The So-Called Protect America Act pushed through Congress in it’s hurry to leave for their August Vacation, is thankfully only in Place for 6 months, but in their rush to leave D.C. what have they done now?
Bushism vs. Goreism
August 12, 2007 at 5:26 am (Uncategorized)
Democrats in Washington should close down the fear and surrender caucus in the capital, listen to what Gore is saying, and do what Gore is doing.
Conspiracy Watch: the Best Law Ever
August 11, 2007 at 9:43 pm (Life)
In 2000, Congress secretly passed the National Economic Security and Reformation Act (nesara). But George W. Bush and a cabal of Supreme Court justices and other dark figures have blocked its implementation.This Bill sounds unbelievable to Me.
General Questions
The Income Tax
Is the income tax progressive or regressive?
Is the income tax an unapportioned direct tax or an indirect tax?
Is the income tax constitutional?
What does the Sixteenth Amendment mean?
Is the income tax progressive or regressive?
Regressive , and since the income tax is often referred to as a progressive income tax, don’t let the words fool you.
The current income tax system operates essentially the same as a regressive value added tax. Why is this? Simply because corporations do not effectively pay an income tax. Oh sure, paper forms are filed and taxes paid, but the actual cost of the tax is passed on down the line. Eventually, you the consumer will pay all of these combined but cleverly hidden taxes. Nobody can escape the hidden embedded costs. This especially hurts those with low incomes.
Quite regressive, don’t you think?
However, some much better questions to ask about the income tax is whether the tax is fair, equitable and uniform? Does the tax promote or discourage production? Does the tax protect or violate privacy? Does the tax encourage or discourage savings, hard work and enterprise? Does the tax encourage life, liberty, and ownership of property or promote involuntary slavery and operate under the guise of legal plunder? You need not be a rocket scientist to answer the questions.
Is the income tax an unapportioned direct tax or an indirect tax?
Yes.
Depends upon who the judge is, you know?
Sadly, the entire issue is so discombobulated within the legal system, that the question is essentially moot. The question is a good question, but nobody in the courts or Congress is going to answer any time soon. In essence, doesn’t matter what you argue. The courts and Congress cannot allow the house of cards to fall based upon the rhetoric of a few people. So don’t go betting the farm chasing rabbits.
However, for technical purists, the Supreme Court has declared the income tax to be an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, and that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred to Congress no new powers of taxation. Indirect taxes are not direct taxes on property, but taxes on activities. Income is not the subject of an indirect tax, but acts as a yardstick to determine the tax owed for having participated in a taxable activity.
From the Supreme Court’s perspective, the phrase “conferred no new powers” does not mean the Amendment is meaningless. Congress has always had the power to tax incomes, and that is what the phrase means. From the Court’s perspective the Amendment precludes courts from having to look for the rule of apportionment when taxes are levied on income.
However, let’s not skirt the issue. Because Congress sets the cost basis for labor at zero (please do not confuse cost basis with exchange value , the terms are not the same), the out-of-pocket effect is the same as an unapportioned direct tax.
For further information, read Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) , Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) , and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) . Have fun.
Is the income tax constitutional?
Good question. Yet, who is going to step forward and provide an answer?
Some judges believe the Sixteenth Amendment created a new class of direct tax that is unapportioned. Some judges believe the Sixteenth conferred no new powers of taxation and that the income tax is an indirect tax.
There has yet to be a decisive judicial agreement (among many) made as to whether the income tax is a direct or indirect tax, although the Supreme Court seems to think the issue was put to rest more than 80 years ago. There has yet to be an agreement as to exactly what is income. The arguments have raged for decades.
If the income tax is a direct tax, then why is the tax not being collected through the states by the rule of apportionment ? The Constitution also clearly makes the several states the subject of and liable for paying any federal direct tax.
If the Sixteenth indeed created a new class of unapportioned direct tax, then such an answer strangely contradicts the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. and Stanton v. Baltic Mining cases. Both of those cases were decided in 1916, only three years after the alleged ratification of the Sixteenth (1913). Those cases state clearly that the Sixteenth conferred to Congress no new powers of taxation and that the Sixteenth merely placed taxes on income into the class of indirect taxes subject to the rule of uniformity.
If the income tax is an indirect tax, then that answer begs the question of trying to explain why the income tax is not uniform, as required by the Constitution . Different tax rates and an almost uncountable number of deductions and loopholes hardly make the tax uniform.
If an indirect tax, then the question arises of what taxable activity are Americans participating in order to be subject to this tax? If the income tax is an indirect tax then what is the activity being taxed?
If the activity being taxed is general labor, then the Sixteenth Amendment conflicts with the Thirteenth Amendment (and all state constitutions) prohibiting involuntary servitude.
Then, of course, there is the question of voluntary compliance. If indeed the income tax is an indirect tax, and nobody can or will explain or provide a statute stating what taxable activity most Americans are participating, then why do people get fined or imprisoned for not complying?
