I know I know, I completely missed out on the big anniversary this week. How lame of us not to mention that The McDonald's Happy Meal is 25 years old.

Yes, the country hasn't quite been the same since.

Oh, yeah, and also this week was the first anniversary of when George Bush officially bored of the unexciting war on terror and decided to appease bin Laden by calling of the dogs and sending them after his sworn enemy Saddam. Besides blowing up a country is darn good entertainment. The war on terror's like a durn subtitled film that lasts forever and when its over you wonder if anything actually happened. The Iraqi war was like Armageddon or some other Hollywood popcorn flick... of course now its getting boring again, so let's talk about the fun stuff from last year. Shall we?

- rob 3:37 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The Ballad of Dick Cheney

Come and listen to a story about a man named Dick
A rich profiteer, likes to make his money quick,
Then one day he was shootin at a duck,
And fresh from a vote comes a troublin fuck.

Court, Supreme. Black robed. Picks VPs.

Well the first thing you know ol' Dick's a billionaire,
Task Force said Saddam doesn't have a prayer!
Said Halliburton won the bid before the war,
So they loaded up the tanks and they emptied out the store.

T-bills, that is. Swindlin fools. Soak the poor.

Well now it's time to say good-bye to justice and its kin
And Dick would like to thank the Duck for kindly droppin in
You're payin tax for his Iraq and all of his cronies
To have a heapin helpin of our principalities--

Dick's, that is. PNAC's goal. Own the country.
It's all his now, y'hear?

- Michael 3:01 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush campaign gear made in Burma
His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.

The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.

The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.

Okay, this won't take down the Presidency, it won't even be a story tomorrow. But it is funny, and if it had happened to Kerry it would be the lead for a week.

- rob 2:25 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

"In the same blind"

What's sauce for the duck is all expenses paid for the goose:

"My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned," he said. "Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of persons, in a hunting camp with the vice president, where I never hunted with him in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation?" -- Justice Antonin Scalia, in a memo regarding a free duck-hunting trip and Dick Cheney's pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court on revealing names in his Energy Task Force

Or put another way, "My recusal is required if ... my impartiality might reasonably be questioned," the Omlette said. "Why would that result follow from my being in a sizable group of missing broken eggs, in a henhouse where the theft occurred, right next to the blind chicken?" -- The Omlette, in a memo regarding an egg-hunting trip with the Fox

- Michael 12:10 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.

"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."

- rob 5:27 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Scalia Won't Step Aside From Cheney Case

can't add anything to that. who do you appeal to when the supreme court is corrupt?

- rob 5:26 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

America seems to have less allies under Bush. I wonder why? Let's hear from one of our allies:

Poland 'taken for a ride' over Iraq's WMD: President

WARSAW (AFP) - In a first sign of official criticism in Poland of the US-led invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), President Aleksander Kwasniewski said that his country had been "taken for a ride" about the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in the strife-torn country.

"That they deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction, that's true. We were taken for a ride," Kwasniewski said Thursday. Emphasis Mine.

- rob 2:28 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Democracy, Not Appeasement

Don't call it appeasement.

International online commentators from Madrid to Manila are rejecting the suggestion that Spanish voters who voted out the country's pro-U.S. ruling party in the wake of the March 11 terrorist attack resemble the Europeans who sought to appease Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s. The accusation, says the Parisian daily, Le Monde, is "contemptuous."
...

The appeasement argument shows "a lot of contempt for the Spanish people who live daily with the threat of terrorism," say the editors of Le Monde.

Spanish voters ousted Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party "not out of fear, but anger," according to the French daily. "They did not support a government and a president, that deceived them and sought to manipulate their votes by putting all the responsibility for the attacks on the ETA [the Basque separatist group] while already possessing clues to Islamist involvement. The handling of the information, backed by pressure on the big media, revived the memory of other deceptions, such as the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which Mr. Aznar refused to explain."

"The Spanish right was beaten by itself, by turning to methods that it unfortunately does not have a monopoly on," the editors in Paris conclude. "That is why Spaniards' fresh start, far from amounting to resignation in the face of terrorism, is a lesson in democracy."

The appeasement argument fails to distinguish between the war against al Qaeda and the war in Iraq, says columnist Jonathan Freeland in the Guardian, the leftist London daily. While 90 percent of the Spanish electorate opposed the Iraq war, "there is no evidence that they were, or are, soft on [al Qaeda]," he writes.

"Let no one forget that 36 hours before the election, about 11 million Spaniards took to the streets to swear their revulsion at terrorism. It takes some cheek to accuse a nation like that of weakness and appeasement."

The Spanish voters did not cave in to the terrorists, he says.

"On the contrary, many of those who opposed the war in Iraq did so precisely because they feared it would distract from the more urgent war against Islamist fanaticism. (Witness the US military resources pulled off the hunt for Bin Laden in Afghanistan and diverted to Baghdad.) Nor was it appeasement to suggest that the US-led invasion of an oil-rich, Muslim country would make al-Qaeda's recruitment mission that much easier."

