The Bulldog Manifesto

I've been ill since late Tuesday night. I'm just starting to feel a little better. I'll be back as soon as I can. In the meantime, check out the new article posted over at the IBC website.

Recent data from the latest Pew Research Center Poll indicates that a substantial portion of Americans now believe the United States should go ahead and set a timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Fifty seven percent (57%) of the American public believe we should immediately set a time table for withdrawal. That number is up from July's forty nine percent (49%) figure. Additionally, thirty nine percent (39%) of the public now believe that Iraq will be "another Vietnam."

Sixty three percent (63%) believe that Bush does not have a “clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion" (as opposed to thirty percent (30%) that do believe he has a "clear plan"). But quite notably, by a margin of seventy one percent (71%) to eighteen percent (18%), the American public believes that the Democrats in Congress have not presented a “clear alternative for how to deal with the situation in Iraq.”

What does this all mean?

Quite clearly, it means the public is being ignored by our so-called leadership. It means, we the people, have decided-- the war is over! If sixty three percent (63%) believe George Bush is on the wrong track, and seventy one percent (71%) percent believe the Democrats offer nothing better-- it's safe to say our present leadership is failing us. The American public want an exit plan, but nobody is giving it to them.

The results also go to show that a substantial portion of the Americans dismiss the president's assertion that a timetable for withdrawal "will help the terrorists." After all, if fifty seven percent (57%) believe we should now set a timetable for withdrawal, then it's fair to say a clear majority either disagree with the president's reasoning, or believe the damage resulting from maintaining the status quo poses a greater risk than that caused by 'helping' the so-called terrorists. Either way, it's fair to say that 57% dismiss the 'help the terrorist' excuse/justification for whatever reason.

What do the people of America have to do for the "leaders" to pay attention?

The public is increasingly growing impatient with the occupation of Iraq. When will the "leaders" finally muster the courage to admit-- the war is over?

Meanwhile, a bomb went off in Iraq on Monday, killing ten people and injuring twenty others.....

I was inspired to write this article last week after speaking with a FEMA employee who is presently involved in the Hurricane Katrina response. I was told by the employee (who shall remain anonymous) that FEMA has, to the dismay of many FEMA employees, become increasingly put under the command of the military. I refrained from writing anything on this subject until I looked further into the matter. Then, I noticed an article in yesterday's edition of Newsday. According to the article, George W. Bush is urging the military to take a larger role in disaster relief.

Why is this an issue? Well, because it potentially violates the Posse Comitatus Act of 1887.

Pursuant to the Posse Comitatus Act, Federal military personnel and units are forbidden to act in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or the Congress. Coupled with the Insurrection Act, the powers of the Federal government to use the US military for law enforcement are limited. Although there are a few exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, it seems that the President is urging militarization that goes well beyond those exceptions. In essence, the President is attempting a universal circumvention of Posse Comitatus under the guise of disaster relief.

Is this a surprise? Not really.

Under the heading of "civil disturbance planning", the U.S. military has been training troops to deal with American citizens for quite some time. The master plan, Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan 55-2, is code-named, "Operation Garden Plot". Originating in 1968, Operation Garden Plot has spawned military training courses which teach federal troops, inter alia, how to institute and enact martial law.

According the the military curriculum under Operation Garden Spot:

PART F - MARTIAL LAW (Also see Appendix A)

1. General. Martial law depends on public necessity. The extent of the military force and the measures taken will depend upon the actual threat to order and public safety. The decision to impose federal martial law is normally made by the President. (See Appendix A for details of martial law.)

2. Legal Effects of Martial Law. In an area where martial law is maintained by federal military forces, the local civil and criminal laws will continue. Their actual enforcement may be suspended because of the inability of the civil authorities to function. Laws may also be suspended by order of the President or by order of the military commander acting under authority of the President. Under martial law, the President may cause military agencies to arrest civilians charged with offenses against special rules and regulations issued by the military commander. They may stay in military custody until they can be released safely or delivered for trial.