No matter where one turns, there seems to be too many unanswerable questions surrounding the income tax. Or at least, too many questions that remain avoided.
Seems like a mess that Congress would love to sweep under the carpet, don’t you think?
NESARA does not directly try to answer your question (see The Bill—Part II Section 2 ), but does abolish the income tax. Congress should be greatly in favor of passing NESARA since the political questions surrounding the income tax would fade into history.
What does the Sixteenth Amendment mean?
The Amendment states:
The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
There are only two types of taxes, direct and indirect. Direct taxes are governed by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Amendment precludes courts from having to look for the rule of apportionment when taxes are levied on income.
Some people believe (as did the Supreme Court in 1916) that because the Amendment states that taxes on income are to be collected without apportionment, that by elimination taxes on income can be indirect taxes only. This would be faulty logic. The Amendment states only that taxes on income are not subject to the rule of apportionment. Indirect taxes are activity and consumption taxes. In an indirect tax, income is not the subject of the tax, but only a means to measure the tax owed.
The Dry Drunk Characteristics of G.W.Bush
August 10, 2007 at 10:57 pm (Life)
[edit] Alcohol
Bush has described his days before his religious conversion in his 40s as his “nomadic” period and “irresponsible youth” and admitted to drinking “too much” in those years. In Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President by James Hatfield, Bush is quoted as saying that “alcohol began to compete with my energies … I’d lose focus”. Although Bush states that he was not an alcoholic, he has acknowledged that he was “drinking too much” (as reported by Nicholas Kristof in How Bush Came to Tame His Inner Scamp, The New York Times, July 29, 2000), and that he couldn’t remember a day when he hadn’t had a drink, including his stay at Phillips Academy, where not only was he underage but alcohol was prohibited on campus, as well as at Yale where, conversely, “hard drinking” was considered a badge of honor (Hatfield).
Bush’s drinking may not have caused problems were it not for his tendency to become excessively uninhibited, according to reports of friends. In the article referenced above, Kristof quotes Bush’s cousin Elsie Walker as saying, “He was a riot. But afterward, when you’re older, that can wear thin”, and gives the example of Bush asking a “proper” female friend of his parents at a family cocktail party, “So, what’s sex like after 50, anyway?”
- In December, 1966, he was arrested for disorderly conduct after he and some friends had “a few beers” and stole a Christmas wreath from a hotel. [1] The charges were later dropped.
- On September 4, 1976, Bush was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his family’s summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine. He admitted his guilt, was fined $150, and had his driving license in the state suspended for two years, implying two prior convictions. [The White House had claimed 30 days, the document shows two years.] [2] This incident did not become public knowledge until it was reported in the press in the week before the 2000 election.
The most notorious episode, reported in numerous diverse sources including U.S. News & World Report, November 1, 1999, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq by Robert Parry, First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty by Bill Minutaglio, and W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty by Elizabeth Mitchell, has 26-year-old George W. Bush, visiting his parents in Washington, D. C. over the Christmas vacation in 1972 shortly after the death of his grandfather, taking his 16 year old brother Marvin out drinking. On the way home, George lost control of the car and ran over a garbage can, but continued home with the can wedged noisily under the car. When his father, George H. W. Bush, called him on the carpet for not only his own behavior but for exposing his younger brother to risk, George W., still under the influence, retorted angrily, “I hear you’re looking for me. You wanna go mano-a-mano right here?” Before the elder Bush could reply, the situation was defused by brother Jeb, who took the opportunity to surprise his father with the happy news that George W. had been accepted to Harvard Business School. [citation needed]
During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush said that he gave up drinking after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: “I quit drinking in 1986 and haven’t had a drop since then.” He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with Reverend Billy Graham, after which he began serious Bible study, as well as to gentle but firm pressure from his wife, Laura. [3] [4] [5] Friends recall that Bush said nothing of his decision, even to Laura, until many weeks later when they realized that he had not had so much as a single beer in the interim.
Critics have described the following as evidence of subsequent drinking by Bush:
- In a video of Bush taken at a 1992 wedding, two years before his election as governor of Texas, Bush behaves in a manner that some observers have interpreted as indicating intoxication.[6]
- A news story from November, 2005, described Bush’s drinking of “fermented mare’s milk” during a photo opportunity in Mongolia.[7]
- A photo [8] was taken on June 7, 2007 of Bush drinking what appears to be a beer at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. A German newspaper, citing White House sources, has said it was Buckler, a non-alcoholic beer [9].
[edit] Dry drunk theory
Despite Bush’s statement that he was not an alcoholic, the question of whether Bush’s behavior indicated alcoholism, as well as what that would mean for his current and future behavior, has been raised by Bush critics and analysts, most notably Katherine van Wormer, Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective. In support of the hypothesis that Bush could have been clinically diagnosed as alcoholic, Van Wormer describes “years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath.”