- rob 12:49 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

This is Appeasement:

• Al Qaeda wanted Saddam removed from power, Bush removes Saddam from power.
• Al Qaeda wanted US military out of the Saudi peninsula, Bush removes US military from Saudi peninsula.
• Al Qaeda wanted to be treated seriously as a world class player locked in a fundamental clash of nations (for recruiting purposes) as opposed to rogue criminals, Bush declares them world class players locked in a fundamental clash of nations and refuses to view this as a law enforcement action.
• Al Qaeda wanted the population to be afraid, Bush tells the population to be afraid.
• The Pentagon learns the location of Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi and wants to bring him in, Bush orders nothing to be done.

Bush doesn't really seem to be that interested in getting Bin Laden. We've had him and Al Qaeda on the run in Afganistan, severe damage was being done to their network, and what do we do? We stop, we give him a break, we turn our attention to Bin Laden's sworn enemy: Saddam.

I guess that is why Bush earned this ringing endorsement:

A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda released a statement on Wednesday. The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said: "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

There you have it: A vote for Bush is a vote for terrorism.

No, not really, but the truth is Bush is leaving America at risk. He is doing nothing to make our nation more secure (instead spending our resources on a war against Iraq that had nothing to do with the war on terror), while basically being a recruiting poster for al Qaeda.

- rob 12:43 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

GRAND THEFT AMERICA

Michael (see his post below), also gave me the link to the above Flash piece that reminds us of Florida 2000.

- rob 11:53 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Amnesia

Apparently at least one half of Americans have a memory span going back, oh, about a minute and three seconds, or just as long as it takes to spin a news cycle. Remember the time before the national doctrine of We get to invade anybody, anyplace, if we deem them capable of someday maybe perhaps becoming a threat? And a minute or so before that, when it was, When we know for sure they have weapons of mass destruction? And about thirty seconds before that when it was, We will smoke 'em outta their holes, wherever the terrists are hiding, and go after any country that sponsors them? And before that when it was, We believe in working closely with the U.N. and our NATO allies to form an international coalition to fight terrorism wherever it may be? And before that when it was, We will never put U.S. troops in harm's way without our U.N. allies? And before that,when it was, We don't believe nation-building is in the best interest of the United States? And before that when it was, We believe that what we did in Lebanon in 1982 [the U.S. turned tail and fled as soon as we were attacked, under Reagan-Cheney] was the right thing to do? No, you don't remember?

This, my friends, is known as selective amnesia, and hawks are using it to cherry-pick their arguments in favor of continued aggressive occupation and conquest of the Middle East and all points north south east and west. The logic has been turned on its head. Now the rallying cry is, We have to pour every ounce of treasure and blood into Iraq and sooner rather than later its neighbors or else it's a victory for al-Quaeda, and any other country that doesn't agree with us is an appeaser in the mold of Neville Chamberlain, despite the mandate of that country's people in a democratically held election. I suppose our NOT turning the handling of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq over to what are supposed to be our U.N. allies has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT? The argument is that the Europeans have no belly for war. That's an interesting argument, considering that Europe STARTED BOTH WORLD WARS in the 20th century and has been a crucible for statism, terror and international violence for more than A THOUSAND YEARS. But no, Americans see things much more clearly than any thousand-year-old country can. What's wrong with those democratically elected leaders in all those free countries? We should teach them a little democracy.

Meanwhile, all the good arguments for actually fighting terrorism (something Bush might think about once in while, especially in an election year) go completely and utterly unheeded by the bellicose jingoists. The only way to fight terrorism is a big military invasion and occupation of an already beaten, toothless country, which we, the aggressors, knew never posed a threat. Before the unilateral, illegal invasion, anybody who knew anything at all about the region and the likely response who bothered to speak out was instantly ridiculed and shouted down by the administration and its supporters, without anything resembling an intelligent or reasonable debate. It always has been and forever will be, Shut up, we know exactly what we're doing.

Well, that may indeed be the case, but is what you're doing making the world a safer place by actually cracking down on the lunatics who threaten it? No, because that never was the mission, and it still isn't. This is why all the arguments change after the facts, and the world is much more dangerous as a result. Every day brings us closer to something resembling Armegeddon, and there's a real possibility that something genuinely horrifying will happen here, something that will make 9/11 look like a dummy run. So what are we supposed to do about it?

For starters, better leadership and less greedership. The entire world knows what Bush is and what he's doing. He's establishing a circle of military bases around ports and oilfields and means to secure them, no matter the cost, no matter who dies, including Americans in their beds. Whoever's reading this better understand that. This is fact, not opinion. You can disagree with my reasons, but the military bases are there and show no signs of ever going away. You can't dispute their presence. And if you think they're there for anything other than controlling that region's resources, you're the one with the ideology, not me.

Second, we better get the fuck out of that civil war. That's Vietnam. The Sunni-Shiite struggle is being deliberately sparked, and that fucker's blowing as we speak. If we allow our War on Terror to include using American troops as fodder for a sectarian Islamist struggle, then we automatically lose, since the only way to win is to destroy the other side, which is impossible in this case. I say, let them blow each other up and stay out of it. We can't build a free society in the middle of a civil war. We tried that already once and it doesn't work. Why won't the hawks acknowledge that? I'm not saying we should just pull out, but we can't be the only ones there. Bush must go. He is an utter failure in international diplomacy. We need a regime change at home, a whole new slate of legislators, and some kind of international coalition actively pursuing a diplomatic course in addition to aggressively combatting terrorists. How do we do it?

