The Bulldog Manifesto

This Blog is Not Dead....

2006-05-24T11:33:00.000-07:00

As I've written before, this blog is not dead. It's just on hiatus for the time being. I'm busy blogging at the Impeach Bush Coalition.

I hope you are all doing well...

The Real Story Behind Iran

2006-04-17T12:55:00.000-07:00

I ran across this news story today, and I think it says it all. We all know what the war in Iraq has done for the oil companies.

It's shameful. It really is. Iran is ten years away from any capability to create a nuclear bomb. Ten fucking years! They have never attacked us. But the problem is, like Iraq, somehow they are sitting on our damn oil!

If we go to war there, thousands will surely die. Perhaps the conflict would set off a much greater world war, and who really knows what that could bring this world.

It's hubris to the power of one hundred.

One day, and that day could be closer than most peole imagine, America will not be the world's only superpower. When that day comes, our masses will be screaming about human rights, international law, and the like. Who will listen to us?

Why should they listen to us?

The Only Americans That Visibly Care?

2006-04-10T19:49:00.000-07:00

Are our "illegal" immigrants the only Americans that care anymore? It sure seems that way to me. Yeah, there are lots of us on the Left who are willing to raise up in the streets, but most of America seems to be asleep-- almost indifferent to the bullshit done by our government in OUR name.

But here are some REAL AMERICANS!

My Chevy Tahoe Commercial

2006-04-04T16:44:00.000-07:00

If you haven't heard, Chevy Tahoe is sponsoring a contest to see who can make the best Chevy Tahoe commercial. After seeing so many great Chevy Tahoe commercials, I had to make one too. Enjoy!

Just a Reminder...

2006-03-17T01:01:00.000-08:00

I am actively blogging at the Impeach Bush Coalition these days. I will still be posting here, but just not as frequently as I once did....not until the bastard is impeached!

Zappa on Crossfire

2006-03-08T14:40:00.000-08:00

Back in 1986, musician Frank Zappa (now deceased) was on the CNN show Crossfire. If you have the time, go back and watch the video HERE. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, just fast-forward to the 10 minute mark and see just how prescient Mr. Zappa was back then.

Maya

2006-03-05T16:54:00.000-08:00

“What is Maya?” asked Narada, the devoted student.

“The world is my Maya. He who accepts this, realizes me,” said Vishnu. “Before I explain further, will you fetch me some water?” requested the Lord pointing to a river.

Narada did as he was told. But on his way back, he saw a beautiful woman. Smitten by her beauty, he begged the woman to marry him. She agreed.

Narada built a house for his wife on the banks of the river. She bore him many children. Loved by his wife, adored by his sons and daughters, Narada forgot all about his mission to fetch water for Vishnu.

In time, Narada’s children had children of their own. Surrounded by his grandchildren, Narada felt happy and secure. Nothing could go wrong.

Suddenly, dark clouds enveloped the sky. There was thunder, lightning, and rain. The river overflowed, broke its banks and washed away Narada’s house, drowning everyone he loved, everything he possessed. Narada himself was swept away by the river.

“Help, help. Somebody please help me,” he cried. Suddenly, Narada awoke face down in the desert sand under the blazing sun. The flooded river was nowhere to be seen. He heard a voice: "My son, where is the drink you promised me? It's been half an hour since you went to fetch it for me!"

“How can you be so remorseless? How can you ask me for water when I have lost my entire family? Narada responded.

Vishnu smiled. “Calm down, Narada. Tell me, where did your family come from? From Me. I am the only reality, the only entity in the cosmos that is eternal and unchanging. Everything else is an illusion – a mirage, constantly slipping out of one’s grasp.”

“You, my greatest devotee, knew that. Yet, enchanted by the pleasures of worldly life, you forgot all about me. You deluded yourself into believing that your world and your life were all that mattered and nothing else was of any consequence. As per your perspective, the material world was infallible, invulnerable, perfect. That is Maya.”

When Bush Bashing Goes Too Far

2006-02-24T00:43:00.000-08:00

OK, I'm certainly not scared of bashing Bush. Heck, the man has provided us with countless opportunities to beat him like a piñata. But this whole Dubai controversy has me somewhat perplexed. I want to bash him for it, but I cannot. Why? Well, for two reasons.

First, I do not believe that Dubai is a terrorist state. Second, the whole Dubai controversy seems to have brought out a whole slew of Arab bashing and racial profiling. The crux of most arguments revolves around the fact that Dubai is an Arab state and therefore cannot be trusted. This line of thinking removes rational thought from the equation. Simply put, we are supposed to believe that "arab" equates to "dangerous". I'm not playing along. Sorry.

As much as I'd love to join in the feeding frenzy, I cannot in good conscience do it.

The Bush administration had more to do with 9/11 than Dubai ever did.

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com nails it.

Life Changes

2006-02-21T18:41:00.000-08:00

A lot has been going on in the life of your favorite bulldog. Presently, I'm in the midst of a move, modifying my business life, and so much more! Much is changing around the bulldog...

Triple hit of Saturn too. Triple. :-)

And Now a Song....

2006-02-17T01:05:00.000-08:00

.....to make you laugh.

Beyond Funny!

2006-02-15T21:48:00.000-08:00

OK, this VIDEO is beyond funny! I know you will enjoy it!

Impeachment Resolution

2006-02-14T14:07:00.000-08:00

As you know, we at the Impeach Bush Coalition have been working towards getting the States involved with impeachment. Recently, I was asked to wear my attorney hat and provided legal counsel to the good people at Democrats.com, AfterDowningStreet.org, ImpeachBush.tv, and ImpeachCentral.com. Together, we have been working toward getting a State resolution brought before the US House of Representatives pursuant to Section 603 of the US House Rules.

Well, here is a sample resolution. It is written by Richard Matthews.

"WHEREAS, United States House of Representatives rules allow for setting a federal impeachment in motion by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory; and

"WHEREAS, The State of Florida and the former territory of Mississippi have established precedent by referring such charges to Congress, which in each case resulted in Congress ordering a Committee to investigate and report on the charges, and which in one case resulted in the impeachment of Judge Charles Swayne of Florida; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush, President of the United States, has so conducted himself and his office as to cause the people of the State to doubt his integrity and to believe that his official actions as president have constituted High Crimes and Misdemeanors having repeatedly and intentionally violated and ignored the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush has ordered the federalization and deployment of this state's National Guard members overseas and thus has exceeded the authority granted in the provision of the United States Constitution that Congress shall have the power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections and repel invasions," reserving to the State Assembly, the State Senate, and the Governor of this state the authority to direct the training and arming of members of the state's National Guard for defense of the state; and

"WHEREAS, The federalization and deployment of National Guard members has rendered the National Guard force unable to carry out its state activities effectively and thus deprived the state of its Constitutional power to keep the National Guard for defense of the state; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush has allowed stop-loss orders that violate the mutual understanding between Californians in the Armed Forces including the National Guard and the state and nation they agreed to serve; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted that he willingly and repeatedly directed unwarranted surveillance of U. S. persons, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of the United States; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush committed a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by withholding information from Congress about doubts in the intelligence community about Bush's justification for war; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush committed a felony under section 1001 by providing information to Congress he knew or should have known to be false, including the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger and the claim that Iraq gave aid and comfort to the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush committed a felony under section 1001 by providing information to Congress he knew or should have known to be false, including the claim that the cost of the Medicare bill would not exceed the limits Congress intended; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush committed felonies under 18 U.S.C. 641 and 643 by embezzling funds authorized for use in the war in Afghanistan and diverting it to an as-yet unauthorized build-up towards war in Iraq; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush committed felonies, namely espionage, fraud, or obstruction of justice, through involvement in the cover-up of the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush has committed an act of terrorism under 18 U.S.C. 2339A by ordering the kidnapping of President Aristide, a violation of 18 U.S.C. 956; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush has approved of torture under the name of stress and duress, has denied the applicability of existing laws and treaties against torture, and has indicated in his signing statement of H.R. 1815 his future intention to continue to disregard such laws and treaties; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush has repeatedly acted to expand the power of a unitary executive in violation of the principle of balance of power; and

"WHEREAS, the administration of the United States' invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq has resulted in the waste of assets, through incompetence, insufficient oversight, insufficient planning, and no-bid contracts; and

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush, though the above actions has denied the citizens of this state of their rights and their safety; now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of this state, jointly, That our Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the governance of the Executive Branch by George W. Bush as President of the United States, and of his acts and doings as such, to the end that he may be impeached and removed from such office; and be it further

"Resolved, That the secretary of state of this state be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to each Senator and Representative in the Congress of the United States, under the great seal of this state, a copy of this resolution and its adoption by the legislature of this state."

The Perazzi Shotgun

2006-02-13T23:52:00.000-08:00

We all know that Vice President Cheney shot an old man on a farm while trying to shoot pen-raised, slow moving birds with a 28-guage shotgun.

But what about the gun?

Cheney was using a Perazzi shotgun. Perazzi 28-guage shotguns are custom made shotguns that sell for over $20,000. Some of them go for as high as $41,000.00!!

$41,000 approaches the 75th percentile for annual wages for a male in our society. These bastards are so utterly out of touch with the average American worker, it's not even funny.

We couldn't have written a better metaphor if we tried.

They overspend on guns. They shoot at the wrong targets. They injure innocent people.

The perfect metaphor indeed.

So if you are keeping score at home. Our vice president shoots at slow moving pen-raised birds with a 28-guage shotgun costing over $20,000.00.....and misses, hitting a 78 year old man.

Poetic. Damn poetic.

Sibel Edmonds Responds to Porter Goss

2006-02-13T01:04:00.000-08:00

Lukery, from the blog Wot is it Good 4 passed this along to me. If you haven't noticed, Lukery has been steadfastly reporting on uber-whistelblower Sibel Edmonds.

Recently, Ms. Edmonds wrote the following response to CIA Director Porter Goss' recent anti-democracy NY Times Op-Ed. Here it is:

Porter Goss’ Op-ed: ‘Ignoturn per Ignotius’!

By Sibel Edmonds (a.k.a. whistleblower)

Dear Mr. Goss, the timing of your recent op-ed in the New York Times interestingly coincides with the upcoming congressional hearing by the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats & International Relations on National Security Whistleblowers. Your comments are predictably consistent with the pattern of “preemptive strikes” you and the administration have been keen on maintaining. I do not blame you for your opposition to legislation to protect courageous whistleblowers, which will enable the United States Congress to reclaim some of its authority and oversight that it has given up for the past five years. No sir, you have all the right and reason to be nervous. However, I must take issue with your attempt to mislead the American public - another habit of your heart - by presenting them with false information and misleading statements.

Sir, as you must very well know after your years in congress as a representative and as a member of the intelligence committee, there are no meaningful legal protections for whistleblowers. What is troubling is that while you are well aware of the fact that there are no meaningful or enforceable laws that provide protection to national security whistleblowers, you nevertheless state that such workers are covered by existing laws. That is simply false. You state that “the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act was enacted to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.” The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which appears to be the legal channel provided to national security employees, turns out on closer inspection to be toothless. Please refer to the recent independent report issued by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on National Security Whistleblowers on December 30, 2005. The report concludes that there currently are no protections for national security whistleblowers - period. Let me provide you with a recent example illustrating the fallacy of your claim:

In December 2005, Mr. Russ Tice, former National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence analyst and action officer, sent letters to the chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, and requested meetings to brief them on probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the NSA and DIA. In his letter Mr. Tice, as a law abiding and responsible intelligence officer, stated “Due to the highly sensitive nature of these programs and operations, I will require assurances from your committee that the staffers and/or congressional members to participate retain the proper security clearances, and also have the appropriate SAP cleared facilities available for these discussion.” On January 9, 2006, the NSA sent an official letter to Mr. Tice stating “neither the staff nor the members of the House or Senate Intelligence committees are cleared to receive the information.”

Now, Mr. Goss, please explain this to the American public: What happened to your so-called appropriate congressional channels and protections available to national security whistleblowers? Mr. Goss, what “protected disclosure to congress”? According to the NSA no one in the United States Congress is “cleared enough” to hear reports from national security whistleblowers. Please name one whistleblower to date who has been protected after disclosing information to the United States Congress; can you name even a single case? Or, is that information considered classified? How do we expect the United States Congress to conduct its oversight responsibility and maintain the necessary checks on the Executive Branch, when agencies such as yours declare the members of congress “not cleared enough” to receive reports regarding conduct by these agencies? Where do you suggest employees like Mr. Tice go to report waste, fraud, abuse, and/or illegal conduct by their agencies? Based on your administration’s self-declared claim of inherent power and authority of the executive branch overriding courts and the United States Congress, what other channels are left to pursue?