In Addiction, Brain Damage and the President: “Dry Drunk” Syndrome and George W. Bush (Katherine van Wormer, CounterPunch, October 11, 2002), van Wormer goes on to speculate over whether Bush is an example of a “dry drunk“, a slang term used by Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe a recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, but who has not confronted the dysfunctional basic cognitive patterns that led to addiction; they use the term because they feel that such an individual is someone “who is no longer drinking . . . but whose thinking is clouded,” not truly “sober”. In her opinion, Bush displays the telltale characteristics of grandiose behavior, rigid, judgmental outlook, impatience, childish and irresponsible behavior, irrational rationalization, projection, and overreaction. [10]. She concluded that Bush displays “all the classic patterns of addictive thinking”. More specifically, she argued that Bush exhibits “the tendency to go to extremes,” a “kill or be killed mentality,” incoherence while speaking away from script, impatience, irritability in the face of disagreement, and a rigid, judgmental outlook. She added that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was primarily a result of his relationship with his father: “the targeting of Iraq had become one man’s personal crusade.”
Van Wormer never met with Bush in person, and her analysis was not presented in clinical terms but in a less formal, colloquial style, drawing almost exclusively on her addiction treatment experience and writings. Critics have responded to her assertions by citing her lack of formal medical training and specifically her lack of a medical degree and license to practice medicine. They also cite her lack of access to his private medical records and note that it is irresponsible in itself to offer third hand speculation over a mental or emotional diagnosis of someone who is not her patient, particularly in a public forum. Others point out that the Alcoholics Anonymous model of addiction and the need to pass through their complete “twelve step plan” to become truly sober is not universally accepted. Many former substance abusers having overcome their problem apparently successfully without this process, so that the “dry drunk” concept may itself be mere self-serving rationalization.
Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at The George Washington University Medical School, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about Bush, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0-06-073670-4 [11]. Frank’s book has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists and has found confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and from Bush’s disaffected former treasury secretary. [12].
Frank’s book also has its critics. Writing in the neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, described Frank’s book as a “psychoanalytic hatchet job” and said that “there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book.” [13] Once again, the code of the American Psychiatric Association, of which Frank is not a member, states that “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.” [14] Although Frank had in the past written for Salon.com, the online magazine reviewed the book unfavorably, arguing that it included “dubious theories” and that Frank had failed in his avowed intention to distinguish his partisan opinions from his psychoanalytic evaluation of Bush’s character. [15]
[edit] Illegal drugs
Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974 ([16]), but he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974 ([17]).
A conversation between Bush and an old friend and author, Doug Wead, touched on the subject of use of illegal drugs. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, “I haven’t denied anything.”
In a biography of Bush, Fortunate Son (ISBN 1-887128-84-0), James Hatfield investigated claims that Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and that he had the record expunged; Hatfield said he found corroboration from three people close to the Bush family. Bush called Hatfield’s book “totally ridiculous” but declined to discuss whether he had used drugs before 1974. [18]. Critics have pointed out the sources for the book are unnamed and the facts uncorroborated. Four days after its publication the book’s publisher, St. Martin’s Press, discovered that Hatfield had been previously convicted of attempted murder and spent five years in jail. When faced with the allegations Hatfield initially denied them but later admitted they were true. St. Martin’s recalled the book and mothballed others. Hatfield pointed out that, before the Bush campaign brought pressure to bear, St. Martin’s had stated that the book had been “carefully fact-checked and scrutinized by lawyers”. ([19]) The book was later republished by another publisher shortly before Hatfield died of a drug overdose in an act of suicide. [20] [21]
In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush’s cessation of flying in April, 1972 and his subsequent refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which was officially launched April 21. Boehlert said “according to Maj. Jeff Washburn, the chief of the National Guard’s substance abuse program, a random drug-testing program was born out of that regulation and administered to guardsmen such as Bush. The random tests were unrelated to the scheduled annual physical exams, such as the one that Bush failed to take in 1972, a failure that resulted in his grounding.” Boehlert remarks that the drug testing took years to implement, but “as of April 1972, Air National guardsmen knew random drug testing was going to be implemented”. [22]
bush and Nader Tagged Teamed Gore in 2000
August 10, 2007 at 10:35 pm (Life)
BUSH BACKERS BUY ADS FOR NADER IN SWING STATESRalph Nader’s goal to get George W. Bush elected got a push from a pro-Bush committee yesterday, the Republican Leadership Council. According to a 10/27/00 AP story, the RLC has made an ad consisting of footageof Nader attacking Gore and is buying $10,000 worth of ad time to be used to keep the Bush lead in Oregon and to move Bush ahead in Washington and Wisconsin, two states that are up for grabs. The ads will begin Monday. “Advertising experts say they can’t recall another time when a major party organization has run ads helpful to a minor party candidate.” The RLC hopes to make similar ad buys for Nader in Minnesota, Michigan, and Maine, three other states that Bush hopes to win with Nader’s help. This new Republican strategy to elect Bush by backing Nader is believed to be a winning idea, according to the AP: “In this extraordinarily tight national race, one or two states could make the difference in who is elected.”