3. General Restrictions on Civilian Population in the United States. In martial law, the military commander manages the local government. He may have to protect civil officials. He may also provide for emergency public service to prevent or relieve human suffering. Proclamations and restrictions on the rights of citizens or on the civilian economy are normally issued by the commander through the media."

In other words, the President is taking disaster relief out of the hands of an organization that was created "to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters" and putting it into the hands of an organization that was trained in instituting martial law! Disaster relief has gone from being a civilian matter to a military operation.

Along with militarization comes everything that typically comes with the military. Military law. Military courts. Reduction in transparency. You name it.

Was this necessary? No.

FEMA was not always as inept as it is today. Even FEMA's website gives credit to the Clinton administration for initiating "sweeping reforms that streamlined disaster relief and recovery operations." FEMA even gives Clinton kudos for insisting "on a new emphasis regarding preparedness and mitigation, and focus[ing] agency employees on customer service". It wasn't until the Bush administration put FEMA under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, cut it's funding, and put an unqualified former Arabian Horse Show Judge in control of the organization that FEMA became so dysfunctional.

Who is to blame?

Well, it's not unfair to blame George W. Bush for the current shape of FEMA. After all, he did create the Department of Homeland Security and he (and the Republican congress) did pass legislation that put FEMA under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. He is also responsible for putting an unqualified former Arabian horse show judge in charge of FEMA. And certainly, if our national guard are spread too thin because of the war in Iraq, President Bush is responsible for that too. And certainly, hurricanes are not unforeseeable events. In fact, as far back as July, scientists predicted:

"Based on current and projected climate signals, the Tropical Storm Risk (TSR) consortium, which is led by the BHRC, predicts:

* A 97% probability of an above-normal Atlantic hurricane season
* 15 tropical storms for the Atlantic basin as a whole, with nine of these being hurricanes and four intense hurricanes
* Five tropical storm strikes on the US, of which two will be hurricanes
* Two tropical storm hits, including one hurricane on the Caribbean Lesser Antilles."

So, it's certainly fair to say that circumvention of Posse Comitatus was avoidable at one point, and could certainly still be avoidable if the Bush Administration was willing to change it's course and take FEMA seriously.

Final Thoughts

As usual, the Bush administration has no patience for complex issues. Like Iraq, the same goes for disaster relief. In each instance, it seems the best Bush can suggest is militarization. Essentially, when the going gets tough, George W. Bush sends in the troops.

Without concern for the risks, this administration would rather go ahead and circumvent well-established law. Rather than fix FEMA, the Bush administration would rather militarize the American citizenry.

At what point will these so-called conservatives realize that the military budget is still a part of the overall budget? At what point will they realize that spending, for example, $10 billion dollars on the military is still spending $10 billion dollars, and that perhaps, the military isn't always the best option for America?

At what point will they learn that a big military is a big government?

Back in June, cable TV channel FX (owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.) televised a made for TV movie called "Oil Storm". The movie was hardly noticed. But strangely, in the movie a Category 6 hurricane named Julia slams New Orleans and surrounding areas on Labor Day weekend of 2005 -- just a few days later than Katrina's actual assault.

Similar to Hurricane Katrina, the fictional hurricane in "Oil Storm" causes heavy damage to oil operations in the Gulf of Mexico and forces the closing of the huge Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, the nation's largest terminal for imported oil.

No, I'm not making this up.

After the fictional Hurrican Julia hits New Orleans, oil climbs above $70 a barrel in frenzied trading. Quite eerily, Katrina forced crude prices above $70 only hours after the hurricane came ashore.

In the movie, Julia left 1,476 Louisiana residents dead. As of today, Katrina's death toll tops 1,060 (and rising).

In the movie, a series of catastrophic oil-related events occur in the months after Julia's onslaught. Tonight, Hurricane Rita is slamming into the coastal oil ports of Texas. In the movie, crude prices eventually balloon to as high as $150 a barrel, gasoline tops $8 a gallon, and the U.S. economy is left reeling.