Okay, now let’s move to this notion you and the administration seem to be so very keen on: Classified & Sensitive Information. Let’s start by asking how we define “classified & sensitive information,” and who decides what is classified and sensitive? According to the statement by Thomas S. Benton, National Security Archive, on March 2, 2005, during the congressional hearing on “Emerging Threats: Overclassification & Pseudo-Classification,” the deputy undersecretary of defense for counterintelligence and security declared that 50% of the Pentagon's information was over-classified, and the head of the Information Security Oversight Office said it was even worse, "even beyond 50%." Don’t you find the percentage of falsely classified information appalling? Well, you should; it is your responsibility, because the executive branch, under the office of the United States President, is solely responsible for classification or pseudo-classification of information. Now, based on this knowledge, what should happen when you tell the public, when you tell the United States Congress and the media “Oh, you are not allowed to have this information; this information is highly sensitive and classified”? This is what should happen: we, the people, the Congress, and the media, should first ask you for the merits of the classification; have you prove to us that the information in question should in fact be classified; and you, the executive branch, have the obligation to truthfully respond.

On the issue of classification in your op-ed you go further and cite the cost of unauthorized disclosure to the American taxpayer, “unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars.” Since you brought up the issue, let’s explore it fully and give the American people the real facts, shall we? The Office of Management and Budget report on classification costs to U.S. agencies (the CIA's are still classified; but of course!), gave us a benchmark number and some sense of comparative expense to the taxpayer - the reported dollar figure was over $6.5 billion in fiscal 2003. Now, since the percentage of falsely classified data has been determined to be in the range of 50%, the cost of our agencies’ pseudo classification to the American taxpayer amounts to over $3 billion. Mr. Goss, you do the math; do you really want to attempt to twist and misuse the cost of classification to try to strike a chord with the taxpayers? It is not going to stick; wouldn’t you agree?

Let’s try your security angle on the subject of classification, where you state “disclosure of classified intelligence inhibits our ability to carry out our mission and protect the nation.” The entire 9/11 Commission report includes only one finding that the attacks might have been prevented (Page 247 & 376). They quote the interrogation of the hijackers' paymaster, Ramzi Binalshibh, who commented that if the organizers, particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, had known that the so-called 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, had been arrested at his Minnesota flight school on immigration charges, then Bin Laden and KSM would have called off the 9/11 attacks, because news of that arrest would have alerted the FBI agent in Phoenix who warned of Islamic militants in flight schools in a July 2001 memo; a memo that vanished into the FBI's vaults in Washington. The Commission's wording is important here: only "publicity" could have derailed the attacks. Classification is indeed a very important mechanism, if it is applied diligently and wisely; however, as illustrated above, in certain circumstances, even with respect to national security information, classification can run counter to our national interests.
Mr. Steven Aftergood, the Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, so very eloquently stated “the information blackout may serve the short-term interests of the present administration, which is allergic to criticism or even to probing questions. But it is a disservice to the country. Worst of all, the Bush administration's information policies are conditioning Americans to lower their expectations of government accountability and to doubt their own ability to challenge their political leaders. Information is the oxygen of democracy. Day by day, the Bush administration is cutting off the supply.”
Mr. Goss, since you proudly quoted from the Rob-Silberman Report released in March 2005, let me do the same and present you with another quote from the same report: “In just the past 20 years the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NRO, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have all been penetrated. Secrets stolen include nuclear weapons data, U.S. cryptographic codes and procedures, identification of U.S. intelligence sources and methods (human and technical), and war plans. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the damage that foreign intelligence penetrations have caused.” It appears that the only ones not privy to our so-called sensitive government and intelligence information are the American citizens, since our enemies and allies have been successfully penetrating all our intelligence agencies (including yours sir) and nuclear labs and facilities. Sir, with all due respect, you have not even succeeded in protecting your own agencies, offices and facilities against foreign penetration; you seem to be incapable of conducting appropriate background checks on your own employees; you failed to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; and you have failed in gathering intelligence and reporting it accurately on the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. With this kind of record how can you go on lecturing the Congress and the American people on your superiority and inherent authority to do whatever you wish, however you wish, and without having to provide any report or any answer to anybody, including the United States Congress?

Last year, the CIA, your agency, classified the entire findings of the Inspector General’s investigation into the failures of CIA managers prior to 9/11. Sir, I believe you made the case for this classification based on your intention to protect the wrongdoers within the CIA bureaucracy from being “stigmatized.” Is this what your op-ed intended to say? Did you mean to say that these national security whistleblowers may end up stigmatizing the wrongdoers and incompetents within the rank and file of the CIA by divulging information that you decided to classify to prevent exposure of embarrassing and criminal activity? Was that a Freudian slip, since nowadays the lines get blurry between classification for national security purposes and classification to protect the agency’s bureaucrats?
Mr. Goss, I cannot attribute this misleading op-ed to your ignorance, since you were a member of Congress until recently and are surely aware of the lack of meaningful protection for national security whistleblowers; so I won't. I will not attribute it to your stupidity, since obviously our Congress confirmed your position and I do not intend to insult their wisdom and intelligence. Thus, it must be your arrogance, nurtured and fed by your boss on your purported inherent and limitless authority and power, leading you to treat us, the American Public, as stupid.
Sincerely,

Sibel Edmonds
A Proud National Security Whistleblower

Sibel Edmonds is the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), a nonprofit organization dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers. Ms. Edmonds worked as a language specialist for the FBI’s Washington Field Office. During her work with the bureau, she discovered and reported serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence that had national security implications. After she reported these acts to FBI management, she was retaliated against by the FBI and ultimately fired in March 2002. Since that time, court proceedings on her issues have been blocked by the assertion of “State Secret Privilege” by Attorney General Ashcroft; the Congress of the United States has been gagged and prevented from any discussion of her case through retroactive re-classification by the Department of Justice. Ms. Edmonds is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani; and has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. www.nswbc.org

The Battle For America

2006-02-08T03:19:00.000-08:00

Please watch this short video.

The battle for America has begun!

Letter to State Legislators

2006-02-01T02:21:00.000-08:00

OK, I just had to do it.

I compiled the email addresses for almost all of the state legislators in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont!

Then, I wrote a letter.

Please cut and paste the following letter into an email and send it to each of the State Legislators' email addresses (see below).

==============================================================

Subject: Impeachment Of George W. Bush Can Begin In the State Legislatures

Dear State Legislator,

I am writing to you because you are this nation’s last line of defense. President George W. Bush has committed numerous impeachable offenses. Unfortunately, the Republican-dominated U.S. House of Representatives has repeatedly shown that it will not perform its role as a check to President Bush’s unconstitutional powers.

Thankfully, Section 603 of the United States House Rules provides for the inception of impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives “by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State.”

Section 603 states, inter alia:

”Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.>> House of Representatives there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: by charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); by charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); or by a resolution dropped in the hopper by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941-42; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); by a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or Territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).”

As a concerned citizen, I respectfully request that your respective State Legislature consider the matter of impeachment and bring charges against President George W. Bush before the United States House of Representatives.

It was John Adams who said: “The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men." And it was Supreme Court Justice James Wilson who stated: “Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits, which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution.”

If the President of the United States is simply allowed to do as he pleases, why do we bother speaking about a Constitution? If the United States House of Representatives will not uphold the Constitution, then our form of government is doomed.

We the people call upon you! You are our last line of defense between tyranny. Please act immediately, before this President assumes even more power for himself.