The AP also noted that the RLC ad buy for Nader comes at a very good time for the Green Party candidate, since he doesn’t have the money to afford the cost of the ad campaign the Republicans are launching for him: “Nader, running a low-budget campaign, is not currently airing any television commercials of his own and it’s possible that the RLC will end up spending more on pro-Nader media than Nader himself.” The AP reports that “The Gore campaign labeled the ads deceptive. Vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman said he was confident the public won’t be fooled. ‘For Republicans to be putting Ralph Nader on television in a paid ad, certainly might lead your average observer to be cyncial,’ he said.” According to Mark Miller, the executive director of the Republican Leadership Council, “the ads are partly a response to commercials being run [in the swing states against Bush] by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.” The AP reports that when asked about the ads Nader said that outside groups have the right to run them. Nader’s lukewarm response to news of the ads is seen by some as giving further credence to the charge that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. –Politex, 10/28/00
HOW NADER PROFITS WHILE HE PREACHESDid you know that Ralph Nader has a financial interest in Dick Cheney’s success and has financial ties to Enron, one of George W. Bush’s major campaign contributors? While Nader attacks corporations such as Halliburton, Raytheon, Boeing, Ford, Phillip-Morris, Pfizer, MacDonalds, and Occidental as being harmful to mankind, he makes investment profits off of all of these and more. What’s the point, you ask? If corporate contributions corrupt candidates, can’t corporate investments corrupt candidates? And if Mr. Nader questions Mr. Gore’s populist rhetoric and his mother’s oil holdings, shouldn’t he also question his own?
Coverups Be Damned
August 10, 2007 at 10:21 pm (Life, World News)
NOVEMBER SURPRISE
BUSH ADMITS TO 1976 D.U.I. ARREST
“AT AGE 30 THIS IS NO ‘YOUTHFUL INDESCRETION’”–BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN
IS THIS WHY BUSH GOT A NEW TEXAS DRIVER’S LICENSE WHEN HE BECAME TEXAS GOVERNOR?
IS THIS WHY BUSH’S DRIVER’S RECORD WAS EXPUNGED?
REPORTERS ASK, “WHAT ELSE IT THERE?
BUSH DRINKING VIDEO, AUGUST 29, 1992.
READ OUR AUGUST ‘99 BUSH LICENSE STORY
MORE ON THE BUSH DRIVER’S LICENSE STORY
According to Fox News, Bush’s driving privileges were only revoked in Maine and his Texas driver’s license was neither revoked nor suspended. Why then, upon becoming Texas governor, did he get a new driver’s license number and have his previous driving record expunged?
WHY BUSH IS A HYPOCRITE…
George W. Bush was arrested in 1976 in the state of Maine at the age of 30 for driving under the influence. He pled guilty to the charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driver’s privilege suspended. Shocked Republicans wonder why he didn’t come clean on his own, and now wonder what else he may be hiding. How in the world can he attack Gore for character flaws while not telling the truth about his own? The story was released by a Maine TV station, and Bush was powerless to spin it. What more is Bush hiding? –Politex, 7:25 CT, 11/2/00
BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER THE AWOL CHARGES.
BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER DRUG CHARGES.
BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER ABORTION CHARGES.
CNN…CBS…AP…REUTERS…FOX…
——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–
ELECTORAL COLLGE TIE PREDICTED, 11/6/00. Reuters has Bush leading with 235 to Gore’s 207, with 96 too close to call, representing Oregon (7 ), New Mexico ( 5), Iowa (7), Wisconsin (11 ), Arkansas ( 6), Florida (25 ), West Virginia ( 5), Pennsylvania (23 ), Maine (4 ), and Delaware (3). Yesterday’s polling in those states had Gore ahead in Florida (25) and Pennsylvania (23), which would give him 255 points. For Bush, yesterday’s polls had him leading in Wisconsin (11), giving him 246. Friday’s polling found Gore leading in Oregon (7), and Iowa (7 ), and Bush leading in Delawae (3), and West Virginia (5 ). A Thursday poll had Bush winning in Arkansas (6), and recent reports from Maine(4) and New Mexico(5) stressed that the Nader votes in those two states could very well win them for Bush. If Gore-Tex hold the states that they now have and take the undecided states based on the most recent polls and leanings, the final talley would be Gore 269, Bush 269 . ………….