Stop saber rattling and threatening everyone. Cancel our doctrine of Bring 'em on. Cancel unilateralism. Include ourselves in international treaties and protocols. Obey the Geneva convention. These are just a few ideas that only served us well for more than 50 years. Since they're tried, I guess that means they can't be true. Better just throw that all away and wing it instead. At least according to selective amnesiacs. Everything changed after 9/11. Really? I could've sworn people were blowing themselves up in Israeli shopping malls.

The other canard is that "the only thing that will work is to go in there with the military and hit 'em hard. It's the only thing the terrorists understand." For one thing, we're not hitting the terrorists, they're hitting us. We're hitting the Iraqis, and it's pissing them off. I recently read this excellent editorial, which notes specifically with regard to going after terrorists:

"So what can we do? Traditional top-heavy approaches -- strategic bombardment, invasion and other large-scale forms of coercion -- will not be any use against border-hopping jihadist swarms, and they would only add to their popular support.

"Surprisingly, however, pinpoint responses may not be the answer either. Kathleen Carley, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, has used intelligence data and computer modeling to monitor changes in jihadist networks, including the cell responsible for the suicide bombing of the American Embassy in Tanzania. She found that eliminating the "central actors" -- that is, cell members who have the most ties to other cell members and to other groups -- has actually spurred terrorists to adapt more quickly, and has been less effective in the long run than eliminating less-central foot soldiers. Thus assassinations of leaders (a favorite Israeli tactic) may be counterproductive, in addition to causing public revulsion.

"Rather, destroying terrorist networks requires what David Ronfeldt, a RAND analyst, calls "netwar." This is, in effect, mimicking the swarming tactics of the enemy. It involves long missions by smallish, mobile military units that can quickly descend on terrorist groups."

Do you hear anything commonsensical like this coming from the hawk camp? I sent this to my old pal Dan Lynch, and he ignored it, instead referring to me as "breathtakingly naive" on his radio program when I asked him how we could afford to be policeman of the world and go it alone. Why? Does anyone reading this consider it breathtakingly naive to go after terrorist networks in the way described here, with mobile military units made up of an international coalition? No, I guess it makes much more sense getting blown up all alone like sitting ducks for years and years to come, while you and I and your children's children pay for it, while Iraqi freedom and democracy burns.

Meanwhile the radical Islamist fundamentalists have a whole new reason to recruit thousands and thousands of followers who believe in violence as a political solution, much like selective amnesiacs.

- Michael 11:45 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush Logic

"All I ask is that you Love me,
Obey me,
Do as I say
And I will be your Slave"
- Jareth the Goblin King (David Bowie, Labyrinth (1986))

Just watched the film again with my son, and that quote struck me as funny, and fitting with what passes today as logic in newspapers and editorials.

- rob 3:27 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Got this link from Atrios

The answer to terror is plain

Are the Spanish cowardly for tossing out their pro-Iraq intervention government? Or are they wise?

Hawks in America were quick to embrace Spain in the wake of the terror bombings in Madrid last week. "We Are All Spaniards Now," proclaimed the lead editorial in The New York Sun. The goal of such punditry, of course, was to keep Spaniards - and Americans - from grasping the full downside of the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on other countries, notably Iraq.

But now that the pro-intervention Popular Party (PP) has been defeated, to be replaced by the anti-intervention Socialists, American hawks are reversing course, accusing Spain of "appeasing" terror. Peter Robinson, writing in Nationalreview.com, lamented, "Terrorists have now succeeded in producing a change in government in a major Western European nation."

Not exactly. What happened was that Spaniards went to the polls and rejected the PP's pro-Bush policy.
...

The lesson of Madrid was clear enough. Those Spanish troops currently hunkering down in Iraq, dodging snipers, could have been used instead to secure "soft targets" on the homefront, guarding Spain's borders and transport system.

So what will the incoming Zapatero government do in regard to security policy? Here's a prediction: Even as he honors his campaign promise to withdraw his country's troops from Iraq, Zapatero will take obvious and commonsensical measures to improve Spain's homeland security. That is, he will tighten up on border enforcement, scrutinize aliens more closely and improve security around public places. And he will even work closely with allies in "Old Europe."

Indeed, Americans might wish to study Spain's alternative approach to national defense. Voters here might wonder why it's a good idea to have 130,000 American troops in Iraq - while our own borders are sparsely monitored and our own rail system is wide open to terror bombing. And why does the Bush administration wish to spend $200 billion to "liberate" Iraq, but just $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security this year?

Finally, Americans might ask themselves the most basic question of all: Has the invasion of Iraq really made the United States safer?

Whose this paid comrade of Kerry who wrote this you ask? James P. Pinkerton
James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.