Here is a synopsis of the movie taken from FX's website:

"Oil Storm examines what happens when a category 6 hurricane in the gulf of mexico slams into Louisiana, crushing the city of New Orleans and crippling the vital pipeline for refined oil that is Port Fourchon. It examines the ripple effect of that event and the ensuing cascade of disasters associated with it, through the eyes of public officials, a family in Texas who owns a gas station, an EMS worker in Boston who has to deal with a brutal winter, and a ranching family in South Dakota who have their subsidy's completely taken away and question whether we need oil or food to survive.

As the country reels from the loss of life and energy reserves associated with hurricane's fury, the price of crude oil skyrockets and the United States government sets forth to take immediate action. It puts in motion efforts to rebuild the infrastructure of Port Fourchon (8 months minimum) and the sagging and disabled deep sea rigs in the gulf of Mexico (of equal length). It re-routes activity normally associated with the Port Fourchon shipping lanes to the port of Houston and compels Houston to work 24/7 in order to get the crude to our refineries and out to the public."

Go here to view a clip from the movie "Oil Storm".

George W. Bush. "Tough" hombre. But no match for women.

The man wears his machismo on his oversized belt buckle. He values strength over all else. He is, for all intents and purposes, the Alpha-Male-in-Chief. The leader of the brutish and the simple. He is George W. Bush, and he has no tolerance for anything womanly.

So, it is only just that karma repeatedly bite Mr. Bush in the ass in the form of a woman. Take these women, for example:

1. Schiavo, Terry-- It began with a dead woman. It's seems like eons ago that the Right Wing went goofy over Terri Schiavo, the woman who was, for all intents and purposes, already dead. Taking a family matter, the Right Wing attempted to manipulate the Schiavo tragedy for their own ends. It ended up back firing. On March 20, 2005, the Senate (with only three members present) passed a resolution, followed by the House of Representatives, which came to be called the "Palm Sunday Compromise" (S-686), transferring jurisdiction of the Schiavo case to the federal courts. The bill passed the House on March 21 at 12:41 a.m. EST. President Bush flew to Washington from his vacation in Texas in order to sign the bill into law at 1:11 a.m. EST.

As it turned out, Mrs. Schiavo was a lost cause. The Right Wing, with George W. Bush at the lead, exposed themselves as being utterly incompetent and hypocritical. Some say the Schiavo case was the beginning of GWB's public perception unraveling.

2. Plame, Valerie-- Not far removed from the Schiavo fiasco, news began to come out about the investigation surrounding the outing of former CIA operative Valerie Plame. It was revealed that, contrary to prior statements, the administration was responsible for outing a CIA operative. Whereas Bush had previously said he would fire anybody responsible for the leak, he changed course upon learning that his boss, Karl Rove, was responsible. Instead, he said, "if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

We haven't heard the last of Hurricane Valerie, but already the administration has been feeling the effects.

3. Sheehan, Cindy-- No person has been more successful at undoing the President's public persona than Cindy Sheehan. While camping out and protesting nearby Bush's Crawford Ranch, Cindy Sheehan chipped away at Bush's facade, revealing a coward. Juxtaposed against the administration's obvious proclivity for employing "chicken hawks", Cindy Sheehan depantsed the president for all to see his ghastly impotence.

4. Katrina, Hurricane-- Just as Cindy Sheehan was completing her siege on the president's cowardice and vacation home, a hurricane literally rolled into New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina was a Category 3 hurricane that ripped apart portions of Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama, and the Bush administration. Katrina showed us again that Bush was not merely incompetent, but that he was completely out of touch with the American people. It showed us that W. was all style, and very little substance. Katrina was the coup de grace-- the woman who finally delivered the mortal blow.

5. Rita, Hurricane-- We shall see what this woman brings. Hopefully, she will go easy on all of us. But with the president's luck, I wouldn't be surprised if she brings another assault on the Big Man. She is, after all, headed for Texas.