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

EMAIL LIST
dwalker@dccouncil.us,lcropp@dccouncil.us, jevans@dccouncil.us,cschwartz@dccouncil.us, dcatania@dccouncil.us,mendelson@dccouncil.us,kbrown@dccouncil.us, jgraham@dccouncil.us,kpatterson@dccouncil.us,afenty@dccouncil.us, orange@dccouncil.us, sambrose@dccouncil.us,vgray@dccouncil.us, mbarry@dccouncil.us,
house3@alhouse.org, greg.albritton@alhouse.org, Gerald.allen@alhouse.org, Locy.baker@alhouse.org, Mike.ball@alhouse.org, george.bandy@alhouse.org, Jim.barton@alhouse.org, Billy.Beasley@alhouse.org, Scott.beason@alhouse.org, Warren.beck@alhouse.org, Robert.Bentley@alhouse.org, Lucius.black@alhouse.org, Marcel.black@alhouse.org, Alan.boothe@alhouse.org, Barbara.boyd@alhouse.org, Dick.brewbaker@alhouse.org, Duwayne.bridges@alhouse.org, James.buskey@alhouse.org, Jim.carns@alhouse.org, Joe.carothers@alhouse.org, Tommy.carter@alhouse.org, William.clark@alhouse.org, Steve.clouse@alhouse.org, Linda.coleman@alhouse.org, Merika.coleman@alhouse.org, Spencer.collier@alhouse.org, Randy.davis@alhouse.org, Paul.demarco@alhouse.org, Bill.dukes@alhouse.org, Priscilla.dunn@alhouse.org, Joe.faust@alhouse.org, Lea.fite@alhouse.org, Craig.ford@alhouse.org, Betty.graham@alhouse.org, Ronald.grantland@alhouse.org, Ken.guin@alhouse.org, Albert.hall@alhouse.org, Laura.hall@alhouse.org, Seth.hammett@alhouse.org, Alvin.holmes@alhouse.org, Ralph.howard@alhouse.org, Steve.hurst@alhouse.org,
Thomas.Jackson@alhouse.org, Yvonne.kennedy@alhouse.org, John.knight@alhouse.org,
Richard.laird@alhouse.org, Allen.layson@alhouse.org, John.letson@alhouse.org, Richard.Lindsey@alhouse.org, Jay.love@alhouse.org, Eric.major@alhouse.org, James.martin@alhouse.org, Thad.mclammy@alhouse.org, Jim.mcclendon@alhouse.org, Jeff.mcclaughlin@alhouse.org, Steve.mcmillan@alhouse.org, Bryant.melton@alhouse.org, Mike.millican@alhouse.org, Joseph.Mitchell@alhouse.org, Mary.moore@alhouse.org, Neal.Morrison@alhouse.org, Johnny.morrow@alhouse.org, Albert.morton@alhouse.org, Charles.Newton@alhouse.org, Demetrius.Newton@alhouse.org, Jeremy.oden@alhouse.org, Jack.page@alhouse.org, Arthur.payne@alhouse.org, George.perdue@alhouse.org, John.robinson@alhouse.org, Oliver.robinson@alhouse.org, John.Rodgers@alhouse.org, Yusaf.salaam@alhouse.org, Howard.sanderford@alhouse.org, Sue.Schmitz@alhouse.org, Tommy.sherer@alhouse.org, Terry.spicer@alhouse.org, William.thigpen@alhouse.org, Elwyn.thomas@alhouse.org, James.Thomas@alhouse.org, Lesley.vance@alhouse.org, Cam.ward@alhouse.org, Pebblin.warren@alhouse.org, Frank.white@alhouse.org, Jack.Williams@alhouse.org, Nick.Williams@alhouse.org, Randy.wood@alhouse.org, senbedford@aol.com, senbutler@aol.com, novascotiarb@hotmail.com, bobby@bobbydenton.com, ldixon@albme.org, senatorerwin@aol.com, vdfigures@aol.com, steve.french@alsenate.gov, tedlittle@mindspring.com, zeblittle@earthlink.net, ebmc@bellsouth.net, wmitchell@faulkner.edu, legislator@mclo.org, myronpenn28@hotmail.com, poole@mound.net, Senrob1@aol.com, qtross2002@hotmail.com, bsingle164@yahoo.com, harriannesmith@graceba.net, rodger99@bellsouth.net, reps@Capitol.hawaii.gov, sens@Capitol.hawaii.gov, Rep.CoryAtkins@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DemetriusAtsalis@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BruceAyers@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RuthBalser@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnBinienda@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DeborahBlumer@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DanielBosley@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GarrettBradley@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ArthurBroadhurst@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AntonioCabral@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JenniferCallahan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ChristineCanavan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.StephenCanessa@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GaleCandaras@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MarkCarron@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PaulCasey@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.EdwardConnolly@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertCorreia@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MichaelCostello@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertCoughlin@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GeraldineCreedon@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US, RDeleo@hwm.state.ma.us, Rep.VinnydeMacedo@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BrianDempsey@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.SalvatoreDiMasi@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PaulDonato@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ChristopherDonelan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JosephDriscoll@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesEldridge@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.LewisEvangelidis@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesFagan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ChristopherFallon@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MarkFalzone@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertFennell@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MikeFesta@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BarryFinegold@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JenniferFlanagan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.LindaDorcenaForry@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DavidFlynn@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GloriaFox@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnFresolo@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PaulFrost@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.WilliamGalvin@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ColleenGarry@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.SusanGifford@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AnneGobi@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.EmileGoguen@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ThomasGolden@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ShirleyGomes@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MaryGrant@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.WilliamGreene@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DenisGuyer@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PatriciaHaddad@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GeoffreyHall@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertHargraves@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.LidaHarkins@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BradHill@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.KevinHonan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DonaldHumason@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.FrankHynes@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BradleyJones@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.LouisKafka@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MichaelKane@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RachelKaprielian@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JayKaufman@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DanielKeenan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnDKeenan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ThomasKennedy@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.KayKhan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PeterKocot@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertKoczera@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PeterKoutoujian@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PaulKujawski@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.StephenKulik@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.WilliamLantigua@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesLeary@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.StephenLeDuc@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnLepper@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DavidLinsky@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BarbaraL'Italien@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PaulLoscocco@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.LizMalia@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RonaldMariano@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesMarzilli@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesMiceli@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MichaelMoran@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.CharlesMurphy@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesMurphy@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.KevinMurphy@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PatrickNatale@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DavidNangle@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.HaroldNaughton@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertNyman@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ThomasOBrien@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GeneOFlaherty@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ShirleyOwens-Hicks@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MarieParente@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MatthewPatrick@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AnnePaulsen@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.VincentPedone@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AlicePeisch@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JeffreyPerry@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DouglasPetersen@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.GeorgePeterson@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ThomasPetrolati@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AnthonyPetruccelli@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.SmittyPignatelli@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ElizabethPoirier@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.KarynPolito@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.SusanPope@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnQuinn@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.KathiReinstein@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.CherylRivera@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MichaelRodrigues@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MaryRogeness@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnRogers@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RichardRoss@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MikeRush@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ByronRushing@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JeffreySanchez@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.TomSannicandro@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AngeloScaccia@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JohnScibak@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.CarlSciortino@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ToddSmola@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.FrankSmizik@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.TheodoreSpeliotis@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.RobertSpellane@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.HarriettStanley@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.ThomasStanley@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.EllenStory@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.WilliamStraus@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DavidSullivan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BenjaminSwan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.KathleenTeahan@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.WalterTimilty@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AStephenTobin@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.TimothyToomey@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DavidTorrisi@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PhilipTravis@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.EricTurkington@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.CleonTurner@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesVallee@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AnthonyVerga@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JosephWagner@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.BrianWallace@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.PatriciaWalrath@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MartinWalsh@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.StevenWalsh@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.MartyWalz@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.DanielWebster@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.JamesWelch@Hou.State.MA.US, Rep.AliceWolf@Hou.State.MA.US, Robert.Antonioni@state.ma.us, Edward.Augustus@state.ma.us, Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us, Jarrett.Barrios@state.ma.us, Frederick.Berry@state.ma.us, Stephen.Brewer@state.ma.us, Scott.P.Brown@state.ma.us, Stephen.Buoniconti@state.ma.us, Harriette.Chandler@state.ma.us, Robert.Creedon@state.ma.us, Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us, Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us, John.Hart@state.ma.us, Robert.Havern@state.ma.us, Robert.Hedlund@state.ma.us, Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us, Brian.A.Joyce@state.ma.us, Michael.Knapik@state.ma.us, Brian.Lees@state.ma.us, Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us, Joan.Menard@state.ma.us, Mark.Montigny@state.ma.us, Richard.Moore@state.ma.us, Michael.W.Morrissey@state.ma.us, Therese.Murray@state.ma.us, Robert.O'Leary@state.ma.us, Marc.Pacheco@state.ma.us, Steven.Panagiotakos@state.ma.us, Pamela.Resor@state.ma.us, Stan.Rosenberg@state.ma.us, Karen.E.Spilka@state.ma.us, Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us, James.Timilty@state.ma.us, Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us, Steven.Tolman@state.ma.us, Robert.Travaglini@state.ma.us, Susan.Tucker@state.ma.us, Marian.Walsh@state.ma.us, Dianne.Wilkerson@state.ma.us, rep-mccauley@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-moura@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-ajello@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-fox@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-desimone@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-wasylyk@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-giannini@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-williams@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-slater@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-diaz@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-almeida@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-smith@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-lima@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-palumbo@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-jacquard@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-handy@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-mcnamara@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-gemma@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-naughton@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-ginaitt@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-flaherty@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-trillo@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-williamson@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-murphy@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-landroche@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-moffitt@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-sullivan@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-watson@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-carter@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-ehrhardt@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-lally@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-caprio@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-shanley@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-mchugh@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-lewiss@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-kennedy@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-scott@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-gorham@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-mumford@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-ucci@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-voccola@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-petrarca@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-menard@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-mcmanus@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-pacheco@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-church@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-laroche@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-brien@