- rob 3:24 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The dangers of Theocracy (a continuing feature, I guess) and a reason for all sides to dislike Bush

Pentagon Bankrolls Swedish Stem Cell Study

Remember when Bush allowed thousands of thousands of Americans to wait multiple years more for a cure to their diseases just so he looked good to his religious conservative base? You might not remember that because it was pre-9/11, but in those days George had five priorities for his presidency:

1. Make his defense contractor buddy's rich by building an expensive missile that shoots down missiles... of course it doesn't actually work, but that's beside the point.
2. Make his oil buddy's rich.
3. Find a way to get into a war with Irag, to make both his defense contractor and oil buddies rich.
4. Billions of Tax cuts for the rich (and $300 for the rest of us).
5. Stop important stem cell research.

Notice protecting the nation for terrorism wasn't in the top five? (or anywhere).

Anyway, he pretty much halted stem cell research save for a few firms (donors all... believe it or not).

So now we get this:

March 17 — STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - The Pentagon has granted $240,000 to a Swedish team for embryonic stem-cell research linked to Parkinson's disease, the researchers said on Wednesday, despite U.S. government limits on stem-cell research.

In a statement, Lund University in southern Sweden said the U.S. Department of Defense was supporting the Swedish Parkinson's study because the findings could be used to treat similar neurological illnesses caused by battlefield toxins.

The Swedish research, using human embryonic stem cells, will focus on ways to prompt the cells to develop into the type of nerve cells deficient in the brains of patients with Parkinson's. The disease causes tremors, muscle rigidity and slow movement in its sufferers and is currently incurable.

"The goal is to develop a line of human embryonic stem cells which can be transplanted to test animals with a disease resembling Parkinson's," said Patrik Brundin, the research team leader.

Stem cells are a type of master cell. Embryonic stem cells, or blastocysts, can be directed to develop into any type of cell or tissue when grown correctly.

President Bush has forbidden the use of federal funds to manipulate or create human embryos for research and limited scientific research to a few existing batches of cells taken from fertility clinic leftovers.

So, if you want to see Parkinson's are a host of other disease erraticated, then you should get pretty darn annoyed that the main avenue for a cure basically isn't being studied in the US because of Bush.

or

If you are part of Bush's religious base you should be annoyed that Bush is basically going back on what he is saying and is having federal funding go to stem cell research and he thought you were just too dumb to notice.

or

If you couldn't care less, you should be annoyed that your tax dollars are going to a foreign land to help foreigners developed medicines that could generate money for said foreign scientists. Bush is pushing entire future industries offshore... not just jobs this time.

So, no matter what, you should be annoyed at Bush. Another success story for the Bush Administration.

- rob 3:19 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

In the monkey trial... were the citizens of Rhea County playing the monkeys?

Tenn. County Wants to Charge Homosexuals

DAYTON, Tenn. - The county that was the site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial" over the teaching of evolution is asking lawmakers to amend state law so the county can charge homosexuals with crimes against nature.

The Rhea County commissioners approved the request 8-0 Tuesday.

Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the measure, also asked the county attorney to find a way to enact an ordinance banning homosexuals from living in the county.

"We need to keep them out of here," Fugate said.

Dude, they're already there. Maybe you should stop worrying about them and worry a wee bit more about yourself?

- rob 3:08 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Very Weird Ways Republicans Waste Your Tax Dollars

Janklow can't be sued for damages in crash with motorcycle, U.S. attorney says

Meanwhile, in a separate action Monday, U.S. Attorney Thomas Heffelfinger ruled that Janklow [South Dakota's sould Rep in Congress - Repug] was "acting within the scope of his federal employment" at the time of the accident and therefore isn't liable as a defendant in the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Scott's family.

Janklow, who lives in Brandon, S.D., just east of Sioux Falls, collided with Scott at a rural intersection in eastern South Dakota while driving home from a ceremony in Aberdeen to honor Korean War veterans.

The State Patrol said that Janklow's vehicle was traveling at 71 miles per hour when he ran the stop sign. Scott, who was not required to stop at the intersection, was thrown from his motorcycle and died at the scene.

Heffelfinger's decision means that any damages awarded the Scotts stemming from the suit would be paid by the federal government -- or the taxpayers -- and not by Janklow.

Okay, Janklow's seat is now open, and there is a special election coming up in South Dakota... help the GOP lose a seat in the House, visit Stephanie Herseth's site.

- rob 2:47 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

From: The Senator Prank: Joke Letters Sent To The U.S. Government

The humor of John Kerry, the next President of the United States:

We have a new Chaplain in the Senate and a tour came through the other day. They asked him a lot of questions about being Chaplain and one person turned to him and asked: "When you open the Senate with prayer each morning, do you look out at the Senators and pray for them?" The Chaplain didn’t lose a beat – he said "No, actually I look out at all those Senators and I pray for the country.

- rob 12:53 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

I good blog to check out is:

Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.