"An inflated consciousness is always egocentric and conscious of nothing but its own existence. It is incapable of learning from the past, incapable of understanding contemporary events, and incapable of drawing right conclusions about the future. It is hypnotized by itself and therefore cannot be argued with. It inevitably dooms itself to calamities that must strike it dead." - Carl Jung

On August 21, 2005, Right Wing News labeled Cindy Sheehan-- "pro-terrorist".

The next day, Euphoric Reality (another whacked-out right-wing blog) claimed that Cindy Sheehan was, in fact, "a terrorist."

Three days later, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter howled out her belief that New Yorkers would "immediately surrender" if terrorists invaded their city.

On September 19, 2005, at Union Square, the New York Police Department broke up a peaceful group that gathered around so-called terrorist Cindy Sheehan. In so doing, the police physcially grabbed the terrorist in question, and kept her from speaking in public. (Check out the video at Crooks and Liars)

I guess it's official then, New Yorkers are willing to fight the terrorists. Take that Ann Coulter!

Bravo, N.Y.P.D! You sure did teach Ann Coulter a lesson.

We've all been asked questions like "where where you when the World Trade Center fell?" For me, I was awoken out of bed by a telephone call from a friend of mine. The first thing my friend said to me was "Hey man, are you watching t.v. right now? The world is coming to an end...."

I tuned in, and sure enough, it looked like the world was coming to an end. But here we are...still here. No sure end in sight.

But a better question to ask should be, "where were you when you woke up to the bullshit?"

Where were you when you realized that your country wasn't as honest and pure as you were taught in school?

Where were you when you realized that your country had the blood of countless innocent people on it's hand?

Where were you when you realized that your country was being governed by a group of individuals who care more about profit than justice?

Where were you when you realized that "freedom" was just a word used by the jailers to give their captives hope?

Where were you when you realized that oil was a more expensive commodity than blood?

Where were you when you realized that democracy was something our government only wants to see elsewhere, but not here?

Where were you when you woke up?

The Bulldog Manifesto will be on vacation this weekend. But while I'm away, I leave you with the following video. It is absolutely hysterical. Have fun!

HERE IT IS

(Thanks to Kluster Phux for the reference.)

In 1869, a Republican Congress brought impeachment charges against a Democrat President, Andrew Johnson. President Johnson was tried in the Senate for various charges, one of which stemmed from President Johnson's public accusation that the so-called "Radical Republican" Congress was responsible for the 1866 race riot in New Orleans.

No, I'm not making this up.

Apparently, back then, if a Democrat President attempted to accuse other government officials for the deaths arising from a catastrophe in New Orleans, that President was subject to impeachment proceedings. Don't believe me? Well, read the Articles of Impeachment for yourself (redacted here for the sake of brevity).

Article X of the Articles of Impeachment stated:

"That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the eighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-six, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterwards, make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say................:

"Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit: On the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

"Go on; perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out "New Orleans." If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source and its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men.

"When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population, the black population, to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which had been organized by the government of the United States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in the convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress. So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible.....I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen, here tonight, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve Apostles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a Judas. Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance, soldiers and citizens, to participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can. Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by enemies, nor overawed by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me."

"Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office."

So, back then, you had an administration that, in pursuance of it's "design and intent" did "openly and publicly" utter "scandalous harangues" aimed at assigning blame for riots in New Orleans on Congress. And for that, Congress believed there to be sufficient grounds for one of the many articles of impeachment brought against President Johnson. (Note: They also brought charges against him for various alleged violations of laws. There were Eleven (11) Articles of Impeachment, in total, brought against President Johnson)

Today, we have an administration that, in pursuance of it's own "design and intent" did utter "scandalous harangues" aimed at assigning blame for negligent emergency response in New Orleans upon the state and local governments in Louisiana and New Orleans.