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-picard@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-singleton@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-winfield@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-schadone@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-corvese@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-faria@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-moran@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-sanbento@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-oneill@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-ecoderre@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-kilmartin@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-dennigan@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-rose@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-melo@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-story@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-malik@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-anguilla@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-gallison@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-amaral@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-loughlin@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-rice@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-jackson@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-long@rilin.state.ri.us, rep-crowley@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-goodwin@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-pichardo@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-perry@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-ruggerio@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-caprio@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-metts@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-ciccone@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-doyle@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-alves@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-felag@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-levesque@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-gibbs@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-paivaweed@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-daponte@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-mcburney@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-issa@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-montalbano@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-damiani@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-connors@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-badeau@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-blais@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-tassoni@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-fogarty@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-cote@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-polisena@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-lanzi@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-gallo@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-roberts@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-mccaffrey@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-walaska@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-revens@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-bates@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-raptakis@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-breene@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-lenihan@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-sheehan@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-sosnowski@rilin.state.ri.us, sen-algiere@rilin.state.ri.us, acinapur@together.net, stevenadams@leg.state.vt.us, scadams@vermontel.net, ALLS51@aol.com, JAncel@leg.state.vt.us, katkins@leg.state.vt.us, DBarnard@leg.state.vt.us, dbbcuts@aol.com,
lbohi@leg.state.vt.us, clbohi@sover.net, kwa138@aol.com, dbostic@leg.state.vt.us, bostic@kingcon.com, jbaker@leg.state.vt.us, littledodgetruck@cs.com, joseph.baker@ae.ge.com, JCondon@leg.state.vt.us, jim@condonforcolchester.com, aclarkson@leg.state.vt.us, gsclark@adelphia.net, hchen@leg.state.vt.us, bbotzow@leg.state.vt.us, botzow@sover.net, WCanfield@leg.state.vt.us, cbranagan@leg.state.vt.us, dunmore@adelphia.net, pbrennan@leg.state.vt.us, patrickbrennan96@msn.com, SCopelandHanzas@leg.state.vt.us, pflory@leg.state.vt.us, RP3229@aol.com, kendres@leg.state.vt.us, Kendresult@msn.com, rdostis@leg.state.vt.us, rdostis@adelphia.net, mfisher@leg.state.vt.us, jerrecart@usa.net, AEmmons@leg.state.vt.us, gfallar@leg.state.vt.us, gfallar@sover.net, tinmouth@tax.state.vt.us, sedwards@leg.state.vt.us, sedwards1515@yahoo.com, bdunsmore@leg.state.vt.us, jdonovan@leg.state.vt.us, jdonovan38@adelphia.net, DEvans@leg.state.vt.us, ekavans@aol.com, adonaghy@leg.state.vt.us, andy05764@aol.com,
showard@leg.state.vt.us, chouston@leg.state.vt.us, adonahue@leg.state.vt.us, counterp@tds.net, tcorcoran@leg.state.vt.us, mgrad@leg.state.vt.us, maxjg@wcvt.com, rhelm@leg.state.vt.us, hhead@leg.state.vt.us, helen.head@verizon.net, gcross@leg.state.vt.us, CHosford@leg.state.vt.us, crhosford@madriver.com, mpheath@aol.com, SHaas@leg.state.vt.us, shaas@sover.net, agervais@leg.state.vt.us, pfrench@leg.state.vt.us, SDates@leg.state.vt.us, sdates@adelphia.net, ddeen@leg.state.vt.us, Rep.BillFrank@verizon.net, Huberick@sover.net, SGreen@leg.state.vt.us, sjgreen@sover.net, TJerman@leg.state.vt.us, vrunner56@aol.com, pdhunt@leg.state.vt.us, pdhunt@yahoo.com, skennedy@leg.state.vt.us, peansk@juno.com, kkeenan@leg.state.vt.us, johnson@leg.state.vt.us, wjewett@leg.state.vt.us, wjewett@adelphia.net, bobkiss@verizon.net, tkoch@leg.state.vt.us, tklein@leg.state.vt.us, tklein@adelphia.net, wkitzmiller@leg.state.vt.us, warren@kitzmiller.com, dkilmartin@leg.state.vt.us, rexkilvt@together.net, nmcallister@leg.state.vt.us, LMartin@leg.state.vt.us, wildermont@pshift.com, jmasland@leg.state.vt.us, klavoie@leg.state.vt.us, Kathy.Lavoie2@verizon.net, cmartin@leg.state.vt.us, ctm@vermontel.com, rmarek@leg.state.vt.us, MMarcotte@leg.state.vt.us, jimkwik@surfglobal.net, mlarson@leg.state.vt.us, marklvt@verizon.net, smaier@leg.state.vt.us, rmarron@leg.state.vt.us, Dickmarron@aol.com, JMalcolm@leg.state.vt.us, jlorber@leg.state.vt.us, RLawrence@leg.state.vt.us, jkrawczyk@leg.state.vt.us, krawjc@sover.net, wlippert@leg.state.vt.us, LLeriche@leg.state.vt.us, leriche@adelphia.net, MKupersmith@leg.state.vt.us, jmccullough@leg.state.vt.us, pkomline@mindspring.com, slarrabee@leg.state.vt.us, SMinter@leg.state.vt.us, sue@sueminter.com, wmiller@leg.state.vt.us, elmorestor@aol,
amiller@leg.state.vt.us, rmclaughlin@leg.state.vt.us, rozo@valley.net,
FMcFaun@leg.state.vt.us, llarocque@leg.com, AMook@leg.state.vt.us, annemook@hotmail.comstate.vt.us, jmorley@leg.state.vt.us, johnmorley@adelphia.net, jmorley@leg.state.vt.us, johnmorley@adelphia.net, anitka@leg.state.vt.us, maples@ludl.tds.net, obie@leg.state.vt.us, KNiquette@leg.state.vt.us, RennNiquette@aol.com, bnuovo@leg.state.vt.us, fnease@leg.state.vt.us, lmyers@leg.state.vt.us, themyers@attglobal.net, odonnell2@adelphia.net, KPellett@leg.state.vt.us, kathy4house@vermontel.net, cpartridge@leg.state.vt.us, hoparwel@sover.net, hotterman@leg.state.vt.us, aparent@leg.state.vt.us, aparent2002@hotmail.com, aparent@pizzagalli.com, dpillsbury@leg.state.vt.us, mpeterson@leg.state.vt.us, marypeterson@adelphia.net, aperry@leg.state.vt.us, perryvt@together.net, michael.reese@valley.net, jrodgers@leg.state.vt.us, jbdjrodgers@yahoo, apugh@leg.state.vt.us, DPotter@leg.state.vt.us, shadmtn@msn.com, brusten@sover.net, eshand@leg.state.vt.us, severance@bsadpo.emba.uvm.edu, dsunderland@leg.state.vt.us, ssmith@leg.state.vt.us, shapv@aol.com, ssmith@dinse.com,
hsmith@leg.state.vt.us, lshaw@leg.state.vt.us, lts1@together.net, dsharpe@leg.state.vt.us, speaker@leg.state.vt.us, dsweaney@leg.state.vt.us, jtracy@leg.state.vt.us, itrombley@leg.state.vt.us, myoung@leg.state.vt.us, kwright@leg.state.vt.us, jwinters@leg.state.vt.us, rivside@together.net, lvalliere@leg.state.vt.us, dzuckerman@leg.state.vt.us, DTurner@leg.state.vt.us, cayer@leg.state.vt.us, sbartlett@leg.state.vt.us, jcampbell@leg.state.vt.us, vt13@aol.com, jcondos@leg.state.vt.us, dcollins@leg.state.vt.us, acummings@leg.state.vt.us, gcoppenrath@leg.state.vt.us, george.coppenrath@gmail.com, mdunne@leg.state.vt.us, wdoyle@leg.state.vt.us, rgander@leg.state.vt.us, hgiard@leg.state.vt.us, EFlanagan@leg.state.vt.us, janek45@hotmail.com, skittell@leg.state.vt.us, villuzzi@leg.state.vt.us, jleddy@leg.state.vt.us, vlyons@leg.state.vt.us, vvlyons@cs.com, mmacdonald@leg.state.vt.us, senatormark@aol.com, Hull@sover.net, hmiller@leg.state.vt.us, hinda@deforestconcepts.com, pscott14@aol.com, kjmbjm@aol.com, rsears@leg.state.vt.us, dsnelling@leg.state.vt.us, jwhite@leg.state.vt.us, mark@markshepard.us, WWilton@leg.state.vt.us, wiltons@sover.net, ahern.john@leg.wa.gov, alexander.gary@leg.wa.gov, anderson.glenn@leg.wa.gov, appleton.sherry@leg.wa.gov, armstrong.mike@leg.wa.gov, bailey.barbara@leg.wa.gov, benson.brad@leg.wa.gov, benton.don@leg.wa.gov, berkey.jean@leg.wa.gov, blake.brian@leg.wa.gov, brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov, brown.lisa@leg.wa.gov, buck.jim@leg.wa.gov, buri.david@leg.wa.gov, campbell.tom@leg.wa.gov, carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov, chandler.bruce@leg.wa.gov, chase.maralyn@leg.wa.gov, chopp.frank@leg.wa.gov, clibborn.judy@leg.wa.gov, cody.eileen@leg.wa.gov, condotta.cary@leg.wa.gov, conway.steve@leg.wa.gov, cox.don@leg.wa.gov, crouse.larry@leg.wa.gov, curtis.richard@leg.wa.gov, darneille.j@leg.wa.gov, debolt.richard@leg.wa.gov, deccio.alex@leg.wa.gov, delvin.jerome@leg.wa.gov, dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov, doumit.mark@leg.wa.gov, dunn.jim@leg.wa.gov, dunshee.hans@leg.wa.gov, eickmeyer.william@leg.wa.gov, eide.tracey@leg.wa.gov, ericks.mark@leg.wa.gov, ericksen.doug@leg.wa.gov, esser.luke@leg.wa.gov, fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov, finkbeiner.bill@leg.wa.gov, flannigan.dennis@leg.wa.gov, franklin.rosa@leg.wa.gov, fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov, fromhold.bill@leg.wa.gov, grant.william@leg.wa.gov, green.tami@leg.wa.gov, haigh.kathy@leg.wa.gov, haler.larry@leg.wa.gov, hankins.shirley@leg.wa.gov, hargrove.jim@leg.wa.gov, hasegawa.bob@leg.wa.gov, haugen.marymargaret@leg.wa.gov, hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov, hinkle.bill@leg.wa.gov, holmquist.janea@leg.wa.gov, honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov, hudgins.zack@leg.wa.gov, hunt.sam@leg.wa.gov, hunter.ross@leg.wa.gov, jacobsen.ken@leg.wa.gov, jarrett.fred@leg.wa.gov, johnson.stephen@leg.wa.gov, kagi.ruth@leg.wa.gov, kastama.jim@leg.wa.gov, keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov, kenney.phyllis@leg.wa.gov, kessler.lynn@leg.wa.gov, kilmer.derek@leg.wa.gov, kirby.steve@leg.wa.gov, kline.adam@leg.wa.gov, kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov, kretz.joel@leg.wa.gov, kristiansen.dan@leg.wa.gov, lantz.patricia@leg.wa.gov, linville.kelli@leg.wa.gov, lovick.john@leg.wa.gov, mcauliffe.rosemary@leg.wa.gov, mccaslin.bob@leg.wa.gov, mccoy.john@leg.wa.gov, mccune.jim@leg.wa.gov, mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov, mcdonald.joyce@leg.wa.gov, mcintire.jim@leg.wa.gov, miloscia.mark@leg.wa.gov, moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov, morrell.dawn@leg.wa.gov, morris.jeff@leg.wa.gov, morton.bob@leg.wa.gov, murray.edward@leg.wa.gov, newhouse.dan@leg.wa.gov, nixon.toby@leg.wa.gov, obrien.al@leg.wa.gov, oke.bob@leg.wa.gov, orcutt.ed@leg.wa.gov, ormsby.timm@leg.wa.gov, parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov, pearson.kirk@leg.wa.gov, pettigrew.eric@leg.wa.gov, pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov, poulsen.erik@leg.wa.gov, prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov, pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov, priest.skip@leg.wa.gov, quall.dave@leg.wa.gov, rasmussen.marilyn@leg.wa.gov, regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov, roach.dan@leg.wa.gov, roach.pam@leg.wa.gov, roberts.maryhelen@leg.wa.gov, rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov, rodne.jay@leg.wa.gov, santos.sharon@leg.wa.gov, schindler.lynn@leg.wa.gov, schmidt.dave@leg.wa.gov, schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov, schual-berke.shay@leg.wa.gov, sells.mike@leg.wa.gov, serben.john@leg.wa.gov, shabro.jan@leg.wa.gov, sheldon.timothy@leg.wa.gov, shin.paull@leg.wa.gov, simpson.geoff@leg.wa.gov, skinner.mary@leg.wa.gov, sommers.helen@leg.wa.gov, spanel.harriet@leg.wa.gov, springer.larry@leg.wa.gov, stevens.val@leg.wa.gov, strow.chris@leg.wa.gov, sullivan.brian@leg.wa.gov, sullivan.pat@leg.wa.gov, sump.bob@leg.wa.gov, swecker.dan@leg.wa.gov, takko.dean@leg.wa.gov, talcott.gigi@leg.wa.gov, thibaudeau.pat@leg.wa.gov, tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov, upthegrove.dave@leg.wa.gov, wallace.deb@leg.wa.gov, walsh.maureen@leg.wa.gov, weinstein.brian@leg.wa.gov, williams.brendan@leg.wa.gov, wood.alex@leg.wa.gov, woods.beverly@leg.wa.gov, zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov, boydt@arkleg.state.ar.us, spearcy@fai-pb.com, abernathyb@arkleg.state.ar.us, adcockp@arkleg.state.ar.us, berrys@arkleg.state.ar.us, bondw@arkleg.state.ar.us, bolinj@arkleg.state.ar.us, brights@arkleg.state.ar.us, burrism@arkleg.state.ar.us, chesterfieldl@arkleg.state.ar.us, childersm@arkleg.state.ar.us, clemonsb@arkleg.state.ar.us, cookd@arkleg.state.ar.us, cowlingk@arkleg.state.ar.us, creekmored@arkleg.state.ar.us, borhauers@arkleg.state.ar.us, dangeaul@arkleg.state.ar.us, daviso@arkleg.state.ar.us, dobbinss@arkleg.state.ar.us, dickinsont@arkleg.state.ar.us, dunnd@arkleg.state.ar.us, edwardsm@arkleg.state.ar.us,
elliottj@arkleg.state.ar.us, fited@arkleg.state.ar.us, evansd@arkleg.state.ar.us, glidewellf@arkleg.state.ar.us, hardwickh@arkleg.state.ar.us,
hutchinsonj@arkleg.state.ar.us, georgen@arkleg.state.ar.us, flowerss@arkleg.state.ar.us, steve@steveharrelson.com, greenr@arkleg.state.ar.us, gossk@arkleg.state.ar.us, harrise@arkleg.state.ar.us, jacksonp@arkleg.state.ar.us, hutchinsont@arkleg.state.ar.us, johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us, jeffreyr@arkleg.state.ar.us, keyj@arkleg.state.ar.us, johnsonj@arkleg.state.ar.us, kiddr@arkleg.state.ar.us, lamoureuxm@arkleg.state.ar.us, ledbetters@arkleg.state.ar.us, lewellenw@arkleg.state.ar.us, mackd@arkleg.state.ar.us, maxwella@arkleg.state.ar.us, mathisb@arkleg.state.ar.us, martinm@arkleg.state.ar.us, martinj@arkleg.state.ar.us, malochb@arkleg.state.ar.us, medleyj@arkleg.state.ar.us, dustnicholsw@arkleg.state.ar.us, in@dustinmcdaniel.com, overbeyg@arkleg.state.ar.us, nortonj@arkleg.state.ar.us, paced@arkleg.state.ar.us, pickettb@arkleg.state.ar.us, pritchardb@arkleg.state.ar.us, praters@arkleg.state.ar.us, pyleb@arkleg.state.ar.us, raineyd@arkleg.state.ar.us, raglandr@arkleg.state.ar.us, reepg@arkleg.state.ar.us, rankinr@arkleg.state.ar.us, roebuckt@arkleg.state.ar.us, saundersr@arkleg.state.ar.us,
rosenbaums@arkleg.state.ar.us, schultes@arkleg.state.ar.us, scrogginp@arkleg.state.ar.us, stovallb@arkleg.state.ar.us, smithl@arkleg.state.ar.us,
sullivans@arkleg.state.ar.us, thomasonc@arkleg.state.ar.us, sumpterd@arkleg.state.ar.us, verkampj@arkleg.state.ar.us, thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us, thyerc@arkleg.state.ar.us, willisa@arkleg.state.ar.us,
walterss@arkleg.state.ar.us, woodj@arkleg.state.ar.us, willsr@arkleg.state.ar.us, aaltes@aol.com, jargue@arkleg.state.ar.us, bookoutj@arkleg.state.ar.us, bakerg@arkleg.state.ar.us, bryless@arkleg.state.ar.us, cappsj@arkleg.state.ar.us,
sbroadway@arkleg.state.ar.us, cnhc@juno.com, hendrenk@arkleg.state.ar.us, jcritcher@arkleg.state.ar.us, jhill@arkleg.state.ar.us, higginbothoms@arkleg.state.ar.us, holtj@arkleg.state.ar.us, bhorn@arkleg.state.ar.us,
gjeffress@arkleg.state.ar.us, lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us, jjeffress@arkleg.state.ar.us, madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us, pmalone@arkleg.state.ar.us, msalmon@arkleg.state.ar.us, tsteele@arkleg.state.ar.us, tsmith@arkleg.state.ar.us, whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us, swomack@arkleg.state.ar.us, hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us, twooldridge@arkleg.state.ar.us, senator.Aanestad@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Ackerman@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Alarcón@sen.ca.gov,
Senator.Alquist@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Ashburn@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Battin@sen.ca.gov,