In particular I like this post:

Reframing Bush's national security record

1. Bush took power
   
2. Bush ignored the threat of terrorism
   
3. 9-11 occured
   
4. Bush was indecisive in that kindergarten class
   
5. Bush then hid out in Nebraska while his staff invented a "threat" to Air Force One to justify his absence
   
6. Bush went to war against Afghanistan (so far okay)
   
7. But instead of finishing the job, he let Bin Laden, Omar Mullah, and lots of Taliban and Al Qaeda to escape
   
8. Why did they get away? Because they diverted intelligence and military assets to fight a non-threat in Iraq
   
9. And how do we know Iraq was a non-threat? Because they invented evidence to justify the war and lied to Congress and the American people
   
10. They botched the occupation of Iraq, and close to 700 allied and countless Iraqis have paid the ultimate price, and more continue to do so
    
11. They botched the occupation of Afghanistan, as the US-backed government controls nothing more than Kabul, and the rest of the country is a haven for terrorists, religious fanatics, opium producers, and regional warlords
    
12. And now, over two years after 9-11, the administration is finally training all of our intelligence and military resources toward capturing Osama Bin Laden

- rob 12:50 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Sorry, I've been forgetting to post the ever entertaining Top Ten Conservative Idiots

5. George W. Bush
First he opposed the 9/11 commission, then he supported it. Next he said he was only going to give the commission an hour of his time, then last week he relented. "Nobody's watching the clock," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. And while an hour is "a reasonable period of time to set aside for a sitting president of the United States," McClellan also said that, "Certainly a sitting President has many great responsibilities to tend to; none more important for this President than acting to prevent attacks like September 11th from ever happening again on American soil." None, that is, except for the lure of cow milking and pig racing - Dubya did manage to find time in his really-hectic-but-I-guess-I-can-fit-in-five-minutes-for-the-9/11-commission schedule to visit the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo last week. But never mind that. Scott McClellan also told the press last week that "I certainly hope that people don't politicize [the 9/11 commission report]. This is too important to become politicized." Hmph, a bit late for that now, isn't it?

6. George W. Bush
And so it was onward and upward for Bush and his "too important to become politicized" 9/11 antics. Last week Our Great Leader visited Eisenhower Park on Long Island to attend a ground-breaking ceremony for a 9/11 memorial - and then held a $1.6 million fundraiser in the very same park that very same evening. According to the Washington Post, "Big money-raisers munched on filet mignon as they waited for a handshake with the president." How tasteful. Interestingly, workers at the park spent a good portion of the day making sure that Dubya's feet wouldn't get muddy - apparently the Secret Service gave orders that "The president's feet are not to touch the dirt" when he appeared at the ground-breaking ceremony. And so "large crews drawn from all county parks" were assigned to lay down asphalt and wood chips. What can I say? I guess George W. Bush may have blood on his hands, but at least he doesn't have shit on his shoes.

7. Donald Rumsfeld
Last week we noted a quote by Tommy Fee of Rescue Squad 270 in Queens, who said of Bush's 9/11 campaign ads, "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place." Well this week we can reveal the name of at least one of the people who "stole things out of the place" - step forward Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. According to USA Today, Rumsfeld apparently has "a shard of metal from the jetliner that struck the Pentagon on a table in his office and shows it to people as a reminder of the tragedy." You know, just in case people forget what happened. "Hey Mr. Rumsfeld, what's that?" "It's a shard of metal from the jetliner that hit the Pentagon on 9/11." "What? A jetliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11? I don't remember that." "It sure did." "And you have a piece of it?" "I sure do." "Jesus, Mr. Rumsfeld, you sick bastard."

- rob 4:59 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The House of Morons

H. R. 3920 (Introduced-in-House)

A BILL
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004”.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court—
(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.
The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.
This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

Just to end any confusion right now "judicial activism" is defined as "any decision by a judge I do not like." Judges do not make laws, "activist judges" do not make laws, even the most wild ass interpretation by a judge is still just that, and interpretation. If congress doesn't like that, they have two choices: Impeach the judge, or write a law that is less open to interpretation (but that might require actual work).

So these guys don't like those options given to them by the constitution, they want a new one. The funny thing if this law passes, and the Supreme Court declares it unconstitution, does the House then vote on refersing that decision? And if they do, what happens? Stupidity I guess.

This is political pandering to a conservative base. This is all about gay marriage. Rep. Ron Lewis (R as in urrrrrhh?) has decided to show his constituents that he's ready to take a pre-emptive strike (that's all the range these days) against the inevitable day when the Supreme Court declares the "defense of marriage act" (signed by a true defender of marriage - Bill Clinton) unconstitutional. The actual Constitution by damned. Here's Rep Lewis's take on it:

“America’s judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans,” said Lewis. “The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. These actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation’s traditions.”

I didn't see any judge "legislating," I saw a judge say "nothing here in the Mass. Constitution about gay marriage... sorry. Next." It is then up to the legislation to better define the laws of Mass or even rewrite their constitution if they want to be so... asinine.
So now Ron wants to pass a law that is unconstitutional. If he is serious it in truth needs to be a constitutional amendment not a law. But Ron isn't serious, and he doesn't seem to mind promoting bills that would be unconstitutional if passed.

Which brings up his oath that he took when he started representing Kentucky (yes, they take an oath... I don't know if anyone checks to see if their fingers are crossed):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

So, I guess God wasn't helping out Ron, because, quite frankly, just to look good to his constituents of Kentucky, Ron is pissing all over the constitution.

- rob 4:53 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

From my sis: Watch out for the Unitarians!!!!