——————————————————————————–
starts November 8…BUSH WATCH…The Novel…the real story
——————————————————————————–
CNN DISMISSES BUSH AWOL CHARGES, AS MEDIA STONEWALL CONTINUES
CNN’s new political show “Spin Room,” with Bill Press on the left and Tucker Carlson on the right, could be thought of as the political version of “People” magazine but not as cerebral. Last night they took on the Bush AWOL story, based on the “Boston Globe’s” report yesterday of Sen. Bob Kerrey’s response to charges of a year-long disappearance by Bush while in the military. Using historian Richard Shenkman as second bananna, this is what passed for CNN’s serious discussion of the charges: PRESS: Abe [Lincoln] probably couldn’t win today because he didn’t have enough education. Before we get into government experience, I want to go back to Richard Shenkman for just a minute. Mr. Shenkman, on military experience, there’s a story in “The Boston Globe” yesterday…that George W. Bush’s Web site shows that he served in the Texas National Guard from 1968 to 1973. “The Boston Globe” says baloney. He only flew that plane for 22 months. He never showed up for duty in Alabama. He never showed for duty when he went back to Houston and never took his physical. Bob Kerrey, in fact, says it looks [like] he was AWOL. What effect could that have if true — we don’t know whether it is or not. “Boston Globe” reports it, if somebody is stretching his military resume.
SHENKMAN: Well, it sure doesn’t look good. The problem is it’s in “The Boston Globe”; it’s not on the front page of “The New York Times.” When it gets on the front page of “The New York Times,” then it’ll be an issue and then Bush is going to have to respond. I note that Bush hasn’t even agreed to do an interview on this with “The Boston Globe” reporters, who have been working on this story for about seven or eight months.
PRESS: It probably won’t make “The New York Times.”
That’s it. End of conversation. And you wonder why non-partisan studies like the Pew Foundation’s have concluded that the mainstream media has an obvious bias toward George W. Bush during this campaign? Shenkman was right about one thing, though, “It sure doesn’t look good.” As a point of comparison, “Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who won the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam, expressed disgust yesterday at evidence that George W. Bush sidestepped National Guard duty for months in 1972 and 1973, a lapse that Kerrey said amounts to Bush being AWOL – absent without leave. [Kerry,] who won the nation’s highest award for heroism as a Navy SEAL in a 1969 action that cost him part of his right leg, said he is amazed that Bush’s military service has escaped any real scrutiny….Referring to Bush’s attacks on Gore’s character, Kerrey said the Texas governor has a moral obligation of his own to search his conscience and answer questions about where he was when he was supposed to be attending National Guard training. ”For someone who wants to be commander in chief, this stinks,” Kerrey declared. ‘I can understand if he forgot a weekend. But 18 months?’…’It upsets me,’ Kerrey said in an interview reported by the Boston Globe , ‘when someone says, `Vote for me, I was in the military,’ when in fact he got into the military in order to avoid serving in the military, to avoid service that might have taken him into the war. And then he didn’t even show up for duty.”’ –Politex, 11/2/00
“AT AGE 30 THIS IS NO ‘YOUTHFUL INDESCRETION’”–BILL SCHNEIDER, CNN
IS THIS WHY BUSH GOT A NEW TEXAS DRIVER’S LICENSE WHEN HE BECAME TEXAS GOVERNOR?IS THIS WHY BUSH’S DRIVER’S RECORD WAS EXPUNGED?REPORTERS ASK, “WHAT ELSE IT THERE?
According to Fox News, Bush’s driving privileges were only revoked in Maine and his Texas driver’s license was neither revoked nor suspended. Why then, upon becoming Texas governor, did he get a new driver’s license number and have his previous driving record expunged?
WHY BUSH IS A
HYPOCRITE…George W. Bush was arrested in 1976 in the state of Maine at the age of 30 for driving under the influence. He pled guilty to the charge, paid a $150 fine, and had his driver’s privilege suspended. Shocked Republicans wonder why he didn’t come clean on his own, and now wonder what else he may be hiding. How in the world can he attack Gore for character flaws while not telling the truth about his own? The story was released by a Maine TV station, and Bush was powerless to spin it. What more is Bush hiding? –Politex, 7:25 CT, 11/2/00
BUSH NEEDS TO ANSWER
THE AWOL
CHARGES.BUSH NEEDS TO
ANSWER
DRUG CHARGES.BUSH
NEEDS TO ANSWER
ABORTION
CHARGES.CNN…CBS…AP…REUTERS…FOX…
ELECTORAL COLLGE TIE PREDICTED, 11/6/00. Reuters has Bush leading with 235 to Gore’s 207, with 96 too close to call, representing Oregon (7 ), New Mexico ( 5), Iowa (7), Wisconsin (11 ), Arkansas ( 6), Florida (25 ), West Virginia ( 5), Pennsylvania (23 ), Maine (4 ), and Delaware (3). Yesterday’s polling in those states had Gore ahead in Florida (25) and Pennsylvania (23), which would give him 255 points. For Bush, yesterday’s polls had him leading in Wisconsin (11), giving him 246. Friday’s polling found Gore leading in Oregon (7), and Iowa (7 ), and Bush leading in Delawae (3), and West Virginia (5 ). A Thursday poll had Bush winning in Arkansas (6), and recent reports from Maine(4) and New Mexico(5) stressed that the Nader votes in those two states could very well win them for Bush. If Gore-Tex hold the states that they now have and take the undecided states based on the most recent polls and leanings, the final talley would be Gore 269, Bush 269 . ………….