So shouldn't Congress at least set aside one article of impeachment for this behavior? After all, this administration's wrongful assignment of blame is also "unbecoming" of the presidency, is it not?

Oh, dear karma.

Impeach Bush

In 1945, Rev. Martin Niemoller stated the following:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

Recently, The Gaelic Starover blog put a new spin on Reverand Niemoller's words:

When the Neo-Conservatives came into power, they disenfranchised a large number of American citizens of their vote, but I was neither black nor from Florida, so I said nothing.

Then, after receiving well over twenty specific warnings from both foreign and domestic intelligence sources, and enjoying a month-long vacation, they read a children’s book about a pet goat as two jet liners crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. However, I didn’t work there, nor did a loved one, nor was I a fireman or cop, or even from New York or New Jersey, so I swallowed the official explanation without question.

Then, they started detaining people without charges, but I was neither Arab nor Muslim, so I said nothing.

Then, they put gag orders on a woman who knew too much, but I wasn’t an FBI translator, I did nothing.

Then, they went after the artists, but I wasn’t an artist. I did nothing.

Then, they went after defense attorneys, but I wasn’t a lawyer. I did nothing.

Then, they invaded a sovereign nation in a war of aggression based on lies and deception, but I wasn’t Iraqi. I did nothing.

Then, they tortured, humiliated and photographed detainees and passed the images around like baseball cards, but wasn’t an Abu Ghraib inmate. I did nothing.

Then they sodomized a teen-aged boy in sight of his distraught mother, but I wasn’t an Iraqi youth. I did nothing.

Then, they cut off a small city’s water and power before bombing it to smithereens, but I didn't live in Fallujah. I did nothing.

Then, they “extraordinarily detained” innocent people for deportation to Middle Eastern dictatorships for unspeakable torture, but I wasn’t a Canadian of Middle Eastern descent. I did nothing.

Then, they leaked Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan's identity to the press, giving a "heads-up" to terrorists in the United Kingdom, but I didn't live in London. I did nothing.

Then they dispatched hordes of their wenching devotees to New York to make a party out of that City’s tragedy, and to deny its residents freedom of speech and assembly, right of way and access to their own City park, but again, I wasn’t a New Yorker. I did nothing.

Then, they “counted” ballots behind closed doors, but I was neither from Ohio nor a Democrat. I did nothing.

Then, they tried to plunder Social Security so that their Wall Street campaign contributors could go out on binge, but I didn’t fall into the effected age bracket. I did nothing.

Then they trashed and slimed a Gold Star Mom, but I had no children in the military. I did nothing.

Then, they nibbled on cake and plucked on a guitar, while neglectfully presiding over the destruction of a great American City and the cruel deaths of tens of thousands of its inhabitants, but I didn’t live in New Orléans. I did nothing…

…Then, they came for me…"

(Thanks to The Gaelic Starover)

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Impeach Bush Now!

As you may recall from yesterday's post, Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas tried to make fun of bloggers, and specifically, your favorite bulldog.

Apparently, Mike Thomas has decided: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em," because it seems from some accounts that Mr. Thomas has joined the blogosphere, now authoring the Musings Blog.

In yesterday's blog post, Mr. Thomas showed off his journalistic talents yet again:

"Many bloggers seemingly are upset at my blog column.
Conservative bloggers thought I was making fun of W.
Liberal bloggers thought I was making fun of liberal bloggers.
And bloggers without a sense of humor were concerned I was looking down my snooty nose at them......More writing more better!"

I guess the ol' pro is trying to say that we bloggers simply misunderstood his column. How could that be? After all, journalists are too good at putting their thoughts in words to be misunderstood. Surely if there was a misunderstanding, it must have been our fault. We must have just misread him.

After all, there are so many ways to misinterpret him when he said, "a blog is any thought posted on a Web site that is not good enough to be printed in a newspaper." He was probably complimenting all of us bloggers and we just missed it. If only we weren't so stupid we would have understood him. Oh well, that's why we are lowly bloggers, and he is a world class journalist.