2 N.Y. ministers charged for marrying gay couples

KINGSTON, N.Y. -- Two ministers were charged with criminal offenses today for marrying 13 gay couples -- apparently the first time in U.S. history that clergy members have been prosecuted for performing same-sex ceremonies.

District Attorney Donald Williams said gay marriage laws make no distinction between public officials and members of the clergy who preside over wedding ceremonies.

Unitarian Universalist ministers Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license, the same charges leveled against New Paltz Mayor Jason West, who last month drew the state into the widening national debate over same-sex unions.

Each charge carries a fine of $25 to $500 or up to a year in jail.

So what we are saying here is two ministers are arrested for performing a religious ceremony in a church. That is all they did. Again, they were arrested for performing a religious ceremony in a church.

Are we saying Fundamentalist Christians have more legal rights then Unitarians? i.e. a fundamentalist christian or fundamentalist muslim is offended by gay marriage so they have people arrested for a church ceremony in a Unitarian church.

Welcome to Bush's America. You can take it back, but don't just wait until November... write letters to your congress"persons" (some of them aren't really people you know), write your newspaper, hug your favorite unitarian, or gay, or gay unitarian, or christian, just hug somebody.

- rob 1:22 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Did the Saudis buy a president?

How much money has flowed from the House of Saud to the Bush family and its friends and allies over the years? No one will ever know -- but the number is at least $1.477 billion.

If the Saudis had been happy with the presidency of George H.W. Bush -- and they were -- they must have been truly ecstatic, in the summer of 2000, that his son was the Republican candidate for president. Indeed, the relationship between the two dynasties had come a long way since the seventies when Saudi banking billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz and Salem bin Laden had flown halfway around the world to buy a secondhand airplane from James Bath, George W. Bush's old friend from decades before. Even bin Mahfouz's subsequent financing of the Houston skyscraper for James Baker's family bank or the Saudi bailout of Harken Energy that helped George W. Bush make his fortune were small potatoes compared with what had happened since.

The Bushes and their allies controlled, influenced or possessed substantial positions in a vast array of companies that dominated the energy and defense sectors. Put it all together, and there were myriad ways for the House of Bush to engage in lucrative business deals with the House of Saud and the Saudi merchant elite.

Buy the book (if you want):

- rob 11:38 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

From DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2004:

In the interview, set to air on Tuesday , Gibson says of Bush: "I am having doubts, of late. It mainly has to do with the weapons [of mass destruction] claims."

The surprisingly critical comments from Gibson, a rare conservative voice in Hollywood, come as PASSION continues to dominate the boxoffice.

See here is where I realise that I was being cynical. It was so obvious to me that Bush was lying about the WMD's all fall 2002 and spring 2003, that I assumed everyone knew that, and that those people parroting what he said were just following the party line. But I see Mel Gibson say the above, and I hear other conservatives saying similar things, and I realize that some people actually believed that liar. And this is what might bring Bush down, when people wake up to the fact that Americans died based on a lie, Bush we'll be out of office.

So good for Mel speaking up, not that I'm fond of the guy's politics, but hey, The Year of Living Dangerously is one of my favorite films. Poor Mel will still vote for Bush though, sad.

And what world is Drudge in anyway, Mel is a "rare conservative voice in Hollywood?" What the hell? Bruce Willis, Gov. Arnold, Charlton Heston, Ben Stein (for pete's sake). A conservative in Hollywood is not rare. Being a minority does not mean you are "rare." And we are talking a pretty large minority here. This liberal Hollywood crap is just a way to help Drudge fight his "culture war," because you can never have enough wars.

- rob 10:48 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Kicking and Screaming

The difference between this and Vietnam is profound. Vietnam was political. We thought we were fighting international communism, but it was a civil war, and ten million deaths later, who gives a fuck? We were a fly on a thousand-year-old pile of shit. Originally it was about the Japanese, but after 1945 Ho Chi Minh came to us and we shook our heads no, because at that point it was all about China. So we got sucked into a gap left by the French. I defy anyone to tell me what we died for in Indochina between 1962 and 1975.
Here we are in Iraq. This isn't a political war, it's religious. History is replete with religious wars. They go on for centuries. This is a war without end. The only way to "win" a religious war is to annihilate the other side, utterly and completely. That means killing every single one of them. You can take all the political slogans and shove them. We are in it now. Spain voted No, which in my mind is pussified, but Europe has a clear idea of day-to-day reality. I've been saying for more than a year that we're no different from Israel, that we are Israel, that for all intents and purposes, all Americans and all our allies are Jews. That means we are all targets. How to fight?

Bush has led us straight into quicksand. He forcefully shoved us into a sinking pit. His guys are totally OK with this, they're all making money, while G.I. Joes are losing limbs and life. That's fine too, let's not even bother with the coffins. The Europeans are all too familiar with this quicksand, and they say no. So we react.

When all is said and done, and all the people who are alive now are killed and dead forever, what was accomplished, for what reason?