starts November 8…BUSH WATCH…The Novel…the real story
CNN DISMISSES BUSH AWOL CHARGES, AS MEDIA STONEWALL CONTINUESCNN’s new political show “Spin Room,” with Bill Press on the left and Tucker Carlson on the right, could be thought of as the political version of “People” magazine but not as cerebral. Last night they took on the Bush AWOL story, based on the “Boston Globe’s” report yesterday of Sen. Bob Kerrey’s response to charges of a year-long disappearance by Bush while in the military. Using historian Richard Shenkman as second bananna, this is what passed for CNN’s serious discussion of the charges: PRESS: Abe [Lincoln] probably couldn’t win today because he didn’t have enough education. Before we get into government experience, I want to go back to Richard Shenkman for just a minute. Mr. Shenkman, on military experience, there’s a story in “The Boston Globe” yesterday…that George W. Bush’s Web site shows that he served in the Texas National Guard from 1968 to 1973. “The Boston Globe” says baloney. He only flew that plane for 22 months. He never showed up for duty in Alabama. He never showed for duty when he went back to Houston and never took his physical. Bob Kerrey, in fact, says it looks [like] he was AWOL. What effect could that have if true — we don’t know whether it is or not. “Boston Globe” reports it, if somebody is stretching his military resume.
SHENKMAN: Well, it sure doesn’t look good. The problem is it’s in “The Boston Globe”; it’s not on the front page of “The New York Times.” When it gets on the front page of “The New York Times,” then it’ll be an issue and then Bush is going to have to respond. I note that Bush hasn’t even agreed to do an interview on this with “The Boston Globe” reporters, who have been working on this story for about seven or eight months.
PRESS: It probably won’t make “The New York Times.”That’s it. End of conversation. And you wonder why non-partisan studies like the Pew Foundation’s have concluded that the mainstream media has an obvious bias toward George W. Bush during this campaign? Shenkman was right about one thing, though, “It sure doesn’t look good.” As a point of comparison, “Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who won the Medal of Honor for his service in Vietnam, expressed disgust yesterday at evidence that George W. Bush sidestepped National Guard duty for months in 1972 and 1973, a lapse that Kerrey said amounts to Bush being AWOL – absent without leave. [Kerry,] who won the nation’s highest award for heroism as a Navy SEAL in a 1969 action that cost him part of his right leg, said he is amazed that Bush’s military service has escaped any real scrutiny….Referring to Bush’s attacks on Gore’s character, Kerrey said the Texas governor has a moral obligation of his own to search his conscience and answer questions about where he was when he was supposed to be attending National Guard training. ”For someone who wants to be commander in chief, this stinks,” Kerrey declared. ‘I can understand if he forgot a weekend. But 18 months?’…’It upsets me,’ Kerrey said in an interview reported by the Boston Globe , ‘when someone says, `Vote for me, I was in the military,’ when in fact he got into the military in order to avoid serving in the military, to avoid service that might have taken him into the war. And then he didn’t even show up for duty.”’ –Politex, 11/2/00
Poor George Blacked Out on his Drinking Binge
August 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm (Life, World News)
WASHINGTON DC – - At the request of First Lady, Laura Bush, Pastor Deacon Fred of Landover Baptist Church has agreed to counsel President George W. Bush on his lifelong, unfortunate abuse of alcohol which has recently become so great that it caused him to lose consciousness, fall to the ground and cut open his face in the White House last Sunday. So shocked were Presidential advisers by the severity of the problem that they were unable to create a plausible explanation for the passing-out episode on the spur of the moment. The official explanation was, incredibly, that the President choked on a pretzel while watching football alone in a White House room.“It is unfortunate that this problem could affect such a great man,” noted Deacon Fred. “Those of us in the know have recognized that Mr. Bush was still drinking even before he became President. One look at video of him during the Florida recount vote made that clear. Even Santa Claus doesn’t have cheeks as red as his. But we had hoped his advisers would get a handle on the problem and see that he experienced some Christian counseling. At the very least, they should have been able to come up with a better excuse for his passing out than choking on a damned pretzel! Do they think their fellow American’s are idiots? We all know Mr. Bush was watching football alone because he has deceived himself into thinking that if he drinks alone, no one will know. This is an unfortunate pattern of alcoholic deception.”
“I really don’t know what all the hullabaloo is about,” observed America’s Best Christian, Mrs. Betty Bowers, a frequent adviser to political figures and close confidante of Mrs. Bush. “As I told Laura, all intelligent people know George never gave up alcohol. We certainly wouldn’t have voted for a man who slaughters syntax, forgets names and events and speaks like a pupil of a Learning Disability Center if we thought he was doing so while sober. Fortunately, as President, he is driven in limousines so there’s little chance of any more drunk driving incidents. But I do hope the kitchen help waters down his drinks when he’s making decisions about how much bombing to undertake abroad.”