Senator.Bowen@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Campbell@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Cedillo@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Chesbro@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Cox@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Denham@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Ducheny@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Dunn@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Dutton@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Escutia@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Florez@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Hollingsworth@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Kehoe@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Kuehl@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Lowenthal@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Machado@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Maldonado@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Margett@sen.ca.gov, senator.McClintock@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Migden@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Morrow@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Murray@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Ortiz@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Perata@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Poochigian@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Romero@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Runner@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Scott@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Simitian@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Soto@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Speier@sen.ca.gov, Senator.Torlakson@sen.ca.gov,
debbie.benefield.house@state.co.us, alice.borodkin.house@state.co.us, betty.boyd.house@state.co.us, Bernie.buescher.house@state.co.us, Bill.cadman.house@state.co.us, Morgan.carroll.house@state.co.us, Terrance.carroll.house@state.co.us, Michael.cerbo.house@state.co.us, Lauri.clapp.house@state.co.us, Mark.cloer.house@state.co.us, Fran.coleman.house@state.co.us, Bill.crane.house@state.co.us, Richard.decker.house@state.co.us, Jerry.frangas.house@state.co.us, Michael.garcia.house@state.co.us, Cory.gardner.house@state.co.us, Gwyn.green.house@state.co.us, Dale.hall.house@state.co.us, Ted.harvey.house@state.co.us, Lynn.hefley.house@state.co.us, Mary.hodge.house@state.co.us, Diane.hoppe.house@state.co.us, Cheri.jahn.house@state.co.us, Joel.judd.house@state.co.us, Keith.king.house@state.co.us, Jim.kerr.house@state.co.us, Matt.knoedler.house@state.co.us, Mark.larson.house@state.co.us, Gary.lindstrom.house@state.co.us, Larry.liston.house@state.co.us, Alice.madden.house@state.co.us, Rosemary.marshall.house@state.co.us, Tom.massey.house@state.co.us, Mike.may.house@state.co.us, Liane.mcfadyen.house@state.co.us, Anne.mcgihon.house@state.co.us, Wes.mckinley.house@state.co.us, Mike.merrifield.house@state.co.us, Angie.paccione.house@state.co.us, Tom.plant.house@state.co.us, John.pommer.house@state.co.us, Ann.ragsdale.house@state.co.us, James.reisberg.house@state.co.us, Andrew.romanoff.house@state.co.us, Ray.rose.house@state.co.us, David.schultheis.house@state.co.us, Judy.solano.house@state.co.us, John.soper.house@state.co.us, Debbie.stafford.house@state.co.us, Joe.stengel.house@state.co.us,
Jim.sullivan.house@state.co.us, Nancy.todd.house@state.co.us, Valentin.vigil.house@state.co.us, Paul.weissmann.house@state.co.us, Jim.welker.house@state.co.us, Al.white.house@state.co.us, Robert.witwer.house@state.co.us, bbacon@peakpeak.com, greg@gregbrophy.net, lewis.entz.senate@state.co.us, joan.fitzgerald.senate@state.co.us, ken@kengordon.com, peter.groff.senate@state.co.us, dan@dangrossman.net, SenBob@msn.com, deanna.hanna.senate@state.co.us, isgarsenate@frontier.net, steve.johnson.senate@state.co.us, ed.jones.senate@state.co.us, moe.keller.senate@state.co.us, doug.lamborn.senate@state.co.us, ken.kester.senate@state.co.us, ronmay@ronmay.org, shawn.mitchell.senate@state.co.us,
Catherine.Abercrombie@cga.ct.gov, Al.adinolfi@cga.ct.gov, Mike.alberts@cga.ct.gov, David.aldarondo@cga.ct.gov, William.aman@cga.ct.gov, James.ammann@cga.ct.gov, Joe.aresimowicz@cga.ct.gov, Terry.backer@cga.ct.gov, Ryan.barry@cga.ct.gov, Reginald.beamon@cga.ct.gov, Richard.belden@cga.ct.gov, Elizabeth.boukus@cga.ct.gov, Juan.candaleria@cga.ct.gov, Michael.cardin@cga.ct.gov, Christopher.caruso@cga.ct.gov, Michael.christ@cga.ct.gov, Charles.clemons@cga.ct.gov, Stephen.dargan@cga.ct.gov, Paul.davis@cga.ct.gov, Konstantinos.diamantis@cga.ct.gov, Patricia.dillon@cga.ct.gov, Christopher.donovan@cga.ct.gov, Paul.doyle@cga.ct.gov, Thomas.drew@cga.ct.gov, William.dyson@cga.ct.gov, Louis.esposito@cga.ct.gov, Ruth.fahrbach@cga.ct.gov, Robert.farr@cga.ct.gov, Art.feltman@cga.ct.gov, Andre.fleischmann@cga.ct.gov, Steve.fontana@cga.ct.gov, Gerald.fox@cga.ct.gov, Mary.fritz@cga.ct.gov, Linda.gentile@cga.ct.gov, John.geragosian@cga.ct.gov, Lile.gibbons@cga.ct.gov, Janice.geigler@cga.ct.gov, Bob.godfrey@cga.ct.gov, Minnie.gonzalez@cga.ct.gov, Ted.graziani@cga.ct.gov, Kenneth.green@cga.ct.gov, Leonard.greene@cga.ct.gov, Antonio.guerrera@cga.ct.gov, Gail.hamm@cga.ct.gov, William.hamzy@cga.ct.gov, John.harkins@cga.ct.gov, Deborah.heinrich@cga.ct.gov, Ernest.hewett@cga.ct.gov, Claire.janowski@cga.ct.gov, Steve.jarmoc@cga.ct.gov, Shawn.johnston@cga.ct.gov, Ed.jutilia@cga.ct.gov, Robert.keeley@cga.ct.gov, Michael.lawlor@cga.ct.gov, Carlo.leone@cga.ct.gov, Joan.lewis@cga.ct.gov, Jack.malone@cga.ct.gov, Joseph.mann@cga.ct.gov, Evelyn.mantilla@cga.ct.gov, Lydia.martinez@cga.ct.gov, John.mazurek@cga.ct.gov, David.mccluskey@cga.ct.gov, Douglas.mccrory@cga.ct.gov,
Faith.mcmahon@cga.ct.gov, Robert.megna@cga.ct.gov, Denise.merrill@cga.ct.gov, Roger.michele@cga.ct.gov, Steven.mikutel@cga.ct.gov, Lawrence.miller@cga.ct.gov,
Craig.miner@cga.ct.gov, Joseph.mioli@cga.ct.gov, Edward.moukawsher@cga.ct.gov,
Mary.mushinsky@cga.ct.gov, Sandy.nafis@cga.ct.gov, Vickie.nardello@cga.ct.gov, Tim.obrien@cga.ct.gov, Brian.oconner@cga.ct.gov, Arthur.oneill@cga.ct.gov, James.orourke@cga.ct.gov, Melissa.olson@cga.ct.gov, Linda.orange@cga.ct.gov, Peter.panaroni@cga.ct.gov, Walter.pawelkiewicz@cga.ct.gov, Chris.perone@cga.ct.gov, Felipe.reinoso@cga.ct.gov, Tom.reynolds@cga.ct.gov, Elizabeth.ritter@cga.ct.gov, Richard.roy@cga.ct.gov, Anne.ruwet@cga.ct.gov, Kevin.ryan@cga.ct.gov, John.ryan@cga.ct.gov, Pamela.sawyer@cga.ct.gov, Peggy.sayers@cga.ct.gov, David.scribner@cga.ct.gov, Joseph.serra@cga.ct.gov, Jim.shapiro@cga.ct.gov, Donald.sherer@cga.ct.gov, James.spallone@cga.ct.gov, Cameron.staples@cga.ct.gov, John.stone@cga.ct.gov, Christopher.stone@cga.ct.gov, Kathleen.tallarita@cga.ct.gov, Peter.tercyak@cga.ct.gov, John.thompson@cga.ct.gov, Christel.truglia@cga.ct.gov, Cathy.tymniak@cga.ct.gov, Diana.urban@cga.ct.gov, Peter.villano@cga.ct.gov, Tomi.walker@cga.ct.gov, Lewis.wallace@cga.ct.gov, Robert.ward@cga.ct.gov, Julia.wasserman@cga.ct.gov, Patricia.widlitz@cga.ct.gov, George.wilber@cga.ct.gov, Sean.williams@cga.ct.gov, Roberta.willis@cga.ct.gov, Lenny.winkler@cga.ct.gov, Kevin.witkos@cga.ct.gov, Bruce.zalaski@cga.ct.gov, David.cappiello@cga.ct.gov, Biagio.ciotto@cga.ct.gov, Thomas.colapietro@cga.ct.gov, Eric.coleman@cga.ct.gov, Catherine.cook@cga.ct.gov, Joseph.crisco@cga.ct.gov, Eileen.daily@cga.ct.gov, Donald.defronzo@cga.ct.gov, Louis.deluca@cga.ct.gov, Bob.duff@cga.ct.gov, Leanord.fasano@cga.ct.gov, Bill.finch@cga.ct.gov, John.fonrara@cga.ct.gov, Judith.freedman@cga.ct.gov, Thomas.gaffey@cga.ct.gov, Edwin.gomes@cga.ct.gov, Toni.harp@cga.ct.gov, Jonathan.harris@cga.ct.gov, Thomas.herlihy@cga.ct.gov, John.kissel@cga.ct.gov, Gary.lebeau@cga.ct.gov, Martin.looney@cga.ct.gov, Andrew.mcdonald@cga.ct.gov, John.mckinney@cga.ct.gov, Edward.meyer@cga.ct.gov, Christopher.murphy@cga.ct.gov, Edith.prague@cga.ct.gov, Gayle.slossberg@cga.ct.gov, Andrea.stillman@cga.ct.gov, Donald.williams@cga.ct.gov, larep001@legis.state.la.us, larep002@legis.state.la.us, larep003@legis.state.la.us, larep004@legis.state.la.us, larep005@legis.state.la.us, larep006@legis.state.la.us, larep007@legis.state.la.us, larep008@legis.state.la.us, larep009@legis.state.la.us, larep010@legis.state.la.us, larep011@legis.state.la.us, larep012@legis.state.la.us, larep013@legis.state.la.us,
larep014@legis.state.la.us, larep015@legis.state.la.us, larep016@legis.state.la.us, larep017@legis.state.la.us, larep018@legis.state.la.us, larep019@legis.state.la.us, larep020@legis.state.la.us, larep021@legis.state.la.us, larep022@legis.state.la.us, larep023@legis.state.la.us, larep024@legis.state.la.us, larep025@legis.state.la.us, larep026@legis.state.la.us, larep027@legis.state.la.us, larep028@legis.state.la.us, larep029@legis.state.la.us, larep030@legis.state.la.us, larep031@legis.state.la.us, larep032@legis.state.la.us, larep033@legis.state.la.us, larep034@legis.state.la.us, larep035@legis.state.la.us, larep036@legis.state.la.us, larep037@legis.state.la.us, larep038@legis.state.la.us, larep039@legis.state.la.us, larep040@legis.state.la.us, larep041@legis.state.la.us, larep042@legis.state.la.us, larep043@legis.state.la.us, larep044@legis.state.la.us, larep045@legis.state.la.us, larep046@legis.state.la.us, larep047@legis.state.la.us, larep048@legis.state.la.us, larep049@legis.state.la.us, larep050@legis.state.la.us, larep051@legis.state.la.us, larep052@legis.state.la.us,
larep053@legis.state.la.us, larep054@legis.state.la.us, larep055@legis.state.la.us, larep056@legis.state.la.us, larep057@legis.state.la.us, larep058@legis.state.la.us, larep059@legis.state.la.us, larep060@legis.state.la.us, larep061@legis.state.la.us,
larep062@legis.state.la.us, larep063@legis.state.la.us, larep064@legis.state.la.us, larep065@legis.state.la.us, larep066@legis.state.la.us, larep067@legis.state.la.us, larep068@legis.state.la.us, larep069@legis.state.la.us, larep070@legis.state.la.us, larep071@legis.state.la.us, larep072@legis.state.la.us, larep073@legis.state.la.us,
larep074@legis.state.la.us, larep075@legis.state.la.us, larep076@legis.state.la.us, larep077@legis.state.la.us, larep078@legis.state.la.us, larep079@legis.state.la.us, larep080@legis.state.la.us, larep081@legis.state.la.us, larep082@legis.state.la.us, larep083@legis.state.la.us, larep084@legis.state.la.us, larep085@legis.state.la.us, larep086@legis.state.la.us, larep087@legis.state.la.us, larep088@legis.state.la.us, larep089@legis.state.la.us, larep090@legis.state.la.us, larep091@legis.state.la.us, larep092@legis.state.la.us, larep093@legis.state.la.us, larep094@legis.state.la.us, larep095@legis.state.la.us, larep096@legis.state.la.us, larep097@legis.state.la.us, larep098@legis.state.la.us, larep099@legis.state.la.us, larep100@legis.state.la.us, larep101@legis.state.la.us, larep102@legis.state.la.us, larep103@legis.state.la.us, larep104@legis.state.la.us, larep105@legis.state.la.us, larep106@legis.state.la.us, adleyr@legis.state.la.us, amedeej@legis.state.la.us, barhamr@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, boassow@legis.state.la.us, lasen15@legis.state.la.us, cainj@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, smithcheek@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, dardennej@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, lasen20@legis.state.la.us, ellingtn@legis.state.la.us, fieldsc@legis.state.la.us, fontenoc@legis.state.la.us, gautreauxn@legis.state.la.us, eitmeierf@legis.state.la.us, hinesd@legis.state.la.us, jacksonl@legis.state.la.us, hollisk@legis.state.la.us, kostelka@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, lentini@legis.state.la.us, lasen17@legis.state.la.us, malonem@legis.state.la.us, lasen29@legis.state.la.us, lasen23@legis.state.la.us, lasen27@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, murraye@legis.state.la.us, quinnj@legis.state.la.us, romeroc@legis.state.la.us, schedlet@legis.state.la.us, theunisg@legis.state.la.us, smithmi@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, websen@legis.state.la.us, mandr30420@aol.com, SenPhilip.Bartlett@legislature.maine.gov, phil@philbartlett.com,
SenMichael.Brennan@legislature.maine.gov, mfpbren@aol.com, SenLynn.Bromley@legislature.maine.gov, SenBruce.Bryant@legislature.maine.gov, Sen.bryant@verizon.net, SenDean.Clukey@legislature.maine.gov, SenJon.Courtney@legislature.maine.gov, SenScott.Cowger@legislature.maine.gov,
scott@MapleBB.com, dsdamon@panax.com, SenPaul.Davis@legislature.maine.gov, SenDavis@midmaine.com, danadow@midcoast.com, SenBeth.Edmonds@legislature.maine.gov, edmonds@gwi.net, SenKen.Gagnon@legislature.maine.gov, dhastings@hastings-law.com, SenBarry.Hobbins@legislature.maine.gov, bhobbins@hggm.net, SenJohn.Martin@legislature.maine.gov, SenArthur.Mayo@legislature.maine.gov, artmayo@gwi.net, pmills@mainelegal.net, SenLibby.Mitchell@legislature.maine.gov, SenRichard.Nass@legislature.maine.gov, SenJoe.Perry@legislature.maine.gov, SenDebra.Plowman@legislature.maine.gov, SenatorRaye@downeast.net, rrosen113@aol.com, mrotundo@bates.edu, SenChris.Savage@legislature.maine.gov, csavage@midcoast.com,
schneidersenate@msn.com, SenLois.SnoweMello@legislature.maine.gov, Replois@megalink.net, strimling@mainesenate.org, npsullivan@gwi.net, SenKarl.Turner@legislature.maine.gov, KwTurner@yahoo.com, cweston@pivot.net, SenChandler.Woodcock@legislature.maine.gov, webmaster_sendems@legislature.maine.gov,
webmaster_senreps@legislature.maine.gov, webmaster_senpres@legislature.maine.gov, webmaster_senate@legislature.maine.gov, gwilliamson@mail.senate.state.ms.us, jwilemon@mail.senate.state.ms.us, jwalls@mail.senate.state.ms.us, swalley@mail.senate.state.ms.us, bturner@mail.senate.state.ms.us, gtollison@mail.senate.state.ms.us, jthomas@mail.senate.state.ms.us, wsimmons@mail.senate.state.ms.us, lposey@mail.senate.state.ms.us, nmettetal@mail.senate.state.ms.us, elee@mail.senate.state.ms.us, djordan@mail.senate.state.ms.us, sjackson@mail.senate.state.ms.us, rjackson@mail.senate.state.ms.us, chydesmith@mail.senate.state.ms.us, jhorhn@mail.senate.state.ms.us, bharvey@mail.senate.state.ms.us, aharden@mail.senate.state.ms.us, jgordon@mail.senate.state.ms.us, tgollott@mail.senate.state.ms.us, hfrazier@mail.senate.state.ms.us, bdearing@mail.senate.state.ms.us, ddawkins@mail.senate.state.ms.us, scuevas@mail.senate.state.ms.us, kbutler@mail.senate.state.ms.us, nbrowning@mail.senate.state.ms.us, cyoung@mail.house.state.ms.us, mwhittington@mail.house.state.ms.us, pwatson@mail.house.state.ms.us, jwarren@mail.house.state.ms.us, jwalley@mail.house.state.ms.us, gward@mail.house.state.ms.us, rvince@mail.house.state.ms.us, mrogers@mail.house.state.ms.us, wrobinson@mail.house.state.ms.us, treynolds@mail.house.state.ms.us, wperkins@mail.house.state.ms.us, dperanich@mail.house.state.ms.us, dparker@mail.house.state.ms.us, dnorquist@mail.house.state.ms.us, bnicholson@mail.house.state.ms.us, dmyers@mail.house.state.ms.us, lmorris@mail.house.state.ms.us, pmontgomery@mail.house.state.ms.us, bmoak@mail.house.state.ms.us, bmoak@locnet.net,
wmiles@mail.house.state.ms.us, amiddleton@mail.house.state.ms.us, wmcbride@mail.house.state.ms.us, jmayo@mail.house.state.ms.us, slane@mail.house.state.ms.us, rjohnson@mail.house.state.ms.us, gholloway@mail.house.state.ms.us, jhines@mail.house.state.ms.us, eharrison@mail.house.state.ms.us, beaton@mail.house.state.ms.us, rdickson@mail.house.state.ms.us, rcummings@mail.house.state.ms.us, jcompretta@mail.house.state.ms.us, mcoleman@mail.house.state.ms.us, lcoleman@mail.house.state.ms.us, acockerham@mail.house.state.ms.us, bclark@mail.house.state.ms.us, ccalhoun@mail.house.state.ms.us, cburnett@mail.house.state.ms.us, kbuck@mail.house.state.ms.us, cbrown@mail.house.state.ms.us, bbroomfield@mail.house.state.ms.us, sbounds@mail.house.state.ms.us, sbondurant@mail.house.state.ms.us, eblackmon@mail.house.state.ms.us, ebanks@mail.house.state.ms.us, ebanks@aol.com
Assemblymember.Baca@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov, assemblymember.berg@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.bermudez@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.ron.calderon@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Canciamilla@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Chan@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Chavez@assembly.ca.gov, assemblymember.chu@asm.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Cohn@assembly.ca.gov, assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov, assemblymember.DeLaTorre@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.dymally@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Evans@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Frommer@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Goldberg@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.hancock@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Jerome.Horton@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.jones@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Koretz@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.laird@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.levine@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblywoman.lieber@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov, assemblymember.liu@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.matthews@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.montanez@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.mullin@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.nunez@assembly.ca.gov,
Assemblymember.McLeod@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Oropeza@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Pavley@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Parra@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.Vargas@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.wolk@assembly.ca.gov, Assemblymember.yee@assembly.ca.gov

