large numbers of Americans, not just immigrants.

In addition to SS numbers, as well as walls such as the one Bushling wants on the border with Mexico, and concentration camps, police states are well known for requiring their subjects to carry their papers and produce them on demand.

Immigration is being used as an excuse to implement this same system in America.

Homeland Stupidity reports:

Read the rest of this entry »

Dana Rohrabacher, Traitor to Liberty

In Civil Liberties, Constitutional Rights, Crazy Claims, George Bush, History, Libertarian, Middle East, Military, Personal Responsibility, Police State, Politics, Republican, Terrorism, War on May 9, 2007 at 6:38 am

Via Brad Spangler

Dana Rohrabacher wants me dead. Well, not just me. Dana Rohrabacher wants a whole bunch of Americans dead.

“I hope it’s your family members that [sic] die,” said US Rep. Dana Rohrabacher to American citizens who questioned the Bush administration’s unlawful extraordinary rendition policies.

Rohrabacher, bring it you fucking traitor.

“But in 1969-71, Dana Rohrabacher was the most successful and most beloved libertarian activist… he was a close friend of mine until he crossed the line with his campaign for Congress. — Samuel Edward Konkin III

This reminds me. I’ve been trying to get confirmation as to whether Rohrabacher was a warmonger during the Vietnam War. As a former anarchist and follower of an actual pacifist, Robert LeFevre, it would have been illogical, but I would like independent reports from those who actually knew Rohrabacher back then.

Democrats discover two fleshy round objects between their legs, wonder WTF happened at the party last night

In Democrats, George Bush, Iraq War, Middle East, Military, Politics, Republican, War on April 26, 2007 at 4:20 am

That’s right, they grew a pair.

Moving closer to a veto showdown with President Bush, the House late Wednesday narrowly approved a bill funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that sets a goal of withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq next year.

The final vote on the $124 billion funding bill was 218-208, with two members voting present. The tally was largely along party lines, with just two Republicans voting for it and 13 Democrats voting against.

The Senate will take up the bill Thursday morning, setting up a likely confrontation with Bush, who has repeatedly vowed to veto any appropriations measure that contains a timetable for withdrawing troops.

My favorite part? I think the Democrats may be shrewder than anyone’s given them credit for so far by dragging this out. Check out the last paragraph:

Without the additional appropriations, the Pentagon will soon have to begin shifting money and deferring some projects to find the funds to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although just when that situation might become critical is a matter of dispute between the White House and Democrats in Congress.

It is within the realm of possibility that the Democrats will end funding not by outright denying funding, but by letting the issue slide until Bush is forced to beg them for the terms they’re offering now. The Democrats have it in their history of denying budgets and appropriations bills to the point where the government shut down twice under Clinton, so it’s possible. Plus, they’d come out looking like the good guys to everyone concerned: “We WANTED to give Bush his money for his war, but he wouldn’t be reasonable, and now look where we are. So because he wouldn’t say yes, the Pentagon had to bring the troops home. Oh well.”

Iran Borrowing from Bush’s Playbook

In Constitutional Rights, George Bush, Iran, Police State on April 2, 2007 at 12:23 pm

I’ve said before that George Bush and Iran’s President Ahmendijlkasd are fairly similar: they’re both crazed fundamentalists, they both pursue a reckless foreign policy, they both work very hard to incite their population against bogeymen, then imprisoning some low-level samples for eventual prosecution in the distant future, etc. Who cares whether it’s Tehran or Guantanamo where the “enemy” is detained?

The infuriating televised “confessions” of the British sailors that Iran has been spewing all over the place rings another bell: remember when Khalid Chesthair Mohammed confessed to planning every terrorist attack since he was born? It’s almost impossible to believe that one man, no matter how evil and brilliant, is capable of planning all those acts. The general consensus seems to be that Mohammed was tortured to extract the ridiculous confessions, and even the most hardcore neocons have provided little plausible refutation.

Iran has managed to one-up the US, however. They got their bogeymen to confess on TV, looking physically well – ie, not tortured. In other words, the imprisoned British were either drugged (unlikely) or scared half to death. The mere fact that Iran didn’t visibly torture its captives doesn’t make its actions right, but when Iran is looking morally superior to the US, there’s a big problem.