“I sincerely hope the media doesn’t blow this out of proportion,” observed Church Spokesman, Brother Harry Hardwick. “Even the most devout of Christians can sometimes fall from grace. Whether it’s Jimmy Swaggert with his hookers, Jim and Tammy Faye with their embezzlement, Falwell with . . . well, there’s too much to name. The bottom line is that all great Christians, especially our President, should be forgiven for modest mistakes like drinking themselves into oblivion. I mean, it’s not like he engaged in homosexual conduct.”
Deacon Fred plans to minister to the President every Tuesday and Friday evening beginning next week. He will carry his portfolio of the many pictures of Hell on each visit
No Peace;Not Now
August 8, 2007 at 9:19 pm (Life, World News)
White Elephants
By Uri Avnery
08/07/07 “Gush Shalom” — – -THE KING of Siam knew how to deal with domestic opponents: he would present them with a white elephant.
White elephants are rare in nature, and therefore sacred. Being sacred, they may not be put to work. But even a sacred elephant does eat, and eat a lot. Enough to turn a rich man into a pauper.
My late friend, General Matti Peled, one time Quartermaster General of the army, pointed out the similarity between this elephant and many of our gifts from the President of the United States.
According to the stipulations of the grant, most of it must be spent in the United States. Let’s assume that Israel needs Merkava tanks, made in Israel. Or anti-missile systems, also made in Israel. Instead of acquiring these in Israel, the Israeli army buys American airplanes, which it does not need.
A state-of-the-art military airplane is an immensely expensive object. True, we get it for nothing. But like the white elephant, the airplane is very costly to maintain. It needs pilots, whose training costs a fortune. It needs airfields. All these expenses add up to much more than the price of the airplane itself.
But which army can refuse such a wonderful present?
THE MIDDLE EAST is now being invaded by a herd of white elephants.
This week it became known that President Bush is about to supply Saudi Arabia with huge quantities of the most advanced weapons. The price tag is 20 billion (20,000,000,000) dollars.
Ostensibly, the arms are needed to strengthen Saudi Arabia against the Great Satan: Iran. In Saudi eyes, this is now the great danger.
How did this happen? For centuries, Iraq served as a wall between Shiite Persian Iran and the Sunni Arab Middle East. When President Bush toppled the Sunni regime in Iraq, the whole region was opened up to the Shiite power. In Iraq itself, a Shiite government was installed, and Shiite militias roam at will. The Shiite Hizbullah is growing in power in Lebanon, and Iran is extending its long arm to all the Shiites in the region.
Allah, in his infinite wisdom, has seen to it that almost all the huge Middle East oil reserves are located in Shiite areas: in Iran, in the South of Iraq and the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf principalities. If these reserves slip away from US control, it will cause a drastic change in the balance of power, not only in the region but in the entire world.
Therefore, the strengthening of Saudi Arabia – ruled by conservative Sunnis – makes a lot of sense from the American point of view. However, the arms deal is quite irrelevant to this.
The Saudis do not need weapons. They have an instrument that is much more effective than any number of airplanes and tanks: an inexhaustible supply of dollars. They use it to finance friends, buy influence and bribe leaders.
On the other side, Saudi Arabia is unable to maintain the weapons that are flowing to it. It does not have enough pilots for the airplanes it is buying, nor crews for the tanks. The new weaponry will collect sand in the desert, like all the expensive weapons it has bought in the past.
So what is the sense in buying more weapons to the tune of 20 billions?
Well, the Saudis are selling oil to the Americans for dollars. A lot of oil, a lot of dollars. The United States, with a huge gap in its balance of trade, cannot afford to lose these billions. So, in order to make it possible for the US to carry this burden, the Saudis must give back at least a part of the money. How Quite simple: they buy American arms that they don’t need.
This is a merry-go-round that benefits all. Especially the Saudi princes. Saudi Arabia is blessed with a great abundance of these – some
9,000 (nine thousand) princes, all belonging to the House of Saud. A prince has a lot of wives, a wife has a lot of offspring. Some of them are arms dealers, who automatically receive fat commissions from the arms billions. (It is easy to work it out: a mere one percent of 20 billions amounts to 200 million. And they would laugh at a commission of one percent.)
The princes have, therefore, a vested interest in this convenient arrangement.
THIS IS where Israel enters the picture.
Every arms deal made by the White House needs the assent of Congress. In Congress, the “friends of Israel” – the Jewish and the Evangelist lobbies – rule supreme. Any senator or congressman can forget about being reelected if he offends one of these lobbies.
When Israel raises its voice against an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the White House has a problem. The more so since there is a certain logic to the Israeli objection: the Saudi airbase in Tabuk is but a few minutes flying time from the Israeli port of Eilat.
What to do? Easy: give us a present of weapons, in order to maintain “the balance of power” and our “qualitative superiority over all the Arab armies combined”.
So, together with the 20 billion deal with the Saudis, President Bush decreed that the American yearly grant of military assistance to Israel should be raised from 2.4 billion to 3 billion. This means that in the coming ten years, Israel will receive arms to the value of 30 billion dollars.