A Living Saint Passes Away

2006-01-31T12:49:00.000-08:00

Rest in peace, Coretta Scott King.

Reap it, Bitches!

2006-01-30T23:10:00.000-08:00

Yes, it's cliche, but it's the damn truth-- 'we reap what we sow.'

We've been planting seeds of indifference and apathy for nearly 30 years.

Our mainstream news media caters to the dollar rather than the viewer. We've been dumbing down our populace on edutainment and "news gossip".

And damn if this country of mine doesn't deserve what is coming to it.

And well, it just saddens me to see it-- until I realize that there is a justice to it all.

We cannot plant apathy, arrogance, and greed and expect to harvest compassion, humility, and generosity.

The harvest is coming soon.

Tied Up WIth Impeachment

2006-01-30T02:24:00.000-08:00

Lately, impeachment has been taking all of my available blogging time. Accordingly, The Bulldog Manifesto blog has been forced to take a back seat to the Impeach Bush Coalition.

This blog is NOT shutting down! But for the forseeable future, I will be cutting back on this blog so that I can spend more time working to impeach the bastard.

The Talking Dog Interviews Guantanamo Bay Prisoners' Attorney

2006-01-26T00:25:00.000-08:00

The Talking Dog has posted an informative interview with Joshua Colangelo Bryan, an attorney with the New York office of the law firm of Dorsey and Whitney, and counsel to three currently detained inmates of the American detention facility at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Juma Al Dossari, Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi and Essa Al Murbati, all nationals of Bahrain.

Excerpt:

"The Talking Dog: Do you know what the charges or allegations of the Government are with respect to your other clients still detained? What are they? What were the charges against the clients who were released? Was there any rationale, rhyme or reason or explanation given for why some were released, and some still held?

Joshua Colangelo Bryan: Again, other than the limited (if any) explanations given by the CSRT, there is absolutely no explanation ever given of why anyone is detained, or why anyone is released.

The Talking Dog: Do you know who Abdullah Mesud is (leading a guerrilla movement in Pakistan)? Are you aware of allegations that Mahmoud Habib trained AQ in hand to hand combat? Any explanation for why he gets released, and your other clients get released, but Al-Dossari, Al-Blooshi and Al-Murbati are not? Do you think this is a fundamental problem with the arbitrariness of the whole process? Any way we can convince the public that it is the arbitrariness- and not the release- that is the problem?

Joshua Colangelo Bryan: Well, how does one reconcile the detention of my clients on the thinnest of accusations, while releasing an Australian who allegedly trained Al Qaeda terrorists including the 9-11 hijackers in martial arts and hand to hand combat–

The Talking Dog: You’re referring to Mahmoud Habib... who was released just ahead of proceedings in an action complaining of his side trip to Egypt for “extraordinary rendition” where he alleges he was tortured...

Joshua Colangelo Bryan: Exactly... Or a number of British prisoners who were released because Tony Blair insisted that it was politically necessary for him that they be released, a similar situation that has occurred with other European governments. By contrast, Arab very few prisoners from Arab countries have been released. I am familiar with Abdullah Mesud in passing and from reading about him– but the fact that he is released, and my clients continue to be held just shows that there is no rhyme or reason to the system that has been set up.

The Talking Dog: Anything else that I should have asked you, or that my readers, the American public, the Bahraini public, or anyone else needs to know about your representations, or anything else?

Joshua Colangelo Bryan: We should all know that by our military’s own admissions, there are innocent men at Guantanamo Bay, and they have been horrifically abused. Not only is this legally and ethically disastrous, it is bad strategically, and ultimately, politically counterproductive."

Check out the full interview and leave some comments for The Talking Dog

Breakfast of Champions

2006-01-25T03:22:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Kurt Vonnegut's classic novel- Breakfast of Champions.

One word: genius

Molly Ivins Says It Perfectly...

2006-01-24T00:56:00.000-08:00

There is a time for politics and a time to lead-- damn the polls. For Hillary Clinton, unfortunately it's almost always about politics, and rarely about leadership. Check out the article by Molly Ivins.

"I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges...."

More HERE.

Why We Fight

2006-01-23T02:42:00.000-08:00

On Friday night, I went to see Why We Fight. It is a fan-freaking-tastic movie! I highly recommend it to every American.

If it is playing near you, please go see it. I mean seriously, see it!! They don't make many movies better than this.

Add This To Your Email Signature

2006-01-20T00:50:00.000-08:00

NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.

One Week. Still No Apology or Remorse

2006-01-19T02:38:00.000-08:00

Last Friday, under the direction of our commander-in-chief, our military dropped bombs in the sovereign nation of Pakistan, killing 18 civilians, including women and children.

It's Thursday now. Still, our President has not apologized or even offered a statement of remorse on behalf of the innocent victims who perished. Pakistan is pissed, and rightfully so.

Whether the strike successfully killed Ayman al-Zawahiri or not is totally unimportant in this matter. We killed 18 innocent people. We owe the world an apology, at the minimum.

Without showing any remorse, we have now become exactly what we detested four (4) years ago. In essence, we have become the terrorist.

Like I stated on Sunday, it makes no difference if a bomb is strapped to a person or falling from a plane, if we are killing innocent people without remorse, we have become the terrorists. Plain and simple.

Frankly, I've been amazed at how the blogosphere has been almost silent on this matter. Are people scared of being seen as some "Hanoi Jane" character? I don't care how I'm viewed. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. And last Friday, as a nation, we were wrong, BIG TIME! Our leader should step up and apologize. Our leader should show some compassion. And we should not be afraid to speak up for what is right.

Shooting Plutonium in a Rocket Over Florida

2006-01-18T00:22:00.000-08:00

Bad idea!

I don't care what the odds are, you just don't fire a rocket containing the "most toxic radioactive substance known" into outer space, risking accident and mass exposure.

Is a probe to the planet Pluto really worth the risk of showering Florida with plutonium?

I mean really, could we at least vote on something like this?

"With the spacecraft containing 24 pounds of radioactive plutonium-238, the New Horizons launch is somewhat controversial.

The craft is not directly nuclear-powered, but the decay of the plutonium generates heat to fuel a battery, which in turn will power the probe as it moves far away from the sun to the outer reaches of the solar system.

Critics have expressed concern that an accident on launch could spread deadly plutonium over a wide swath of central Florida.

In an environmental impact statement NASA was required to file before making final flight plans, the space agency indicated that a 1-in-620 chance exists of an accident on liftoff that would release plutonium into the environment.

As a worst-case scenario, NASA estimated the chances at "1 in 1.4 million to 1 in 18 million" that an "extremely unlikely launch area accident" could release up to 2 percent, or about half a pound, of the plutonium on board the spacecraft.

NASA critic Karl Grossman, author of "The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat to Our Planet," said he doesn't agree with NASA's interpretation of the risks.

"Is NASA again crossing its fingers and hoping?" he asked. "If it's 2 percent or it's 6 percent or if it's 20 percent or if it's 100 percent, when you're talking about plutonium, you're talking about the most toxic radioactive substance known."

New Horizons scientists say the benefits of the project outweigh the risks associated with launch."

Putting Iran into Historical Context

2006-01-17T14:06:00.000-08:00

Lately, pundits and "experts" have been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a military strike and/or invasion of Iran. In doing so, some pundits have gone so far as to compare present day Iran with Germany of 1938.

But General Glut's Globblog has a better historical comparison:

"In 1964 China was considered just as radical and unstable and irrational as Iran is today. In fact, probably more so. The Great Leap Forward had just ended, which consumed 25-60 million lives. The split with the USSR had come a few years previously as well because Khrushchev thought Stalin wasn't all that and a bag of chips, with Mao accusing the Soviets of "counter-revolution". China condemned Khrushchev's actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis as "capitulationism" and didn't give a damn that Khrushchev thought Mao's advice would have led to nuclear war. China had also just finished up a brief border war of its own with India in 1962 and supported communist rebels throughout Southeast Asia including Vietnam where the US was digging in for a war of its own.