But wait, now he is one of us-- a blogger. Now, he posts poetic comments like "More writing more better." In essence, Mr. Thomas is now liberated from the newspaperish comma. I'm so proud of him.

Perhaps its time to welcome him to the blogosphere, and thank him for the free publicity. Thank you, Mr. Thomas! Please feel free to add a link to my site on your blog.

Now that you're a blogger, would you care to join the Impeach Bush Coalition?

:-)

Can you believe this nonsense?

Mike Thomas, a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel wrote a column criticizing blogs. In his words, "a blog is any thought posted on a Web site that is not good enough to be printed in a newspaper."

Funny thing, however, he goes on to criticize The Bulldog Manifesto. Why? Well, apparently because I made the following statement a few days ago:

"President Bush has totally and utterly failed the American people. Almost every day we are presented with further proof why he should not be our president."

Why does he criticize this statement, you may be asking? Well, apparently Mr. Thomas believes its important to use the Orlando Sentinel newspaper to proffer that "totally" and "utterly" cannot be used in the same sentence "because they are redundant terms." Yup, that's right, apparently the Orlando Sentinel has nothing better to do than accuse bloggers of being redundant.

No, I'm not making this up.

I wonder if Mike Thomas realizes the very irony of the situation he has created. He tries to suggest that newspapers are more important than blogs, then he goes ahead and uses his newspaper to proofread and edit my blog. Geez, the mainstream media sure is pathetic these days. Frankly, I'm flattered that such a "big and important" ( <----not redundant) journalist like Mike Thomas would use September 11 to talk about The Bulldog Manifesto, and not about, um, well, September 11. I guess we bloggers are so completely unimportant that he just had nothing better to write about on that day.

But even funnier is the fact, as pointed out by Florida News Blog, that "totally" and "utterly," as used in my sentence, are not redundant, but rather act as intensifiers.

"Because of the goal of intensifiers, it is not uncommon to be repetitive when using them. Had the [The Bulldog Manifesto] said that Bush "both" totally and utterly failed, then there would be reason to believe he was being redundant. In this case, however, it is clear [The Bulldog Manifesto] simply intended to give more weight to the word "failed."" -- Florida News Blog

So, at the end of all of this, what have we learned?

First, he have learned that Mike Thomas suffers from a bloated ego. Sorry Mr. Thomas, but your opinion is no more valuable than mine, nor anyone else's, for that matter. You write a column and so do I. The only difference is, you were smart enough to figure out how to get paid for making an ass out of yourself. I, on the other hand, do it simply for the love of the game.

Second, we learned that Mike Thomas needs to buy a calendar. (Note to Mr. Thomas: September 11 could be a nice time to write about September 11. Just a suggestion.)

Third, if journalist extraordinaire Mike Thomas is going to use the Orlando Sentinel as his personal bully pulpit to criticize bloggers, he might consider getting his facts in order first. He might not like us bloggers, but he better realize that there are lots of us, and frankly, many of us aren't too happy with the job we're seeing from the so-called professionals. So you could say that we're somewhat motivated to make these incredibly gifted journalists work harder.

Fourth, I hope we've all learned that you can't bully the Bulldog. But if you're crazy enough to take a run at the Manifesto, please remember to always publish The Bulldog Manifesto's complete Web address along with the column or article. Just in case you forgot: http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com

We hope Mike Thomas will learn from his mistake and his error. <--- Intentionally redundant. Deal with it, Mr. Thomas.

[I wonder if the newly launched Impeach Bush Coalition website had anything to do with Mr. Thomas' decision to single out The Bulldog Manifesto. Nah! Couldn't be.]

The Impeach Bush Coalition is now online at http://impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com

Remember, to show support for the effort and be a part of the coalition, all you have to do is ask (by posting at the IBC blog or by email). But don't forget to spread the word too!

Graphic buttons and banners, as well as RSS Feeds, coming soon!!!!