Apart from the small part of the grant that Israel is allowed to spend elsewhere, this huge sum must be spent in the United States. From the economic point of view, the gift to Israel is really an immense boost to the American arms industry. It will enrich the arms producers, who are so dear to Bush’s heart. It will also show the American public how their wise president creates a lot of nice new jobs for them.
THAT, OF course, is not the end of the story.
It would be unacceptable to “strengthen” the rulers of Saudi Arabia in such an impressive way, without giving something to the other kings, presidents and emirs who cooperate with the Americans. Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf emirs expect their share, too.
The new arms deals will, therefore, amount to 40, 50 and God knows how many more billions of dollars.
That’s not bad for the arms producers, who helped Bush get elected and continue to support him. Not bad for the arms merchants, the princes and all the others who profit, the corrupt regimes that rule the Middle East (and, in this respect at least, Israel has succeeded in becoming an integral part of the region.)
ALL THIS could be amusing, were it not for the dark side of these circular deals.
When I was a child, I was taught that one of the most despicable human types is the arms merchant. He is quite different from all other kinds of trader, because his merchandise is death. His riches are drenched with blood. The title “arms merchant” was, at that time, a stinging insult, one of the worst. A person would not introduce himself as such any more than he would admit to being a hired killer.
Times have changed. The arms dealer is now a respectable person. He can be a celebrity, an object of adulation for the gutter press, a friend of politicians, a generous host of members of the government.
Weapons have their own life. They strive to realize their potential. Their mission is to kill. A general whose arsenals are full tends to fantasize about “war this summer” or “war this winter”.
The killing potential of weapons is getting “better” all the time, and their producers need testing grounds. Some days ago, one of our generals revealed on television that under an American-Israeli agreement, the Israeli army is obliged to report to the American military establishment on the effectiveness of all kinds of arms. For example: the accuracy of “smart” bombs and the performance of airplanes, missiles, drones, tanks and all the other instruments of destruction in our wars.
Every “targeted killing” in Gaza or use of fragmentation bombs in Lebanon serves also as a test. The leveling of a neighborhood in Beirut, the death of women and children as “collateral damage”, the ongoing amputation of limbs by fragmentation bombs in South Lebanon – all these are statistical facts that are important for American arms manufacturers to know, so they can improve their merchandise.
A deal is a deal, and goods are goods.
IN THE same week that these huge arms deals were announced, Ehud Olmert spoke about a dialogue (unlimited in time) about the (nonbinding) principles for a final status agreement. Condoleezza was again buzzing around the region’s capitals, smiling and talking, embracing and talking.
Saudi Arabia is hinting that perhaps-perhaps it may be ready to sit with Israel at the table of the “peace meeting” that may take place in the autumn. This is also intended to make it easier for Congress (meaning: the pro-Israeli lobby) to confirm the arms deal.
Bush’s people have announced for the umpteenth time that a “window of opportunity” is now open. (Not a “gate of opportunity”, not a “door of opportunity” but a window. As if windows were for walking through rather then looking through.)
All this activity somehow reminds me of another story about the white elephant:
An American billionaire had set his mind on acquiring a white elephant, in order to impress his peers. But it is strictly forbidden to export white elephants from Thailand, because they are so rare.
A shrewd operator promised to get him a white elephant, and even told him how he would go about it: he would paint the elephant gray before smuggling him out.
And indeed, at the promised time a crate arrived, and out walked a gray elephant. When the gray paint was scrubbed off, a white elephant was revealed. But with a bit more scrubbing, the white paint also came off, and underneath – the elephant was gray.
Uri Avnery – Is an Israeli Peace Activist and Author Gush Shalom – Aug 4, 2007 – http://www.gush-shalom.org
Who is Your Presidential Candidate?
August 8, 2007 at 9:04 pm (Life, World News)
Okay, here’s a really simple way to find out which candidates share your views. This script is composed entirely of data collected by www.2decide.com. Enter your choices below and hit GO to rank the candidates.
Here’s how it works, if you want to know. If you agree with a candidate, he gets point(s). If you disagree, take point(s) away. Unkown/other results in no points. The number of points given or taken depends on the weight you set. “Meh” is worth 1 point, “important” 2, and “key” is worth 5. The items you disagree about will be listed directly underneath each candidate (if they score greater than zero).
Anyway, this is not meant to replace the 2decide page and I hope you check it out. I would assume that most of you would have already seen it before this, anyway. Also, it is entirely possible that there are bugs in the script, so take it with a grain of salt. If for some reason you are inclined to contact me about this, go ahead. If you want to inspect my code for bugs, feel free. I don’t care if you improve upon it and/or repost it somewhere else.
So far over 93221 submissions!
The Truth Sounds Great
August 8, 2007 at 8:47 pm (Life, World News)
The most outstanding remarks early on in the forum came from Congressman Dennis Kucinich. The question was on China and whether they should be considered a friend or foe. Kucinich brought the house down with his comments, even the other candidates couldn’t hold back. Take a look…
Download (4557)