"And yet when the US had the chance to bomb Chinese nuclear facilities to forestall a nuclear China in 1964, it refused....

"If we could live with a nuclear China which was seen as a very grave threat to world peace and security in the early 1960s, then why can we not do the same with a potential nuclear Iran?"

Check it all out HERE.

Interviewing Jesus

2006-01-17T00:32:00.000-08:00

Bob Johnson, of the blog Satiric Mutt, had the opportunity to sit down and interview Jesus Christ. What a scoop!!

Check it out HERE.

Repent, George! Repent!

2006-01-16T00:27:00.000-08:00

C'mon George. It's time to apologize. The buck stops with you, right Georgie? So if an American military aircraft mistakenly bombs civilians in a small village of Pakistan, it is incumbent upon you Mr. President to show our nation's sincerest regrets, right?

Or will you simply do what you always do-- ignore the problem and pretend like it doesn't exist?

No George, now is the time for humility. Because regardless of what our intentions were, we screwed up. And innocent children died. As you love to say about Iraq, "we broke it, now we must fix it."

A real leader would act with sincere humility. A real leader would send aid to any families who suffered as a result of the bombing. A real leader would represent this nation well, showing that we aren't barbarous thugs who indiscriminately drop bombs. Or are we?

You see, there isn't too much difference between a 16 year old kid with explosives strapped to his chest and a military aircraft dropping bombs on civilians. The only difference is the 100 million dollars of military ordinance. Civilians are civilians.

When a suicide bomber straps a bomb to his back he mistakenly believes that his act of mass murder will somehow bring justice to his people's struggle. There is no difference when one of our bombs falls from the sky in the attempt to "bring justice."

If one of these acts is terrorism, then so is the other.

If we are a nation of laws-- a nation of compassion, then we must apologize for what we have done. I don't give a rat's ass about 9/11 right now. It doesn't give us the right to tear up the world, killing more innocent people. As we teach our children, "two wrongs do not make a right" and the ends do not justify the means.

How much are we willing to give up in order to fight this bullshit war on terror? How much terror are we willing to exact on others in the process? How many civil liberties are we willing to hand over to our emperor-in-chief? What will be left of the American ideals when this is all over? And how much safer will we be after this is all said and done? How many terrorists are we breeding?

Apologize now, Mr. President.

(Better yet, step down and turn yourself in. It's called repentance. Look into it.)

Weekend Video Recommendation

2006-01-13T13:32:00.000-08:00

This week's video recommendation is 20 minutes long. Don't ask me what it's about, just watch it. :-)

WATCH IT HERE

Have a great weekend!!!

Listening to the Twin Towers

2006-01-11T23:56:00.000-08:00

"There is a way that nature speaks, that land speaks. Most of the time we are simply not patient enough, quiet enough, to pay attention to the story." -- Linda Hogan

Professor David Ray Griffin has set forth eleven (11) features of the collapse of the Twin Towers that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. These eleven (11) features will be discussed at length in a new book scheduled for publication in Spring of 2006 (The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier)

1. Sudden Onset:

"In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse."

2. Straight Down:

"The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]"

3. Almost Free-Fall Speed:

"Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:

"The floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)"

4. Total Collapse:

"The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors somehow produced “global collapse” (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST’s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250˚C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that “column failure” occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26]"

5. Sliced Steel:

"In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.”[27]

The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”[28]"

6. Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials:

"Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust."

7. Dust Clouds:

"Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle’s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]

The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman (2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower’s dust cloud, calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy available.

The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel).

Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman’s words: “You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That’s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.”[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: “[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.”

The importance of King’s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, “it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones."

8. Horizontal Ejections:

"Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections."

9. Demolition Rings:

"Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.[32]"

10. Sounds Produced by Explosions:

"The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers."

11. Molten Steel:

"An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, “hot spots of molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels” (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]

Also, Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin Towers, said: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running” (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: "Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.[34]

This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to melt."

----------------------------------
----------------------------------
One last thing.....this comes from Controlled Demolitions, Inc.'s Website:
"A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself - a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL."

It almost sounds like their rubbing our noses in it.

Kangaroo Court

2006-01-11T00:54:00.000-08:00

Today, a kangaroo court authorized by Emperor Bush will be in session in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to Reuters, an American war crimes tribunal will hear the cases of two suspected al-Qaeda associates.

"The Pentagon is proceeding with the two cases even though U.S. courts have halted the trials of three other Guantanamo prisoners pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether Bush had authority to establish the tribunals. The high court will hear arguments in the case in March."

But here is the kicker:

"Only nine of the approximately 500 Guantanamo prisoners have been charged with crimes, and the legal advisor to the tribunals has said that probably no more than 50 to 75 ever will be."

Yup, you read it correctly. Basically, we are detaining (not to mention the torture) about 450 people without probable cause. Think about that. We already know that these people won't be charged with crimes, but we're keeping them anyway.

"They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." -- Emperor Bush in October, 2001.

American Media in Haiku

2006-01-10T12:01:00.000-08:00

Watch only Fox News
Also MSNBC
Gasping- Truth is dead

The First Amendement
For corporations only
Why don't they use it?

Where would we be now
Without daily dose of Kos
Brainwashed by Coulter?

Freep This Poll

2006-01-09T10:23:00.000-08:00

The John Birch Society has an impeach poll. Should Bush be impeached?

You know what I think....

Impeach the bastard.

Freep THIS.

Impeach Bush!

Hugo Chavez is a Commie Bastard!!!

2006-01-09T03:38:00.000-08:00

(Time for some sarcasm....)

How dare he? Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, is at it again!

Damn that bastard!

This weekend, Venezuela said it will expand a program to provide cheap home heating fuel to poor Americans, helping low-income families in Vermont and Rhode Island, as well as four Indian tribes in Maine.

GASP!!!

Is Chavez insane?

Why would they sell us their heating oil for less than market value when they could easily sell their heating oil at a premium and thereafter use the proceeds to buy military armaments?

Only a pinko-commie would do such a terrible thing!

It's official, Hugo Chavez is now a threat to the American way of life!

What is the American way of life, you may be asking? Simple.

They Sure Know How to "Support the Troops"

2006-01-06T20:35:00.000-08:00

From today's New York Times:

"A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials."

More HERE

3 GOP Senators Seem to Be Setting the Stage for Impeachment

2006-01-05T17:23:00.000-08:00

Wow! This is nice!

Hot of the presses from the Boston Globe.

Three key GOP Senators (John McCain, John W. Warner Jr, and Lindsey O. Graham) came out and bashed George W. Bush yesterday. And from the sounds of their quotes, it almost sounds like they are hinting at impeachment.

John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.

''We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. ''The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."

Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said ''and would go a little bit further."

This is where it gets really interesting! Graham goes on to say:

"I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. ''If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same."

Moreover, David Golove, a New York University law professor specializing in executive power issues commented that the Senators statments "mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government.

"The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove said. ''The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.'"

Read the rest HERE.

Anthrax? Hello? Anybody Home? Hello?

2006-01-03T01:24:00.000-08:00

Here we are, it's 2006. Anybody remember the Anthrax scare?

Ahhh c'mon, you remember don't you? It was that freaky time in your life when you weren't sure whether the world was about to suddenly come to an end. Remember the days soon after 9/11, when anthrax started appearing everywhere? Do you remember how gas masks were selling on Ebay for hundreds of dollars? Do you remember how you feared for your family's life as your television sold you a bill of goods about these Anthrax letters, reportedly sent by Arabs?

Do you remember how Anthrax was on television, in magazines, in newspapers; seemingly downloaded into your brain at almost every moment of your waking day-- for months? According to a LexisNexis search conducted by TomDispatch.com, "between Oct. 4 and Dec. 4, 2001, 389 stories appeared in the New York Times with "anthrax" in the headline." During the same period, 238 "anthrax" stories appeared in the Washington Post. Think about that for a second. Now consider the noise made by all the other media outlets. Now add all that noise together. That's a lot of noise.

These days though, the silence is deafening.

Anthrax? Are you there? Anybody home?
Have you heard of anthrax lately? Do you know what became of the anthrax investigation? Do you know if anybody was ever arrested? Do you know if the FBI has any leads? What do you know about anthrax? When was the last time you saw an anthrax story in the newspaper?

Yes, the anthrax story is gone. Like Kaiser Soza and Osama bin Laden-- vanished, 'poof', just like that! It served it's purpose (just like Osama). It got us into a war with Iraq. Mission accomplished, as they say.

But here is the real gist of it all:

All the anthrax used in the various anthrax attacks in 2001 came from a United States military base. They all came from the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. But there were two separate mailings of anthrax letters. One batch of letters was mailed on or about September 18, 2001. This batch went to various media outlets and contained cutaneous anthrax (Ames Strain).

Then on or about October, 9, 2001, the second batch of letters was mailed out. This batch contained a much more lethal "weaponized version" of the Ames strain. These letters were sent to two Democratic Senators.

Hydrocarbon analysis showed that all of the anthrax found in the letters was incubated within two years of the time it was mailed.

And from CNN on June 26, 2002:

"This discovery lends credence to the theory that whoever mailed the finely milled anthrax spores -- known to be of the Ames strain -- has a current connection to a sophisticated laboratory.

Investigators have long believed the suspect possessed a sophisticated knowledge of anthrax and a high level of training."

Now, here is something everybody seems to miss. If Osama bin Laden is responsible for the 9/11 attacks (yeah right), isn't it somewhat odd that some other group of people with certain ties to the United States government just so happened to pull off the anthrax attacks within a week of 9/11 and again on October 9? Are we supposed to believe that the anthrax attacker(s) were just waiting around with extremely fatal weaponized anthrax in their refrigerators for the right moment? And what about the letters? C'mon, these guys were obviously trying to frame Arabs for the attacks. Isn't this the slightest bit suspicious to anybody in the media?

So let's recap.

The Anthrax came from an American military base.
The Anthrax required sophisticated knowledge and a high level of training.
The Anthrax letters contained feeble minded language to make us all believe they were written by some "stupid Arab".
The letters were mailed within one week of 9/11. (Were they just waiting around for a 9/11-like event to take place or was it all just a big coincidence?)

If the Anthrax attackers are related to the US government, what does that tell us about 9/11? Perhaps this is why the media went to sleep on the anthrax story after it was revealed that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick. Hmmmmm, what do you think? After all, if you connect the dots on anthrax, 9/11 is pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?

A Few More Things to Make Your Head Spin
1. Members of the White House (including Bush, Cheney, and the Cabinet) were given the antibiotic CIPRO on September 11, 2001-- seven (7) days prior to the date the first anthrax letter was even mailed. (I wasn't aware that antibiotics could save you from a jumbo jet smashing into your building, cool!)

2. Even after it was determined that the only anthrax to ever be used in a terrorist attack against American citizens came from our own military base, the Bush administration had Colin Powell waving around a vial of faux-anthrax at the United Nations in February of 2003. We invaded and occupied Iraq because, as Colin Powell stated that day, "Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material". (Considering that it was our own anthrax that was used against us in the 2001 anthrax letters, isn't this statement just a tad ironic?)

The president loves to make us remember 9/11. Why doesn't he ever remind us of the anthrax attacks? Oh wait......

9/11 -- The Gift That Keeps on Giving

2005-12-30T00:59:00.000-08:00

(I feel a rant coming on......)

So what if the Bush administration wants to conduct illegal wiretaps, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration wants to attack a country that has never attacked us and was not a threat to us, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration wants to take away all my liberties, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration outs a CIA operative in order to smear a political opponent, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration has encumbered more foreign debt in the past five years then all of the preceding administrations did combined, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration paid American journalists to write deceptive and administration-friendly news stories, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration hasn't enacted an exit plan in Iraq, they are fighting the terrorists!

So what if the Bush administration has destroyed the United States' reputation overseas, they are fighting the terrorists!

Wanna break the law? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna start a war? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna piss on the Constitution? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna make sure your family business profits off the war? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna fuck with people you just don't like? Invoke 9/11!

Wanna make your political adversary look like a treasonous bastard? Invoke 9/11!

I'm so sick and tired of 9/11. The Bush regime uses 9/11 like a heroin addict uses a spoon. It's the ultimate political weapon. Meanwhile, ignorant bastards keep driving around town in their cars with their "9/11- Never Forget" bumper stickers. That's akin to a southern slave in the 1800's wearing a shirt that says "I Need to Be Whipped Some Mo' Masseh"

For fuck's sake, who has gained the most from 9/11? Who? Isn't it obvious?