- Michael 9:15 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Video News Releases and your tax dollars

In 1989 I interviewed with a division of ABC News that produced "Video News Releases." As was explained to me at the interview, video news releases are fake news stories paid for by corporations submitted to local stations that have little production budgets themselves who will air such stories as filler on slow news days. An example given to me was say if campbell's soup wanted to get some good publicity, they'd pay this division some money to do a story on botulism and how modern canning methods were making it a "disease of the past." Nothing outright promotional would be run in the story, but the story might feature a Campbell's soup executive explaining the priority defeating botulism has been for the company and how their cunning canning had helped the whole industry put this disease to rest. The story would be send to most of the local stations in the united states, both as a narrated story, or as a silent story with a script so the local station could have one of their own reporters narrate the story as if they had done the story themselves.

I told the interviewer that morality and ethics aside the job seemed interesting. I didn't get the job (I didn't get many jobs in 1989 come to think of it).

Stations still run video news releases as actual news all the time on your local stations, its a disgusting practice of advertising parading as information. At least it was limited to corporations... well, until Bush, who runs the government just like a company... a sleazy company.

U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny

WASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.

Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.

Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

Yep, the medicare plan again. Is anything about that plan above board?

- rob 3:46 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Kerry Criticizes Bush Record on Terrorism

WASHINGTON, March 15 — Senator John F. Kerry attacked President Bush on national security issues today, asserting that Mr. Bush has played politics with the battle against terrorism and that the bombings in Spain show how ineffective his policies have been.

"When it comes to protecting America from terrorism, this administration is big on bluster and they're short on action," the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said. "But as we saw again last week in Spain, real action is what we need. The Bush administration is tinkering while the clock on homeland security is ticking. And we really don't have a moment of time to waste."

Bush is basically running on one argument "I'm tough against terrorists." Which is obviously bogus, it is safe to say he's tough on people who try to kill his daddy, but not on people who are an actual threat to American security. No? Ask yourself how many soldiers are in Iraq versus how many are searching for bin laden and securing Afganistan.

Kerry knows Bush's "strength" is just smoke and mirrors... hopefully he'll be able to get the word out:

Today, Mr. Kerry showed again that he was unwilling to be pre-empted by President Bush on security issues. He said the times demanded "truly dedicating ourselves to homeland security, not using it as a political prop."

Mr. Kerry asserted that President Bush and his aides had even demanded that the Department of Homeland Security regularly set up "photo opportunities" to show Mr. Bush in flattering settings.

"Ladies and gentlemen, America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9/11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue," Mr. Kerry said a moment later. "Our nation's safety is too important. And if I am president, we will work toward victory in the war terror, knowing that those on the front lines of this battle are heroes, not political props."

And maybe the word is getting out:

Editorial: The real enemy/It's terrorism, not Iraq

When President Bush took office, an imminent threat against the United States indeed existed, but it wasn't from Saddam Hussein. It was from terrorism worldwide -- most immediately from Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida.

The Bush administration was apprised of that threat by the outgoing Clinton administration and presented with a plan of action for taking the fight aggressively and soon to Bin Laden. The White House all but ignored the warning. Instead, counterterrorism funding was cut and, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has disclosed, the president and his national security team focused on removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Then came Sept. 11, 2001, the Bali bombings, the attacks in Istanbul and others, numbering almost 30 in all. Now comes the horror of the attack on Spanish trains Thursday to again illustrate just how important a worldwide, coordinated focus on terrorism is -- and how wrong America's focus on Iraq was.
...

Imagine a different scenario: Instead of unleashing a radical neoconservative foreign-policy agenda focused on Iraq, what if the Bush administration had spent its first months taking the terrorism threat seriously and building a very strong international coalition that included France, Germany, Russia, China, India, Spain, Britain, Italy and others?

What if such a coalition had sought to take preemptive action not against Iraq, but against known terrorist groups that had already bombed U.S. embassies, attacked the USS Cole, and so on? What if that coalition had followed every lead, every link, every money transfer and arms purchase? What if the coalition had sought to root Al-Qaida out of its Afghan base? Would that coalition have been capable of preventing 9/11? Would it have led to discoveries that might have foiled the attacks in Bali, or Istanbul or Madrid?

Those questions can't be answered, and the answer could be no. But this much is certain: The Bush administration didn't try. Emphasis Mine.

- rob 2:20 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Rumsfeld Caught Lying, Yet Again, On "Face the Nation." But This Time, a Journalist Actually Threw It In His Face.

Not only is it rare when a reporter confronts a Bush administration official for telling a lie, its also fun. And it is so easy, all you have to do is repeat what they told you before.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

- rob 2:09 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Spain Likely to Pull Troops From Iraq

Spain's new prime minister-elect today reiterated that Spain will withdraw its 1,300 troops from Iraq, unless the United Nations "taking charge of the situation."

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said "the war has been a disaster, the occupation continues to be a disaster. . . . There must be consequences. There has been one already," he said, "the election result. The second will be that Spanish troops will come back."

The international message? Support Bush and you won't get re-elected. No wonder Bush like to make friends with Saudi Princes and dictators. They don't have to answer to the people.

- rob 12:36 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Kerry Won't Say Which Foreign Leaders Support Him

Of course not... it would be bad foreign policy for him to do so. And you know what is really bad foreign policy? For our secretary of state to enter the political race and as a candidate to say which foreign leaders support him.