The time has come. It's time to stay on point. The blogs need to unite around a rallying cry of "IMPEACH BUSH." As of this post, the term "impeach bush" is the third most popular search term at Technocrati.

President Bush has totally and utterly failed the American people. Almost every day we are presented with further proof why he should not be our president. From 9/11, to WMDs, to Iraq, to Katrina-- the reasons are many and obvious. We need to impeach him NOW.

The only point that should be discussed is-- "IMPEACH BUSH NOW!" We need to pound this point over and over again. It should be mentioned wherever possible, and it should not stop until the mainstream media and all politicans realize that we, the people, will not stand for gross negligence, willful and wanton misconduct, nor the utter lies, any longer.

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every blog, from large to small, from Eschaton to Spontaneous Rising, from Daily Kos to Martian Anthropologist, from Crooks and Liars to Bring it On, from The Rude Pundit to The Talking Dog and EVERY BLOG IN BETWEEN!

The Bulldog Manifesto hereby calls upon every activist, from the national activists to the pissed off mothers, from the local politicians to the military families, from the school teachers to the student, spread the word, it is time to IMPEACH BUSH NOW. Cut and paste this post and email it to friends and family, write letters to your senators and congressperson, start your own impeachment blog, sign the Impeach Bush Petition, just do something! It begins with ALL OF US!

It doesn't matter whether the House of Representatives consists of a Republican majority, we cannot wait around until 2006 for that to change. We can no longer afford to wait. Impeachment begins NOW, with all of us!

Feel free to cut and paste this post wherever you wish. Link to this post at:

http://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/09/impeach-george-w-bush-call-to-all.html

Send me an email (prideof55@myway.com) once you are on board and you will be added to the ON BOARD list

Please go HERE and click on the link to watch the movie. It is an absolutely amazing story of what happened to one Hurricane survivor, Charmaine Neville. I think everybody should see this video.

Please come back and post your comments.

(Thanks to the Crooks & Liars blog for the heads up on this video)

I laugh every time I hear someone try to claim that the Bush administration and Republicans, in general, want a smaller government. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Yes, they want a smaller government when it comes to issues like social security, public education, health care, and poverty. (I wonder why?) But when it comes to the issue of sex, for example, the so-called "small government" Republicans seem to be on Viagra, always swelling into "big government" patriarchs. As it relates to one of the most crucial of individual liberties, the right to have sex with whomever we choose, however we choose, the 'Party of the Sex Fearing' want the rest of us to entertain their own sexual fears and hang-ups.

Did you know that in 2004 alone, the Bush administration allocated $270 million dollars to "abstinence only" sex education groups. In other words, George W. Bush allocated money that could have otherwise gone to pay for, say, a certain levy system in New Orleans, but chose to spend it on government programs relating to how we, the citizens of the United States, have sex!

In fact, since Bush has taken office, we are spending over $100 million each year on "abstinence-only" programs which teach our children things like this:

"THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE PREMARITAL SEX WITHOUT HURTING SOMEONE." Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p.35

"There is no such thing as 'safe' or 'safer' premarital sex." FACTS, Middle School, Teacher's Guide, p. 9.

"The liberation movement has produced some aggressive girls today, and one of the tough challenges for guys who say no will be the questioning of their manliness" Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 85. There are more examples at NoNewMoney.Org

Oh, it gets worse. Not only is Bush mandating our sex life, he is attempting to do it overseas too.

In 2002, the Bush administration undermined an international drive to provide teenage sexual education because of his own belief in chastity. In fact, Bush refused to sign a United Nations declaration on children's rights which was designed to set funding priorities across the Third World unless pledges on sexual health services were scrapped altogether. So much for the notion that 'Sexual Rights are Human Rights'.