Kerry, who visited the battleground state of Pennsylvania to slam Bush's health care policy and hold a town hall meeting, said last week he had met foreign leaders who told him "you've got to beat this guy" because of unhappiness over U.S. foreign policy.

He was challenged on the issue by Powell, who said on "Fox News Sunday" that "if he feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can't list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about."

Kerry: Goofy, and a little dumb to say that foreign leaders are pulling for him.

Powell: Extremely stupid, and a little arrogant, to ask for names.

- rob 12:34 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Proposed Iraq briefing had Canada skeptical

Ottawa — Canadian officials say they challenged the U.S. to share secret intelligence showing that the Baghdad regime had dangerous weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war, but Washington failed to deliver, thus cementing the Chrétien government's resolve to stay out of the conflict.

Washington's refusal to share raw intelligence with its close ally seemed puzzling at the time, one senior official said. But a year later, the reason now seems clear: "They didn't have any evidence."

Thanks to atrios for the link (i think)

- rob 12:10 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Bush is Jealous:

China executes 10,000 people a year

"Dang... I knew I could have done better as governor of texas" thinks george before choking on a pretzel.

- rob 12:08 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Florida as the Next Florida

As Floridians went to the polls last Tuesday, Glenda Hood, Katherine Harris's successor as secretary of state, assured the nation that Florida's voting system would not break down this year the way it did in 2000. Florida now has "the very best" technology available, she declared on CNN. "And I do feel that it's a great disservice to create the feeling that there's a problem when there is not." Hours later, results in Bay County showed that with more than 60 percent of precincts reporting, Richard Gephardt, who long before had pulled out of the presidential race, was beating John Kerry by two to one. "I'm devastated," the county's top election official said, promising a recount of his county's 19,000 votes.

Four years after Florida made a mockery of American elections, there is every reason to believe it could happen again. This time, the problems will most likely be with the electronic voting that has replaced chad-producing punch cards. Some counties, including Bay County, use paper ballots that are fed into an optical scanner, so a recount is possible if there are questions. But 15 Florida counties, including Palm Beach, home of the infamous "butterfly ballot," have adopted touch-screen machines that do not produce a paper record. If anything goes wrong in these counties in November, we will be in bad shape.
...

The biggest danger of electronic voting, however, cannot be seen from the outside. Computer scientists warn that votes, and whole elections, can be stolen by rigging the code that runs the machines. The only defense is a paper record of every vote cast, a "voter-verified paper trail," which can be counted if the machines' tallies are suspect. Given its history, Florida should be a leader in requiring paper trails. But election officials, including Theresa LePore, the Palm Beach County elections supervisor who was responsible for the butterfly ballot, have refused to put them in place.

Last week, Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, filed a federal lawsuit to require paper trails. He relies on the Supreme Court's holding in Bush v. Gore that equal protection requires states to use comparable recount methods from county to county. Florida law currently requires a hand recount in close races. That is possible in most counties, but the 15 that use electronic voting machines do not produce paper records that can be recounted. Under the logic of Bush v. Gore, Representative Wexler is right.

After the 2000 mess, Americans were assured they would not have to live through such a flawed election again. But Florida has put in place a system, electronic voting without a paper trail, that threatens once more to produce an outcome that cannot be trusted. There is still time before the November vote to put printers in place in the 15 Florida counties that use touch screens. As we learned four years ago, once the election has been held on bad equipment, it is too late to make it right.

Thanks sis for the article. The legacy of Florida has left America's standing as a standard barer for democracy greatly weakened, and Bush has done nothing to help it. For an example:

Putin brushes off U.S. criticism of one-sided campaign, claims victory for second four-year term

In Washington, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States "was concerned about a level of authoritarianism creeping back in the society."

"We don't hesitate to point out to President Putin that he should use the popularity that he has to broaden the political dialogue and not use his popularity to throttle political dialogue and openness in the society," Powell told ABC TV.

That set off an angry rebuke from the Cabinet chief of staff and a calmer retort from Putin, who said the 2000 Florida election fiasco in the United States showed the weaknesses of the world's oldest democracy.

Some "see the splinter in another's eye and ignore the log in his own," Putin said.

Powell does seem confused there, because he represents the party that in our own nation has been allowing authoritarianism to creep into our society, and which for the two years following 9/11 has used their popularity to throttle political dialogue and openness in our society.

- rob 12:06 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Alex directed me to Bush's new campaign poster:

- rob 11:46 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Subscribe to the TCS Feed

Having trouble with some of the poor English on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:

Search TCS

Archive

Archive Index Page

What is this?

This is a "team" blog.  We are a bunch of Americans, whose rising distress in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.  As Bush said, he's a "uniter."  Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.

This Century Sucks Store

Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.  

We have a little Store you can visit.  

Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come see what we have.

 

We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.

Search Now:

Sites we often like:

Tin Foil Caps

The Free Speech Zone

The office of the independent blogger

Buzzflash

Tom The Dancing Bug

VerifiedVoting.org

Get Your War On

This Modern World

Eschaton / Atrios

Daily Kos

Contribute to America's Future

It is now more important then ever.

Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee

Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Some More Site Mottos

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt



"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response."
 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt



"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson



"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
- James Madison



"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy



"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

More Sites we often like:

more coming...

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.