"In its intransigent opposition to any acknowledgment of condom use as a way to fight AIDS and adolescent pregnancy, the United States was also joined by such beacons of enlightenment as Sudan, Libya, Syria and the Vatican. Arrayed against the US-led obstructionist effort was an overwhelming majority of the 180 delegations and sixty world leaders participating in the conference, including not only nearly all the Western democracies but the largely Catholic countries of Central and South America." The Nation

Did you know that in July 2004, the Bush administration via the CDC (Center for Disease Control) published new regulations requiring that organizations teach abstinence as the only way to prevent the spread of HIV instead of disease-preventing safe-sex education. In fact, only organizations that teach "abstinence-only" may receive federal funding now as a result of the new regulations.

"When asked about the CDC regs, Representative Barney Frank told The Nation that "one has to reach back to Stalin and Lysenko to find an ideological distortion of science this complete." And Representative Henry Waxman called the CDC guidelines "shameful," and only the latest anti-condom move by an Administration whose policies have been "overwhelmingly suppressing and distorting science" for political purposes (as a sop to the Christian right)." The Nation

And what about the most recent revelation?

Recently, it was revealed that the top priority for the Bush Justice Department would not be terrorism, organized crime, or public corruption. Nope, it was revealed that the Attorney General (and Grandmaster of Torture) Alberto Gonzalez, would make pornography the #1 priority for the justice deparment! Not child pornography, but pornography featuring consenting adults!

So much for "small government". When it comes to sex, the Bush administration is all about big government. The bigger, the better. Apparently, 'we the people' must be coerced and legislated into a sex life that meets with George W. Bush's approval. And it seems, if they had it their way, we would all be virgins until marriage. We would all refrain from viewing pornography. We would all strictly limit our love to heterosexual relationships. In essence, we would all be fearful of our innate, unique, and varying sexualities.

The funniest thing is-- George W. Bush fails to recognize that, so long as he is president, it is impossible for any of us to remain monogamous. After all, aside from our respective sexual partner, we are all getting fucked by George W. Bush.

Message to all of you raving free-market fundamentalists. All of you people who believe the federal government should be reduced to nothing more than a military:

LOOK AT NEW ORLEANS!

You have a city under siege from a natural disaster. You have a city that is practically being abandoned. You have children living in urine and feces! This is your privatized America.

Eighty percent (80%) of the Louisiana National Guard is off fighting a war of choice in Iraq. Ninety percent (90%) of Alabama's Guard. And the latest reports indicate that we aren't going to call any of the National Guard stationed in Iraq back home to help Americans. You have a President who has the temerity to ask us, the freaking citizens, to pitch in. While at the same token, speaking out against looters who have no choice but to take whatever they can. Let me get this right, I'm supposed to send my money but Wal-Mart cannot offer the goods in their Louisianna stores to the people who are dying on the streets? Isn't that just typical of an administration that only represents the interests of the rich?

Don't get me wrong, I'll send money, but where is the federal government?

We have a president who acts like Emperor Nero. 'Rome is burning,' Mr. President, care to do something about it?

The Salesman-in-Chief hasn't offered any solutions, just more sales pitches. The bastard hasn't even been on the ground to meet the people or witness the catastrophe firsthand. This is our leader? If thats the case, maybe we should take the free market fundamentalists up on their offer and just close down the Executive Branch altogether. After all, if it cannot serve the people, it's just worthless to have a president.

The taxpayers spend four months of the year working for a government that is a mouthpiece for the miltary industrial complex and the richest fucks on the planet. Basically, it's 'Fuck the people'. The people can starve, the people can die without health care, but at least they are "defended" (yeah right!) with state of the art firepower.

What a clusterfuck of ineptitude we are witnessing in New Orleans. The richest nation in the world cannot even muster an organized emergency response? Is this a bad dream? This is what is left of our government now that the free market fundamentalists have gotten a hold of it.

'The private industry! The private industry!'

Isn't that what these free market fundamentalists love to talk about? They are always touting the greateness of the private industry. Sorry, but the private industry can't help New Orleans until they've figured out a way to do it while earning a buck. Thats why they're the fucking private industry. Yeah, eventually they'll get around to helping, but it will be too late.