Terrorists? Who the fuck are these terrorists? The only terrorists I see are the ones sitting in Washington D.C. fucking over my country. Who is fighing against those bastards, that's what I wanna know.

The only terrorists I see are the ones handing out tax breaks to the rich while the poor fight over the scraps. Why isn't the Army fighing those dangerous thugs?

The only terrorists I see are the CEOs making $27 million dollars while the grunts make $17,000 (Walmart). Shouldn't we call in the Navy SEALS?

My government is one big organized crime family. That's the way I see it. Like any strong crime family, you gotta have muscle. And we certainly have the muscle. We make up 5% of the world's population, and yet we are responsible for 50% of all money spent on defense worldwide. "Luca Brasi swims with the fishes!"

Speaking of which, when can we begin calling "military defense" by it's rightful name? It should be called "military offense." For pete's sake, we've been on the offense for about 60 fucking years now. I think the days of "defense" are long gone, aren't they?

Yes indeed, 9/11 is the ultimate lotto prize for the neocon pigs. Full Spectrum Dominance? Try Full Spectrum Fascism.

Oh they danced and danced, drank lots of wine, and listened to lots of Wagner and Beethoven. Meanwhile their "brave leader" was out there fighing against the scourge of communism, the scourge of the Jews, and the scourge of everything else that wasn't Nazi. Yup, the Germans in the early 1940's were asleep too. Their leader had saved them from the communists who, after all, were accused of burning down the Reichstag building. (Oh wait, Hitler actually set the building on fire himself. Sounds so familiar?) Ah yes, because Germany was "under attack", they let Hitler enact the Enabling Act, thereby giving him dictatorial authority over Germany.

Dictatorial power. Where have I heard that before?

Yup, it all goes back to that eleventh day in September, 2001. The day when our country did a swan dive off the top of the World Trade Center, straight fucking down!

9/11-- the gift that keeps giving.

Menage a Trois

2005-12-28T23:10:00.000-08:00

It's not everyday that you get to see the Queen of England having sex with the President of the United States and the President of France.

I just think it's hilarious. Yeah, I know some people will be offended by the sight of people having sex. If you are one of those people, I offer you my apology and my advice to seek therapy immediately. :-)

It's not like I posted pictures of Dick Cheney having sex. That would be obscene, no doubt!

The pictures come from an artist in Austria.

Spoof posters depicting Britain's Queen Elizabeth having sex with the U.S. and French presidents that are displayed across Vienna are causing embarrassment just days ahead of Austria's taking over the EU presidency.

Part of a series called "euroPART" that features art created by artists from all 25 member countries of the European Union, the posters were meant to "reflect on the different social, historical and political developments in Europe," said art project 25peaces, which commissioned the posters.

Watching the Wheels

2005-12-28T01:44:00.000-08:00

Thanks to John Lennon for writing a song that I can completely relate to:

Watching the Wheels

People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing,
Well they give me all kinds of warnings to save me from ruin,
When I say that I'm o.k. they look at me kind of strange,
Surely your not happy now you no longer play the game,

People say I'm lazy dreaming my life away,
Well they give me all kinds of advice designed to enlighten me,
When I tell that I'm doing Fine watching shadows on the wall,
Don't you miss the big time boy you're no longer on the ball?

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round,
I really love to watch them roll,
No longer riding on the merry-go-round,
I just had to let it go,

People asking questions lost in confusion,
Well I tell them there's no problem,
Only solutions,
Well they shake their heads and they look at me as if I've lost my mind,
I tell them there's no hurry...
I'm just sitting here doing time,

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round,
I really love to watch them roll,
No longer riding on the merry-go-round,
I just had to let it go.

What Did They Say When Clinton Was Being Impeached?

2005-12-27T12:53:00.000-08:00

Tom Delay (R-TX):

"This nation sits at a crossroads. One direction points to the higher road of the rule of law. Sometimes hard, sometimes unpleasant, this path relies on truth, justice and the rigorous application of the principle that no man is above the law. Now, the other road is the path of least resistance. This is where we start making exceptions to our laws based on poll numbers and spin control. This is when we pitch the law completely overboard when the mood fits us, when we ignore the facts in order to cover up the truth.

No man is above the law, and no man is below the law. That’s the principle that we all hold very dear in this country."

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.):

"I suggest impeachment is like beauty: apparently in the eye of the beholder. But I hold a different view. And it's not a vengeful one, it's not vindictive, and it's not craven. It's just a concern for the Constitution and a high respect for the rule of law. ... as a lawyer and a legislator for most of my very long life, I have a particular reverence for our legal system. It protects the innocent, it punishes the guilty, it defends the powerless, it guards freedom, it summons the noblest instincts of the human spirit.

The rule of law protects you and it protects me from the midnight fire on our roof or the 3 a.m. knock on our door."

James Sensenbrenner: (R-WI):

"What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law. Our failure to bring President Clinton to account for his lying under oath and preventing the courts from administering equal justice under law, will cause a cancer to be present in our society for generations. I want those parents who ask me the questions, to be able to tell their children that even if you are president of the United States, if you lie when sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," you will face the consequences of that action, even when you don't accept the responsibility for them."

Chuck Hagel (R-NB):

"There can be no shading of right and wrong. The complicated currents that have coursed through this impeachment process are many. But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the President abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice. How can parents instill values and morality in their children? How can educators teach our children? How can the rule of law for every American be applied equally if we have two standards of justice in America--one for the powerful and the other for the rest of us?"

Bill Frist (R-TN):

"I will have no part in the creation of a constitutional double-standard to benefit the President. He is not above the law. If an ordinary citizen committed these crimes, he would go to jail."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas):

"When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority -- for example, a business executive, a military officer of a professional educator -- had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: "The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

All Hail Iraq

2005-12-23T23:01:00.000-08:00

Iran's leading hardline newspaper is hailing the recent parliamentary elections in Iraq because they serve to create "the first Islamist state in the Arab world." (As you know, Iran is not an Arab nation although it is an Islamic theocracy.)

“Of the 275 seats in Iraq’s new parliament, 140 will belong to pious Islamists, 60 will be occupied by Kurds with excellent ties with Iran, and 40 will belong to Sunni Arabs, most of whom want a sovereign, Islamist state”, the daily Kayhan’s Saturday editorial noted. “The new government – including the President, the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the armed forces and the judiciary – will emerge from this new assembly”.

More HERE.

I was blogging about the lovefest back in July!

From Luke...

2005-12-23T01:03:00.000-08:00

Whether you consider yourself to be a Christian, or whether you are just somebody like me who considers Christianity to be a beautiful mythology with lasting teachings, I pass along my best wishes and these words, attributed (via proxy) to the Christian messiah:

From the Book of Luke:

27
"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28
bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29
To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30
Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32
For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33
And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
34
If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
35
But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
36
Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.

I'm Not Lovin' It

2005-12-21T22:15:00.000-08:00

Just when I thought Fox couldn't get any worse....

Check THIS story out. Yes, they are actually singing the praises of Stormfront.org, a wanna-be Nazi discussion board.

I'm Lovin' It

2005-12-21T17:32:00.000-08:00

This makes me laugh. If you go to Fox News' search engine and type in "impeach," you will see "The Bulldog Manifesto" listed on the first page of search results.

Ahh, that feels good. :-)

The Gruesome Truth Revealed in the Lie

2005-12-21T01:57:00.000-08:00

Last year, President Bush stated:

"Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."

You see, here we have an obvious and uncontrovertable lie. Our dear leader told us that "a wiretap requires a court order." You see, he made that statement back when the New York Times was carrying his water.

This is what happens when people allow themselves to be terrorized. This is what happens when people become so pre-occupied with "security" that they (ironically) give away their security for the illusion of security. This is what happens when the media becomes a flag waving patriot. This is what happens when people stop questioning authority.

A gruesome truth is revealed in George W. Bush's latest lie-- we cannot trust our so-called leaders to serve our interests. Period. The more they try to hide themselves behind patriotic slogans, the more we should be questioning their motives and actions.

Why is this a "gruesome truth"? Because most people want to see their country and their government as something noble, something to be admired regardless of it's inherent nature. The truth is though-- our nation is a chaotic world of good and bad. It must be tended to. Like a gardener who tends to his garden with constant water, fertilizer, and attention, we must tend to our nation with constant inquisition, analysis, attention, and action. The gruesome truth is, like the gardener, we must get our hands dirty from time to time.

Who Are We Spying on?

2005-12-19T23:16:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has revealed that our great "freedom loving" government has been spying on, among others, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), the environmental group Greenpeace, and the Catholic Workers group, "which promotes anti-poverty efforts and social causes."

Apparently, anti-poverty charities are now a threat to our national security because they promote "semi-communistic ideology." Apparently, protecting the environment is now a threat to our national security. Are they fucking insane? Apparently, promoting animal rights now threatens national security. Sweet Jesus!

When will people wake up and realize that these criminals in power will not stop until they completely rape ole' Lady Liberty?

Ruff Ruff!! Cough Cough* Ruff Ruff!!

2005-12-13T14:09:00.000-08:00

Ugh! Been sick since Saturday night.

I'll be back next week (most likely).

Until then, please feel free to click on the spnsors or other links on this site.

Our Crazy World

2005-12-08T02:40:00.000-08:00

Today, this guy decides whether somebody lives or dies.

No, it's not a joke. (I wish it were a joke.)

It's actually happening.

Far Beyond Stupid

2005-12-07T00:36:00.000-08:00

The question always comes up-- "Is the president stupid, or is he just heartless?"

Does he make mistakes because he lacks the sufficient skill to manage his position, or does he make decisions selfishly, with kindless indifference towards those outside his own "circle of friends"?

Looking at George W. Bush, there certainly are plenty of examples which illustrate the man's imprudence. Everytime he talks, we are subjected to the gorked malapropisms of a half-witted boob. There are countless websites and books highlighting Bush's penchant for foot-in-mouth. Yes, the man is stupid. If his name wasn't George W. Bush, and his father wasn't President George H. W. Bush, this man never sees the inside of the White House without a ticket and an usher.

But is that it? Is he just stupid? Or is there a heartless son-of-a-bitch underneath the veneer or duncery?

At first glance, it may seem hard to tell.

But when all signs point to a war in Iraq that is so unwinnable that the current "stay the course" policy seems to be trumped by the common housefly's "repetitive-crash-into-same-glass-window" exit strategy, one must wonder whether Bush is genuinely that fucking stupid.

Looking back, there is no way in hell he could have genuinely believed that we would be greeted in Iraq as liberators. No fucking way. He can't be that dumb.

There is no way that he could have reasonably believed that Iraq was trying to acquire fissile material from Niger. No way.

There is no way he could have believed we are in the "last throes" of the insurgency. No way.

There is no way he could have believed Iraq was friendly with al-Qaeda prior to the American invasion. Nope.

There is no fucking way in hell that he could have genuinely believed that Iraq was an immediate threat to attack us. NO WAY IN HELL!

There is no way he can try to say that they "never expected" that terrorists would fly planes into buildings. Yeah right!

As Bush said so eloquently, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

In other words, fool us once...We can't get fooled again.

Certainly, he must know that this war in Iraq is a lost cause. Barring a miracle, Iraq will either fall into a full-blown civil war or the war will spill-over into neighboring Syria or Iran. Perhaps a combination of these events will take place.

In light of the layers upon layers of obvious pulp fiction, coupled with the administration's shameless profiteering and constant desire to support torture and confiscate civil liberties, there should be no doubt. We can't get fooled again. George W. Bush is beyond the realm of stupidity.

The fucker is downright sinister.

Bushisms

2005-12-06T01:34:00.000-08:00

Who doesn't love watching our president make a complete fool of himself?

Yes, it can be quite embarassing at times. After all, he is supposed to represent us as our leader. But heck, the guy is so ridiculous sometimes that you just have to laugh...otherwise, you just might cry!

"I think we agree, the past is over." —On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, May 10, 2000

More HERE

Mainstream Television Channel Reports on 9/11 Skeptics

2005-12-05T01:15:00.000-08:00

For the first time I can remember, a mainstream television channel reported on the 9/11 truth and skeptic movement (without being dismissive!). FOX-40 of Binghamton, New York reported that WTC Building 7, as well as the twin towers, may have been destroyed by demolitions.

Here is the VIDEO.

Legalized Lynching

2005-12-02T00:45:00.000-08:00

On December 13, California is set to execute Stanley "Tookie" Williams by lethal injection.

In 1971, at the age of 17, Stan Williams co-founded the street gang known as the "Crips," which soon became the city of Los Angeles' most notorious street gang. Eager to find any pretext for arresting him, the LAPD charged Stan Williams with four murders in 1978. Three years later, he was convicted and sent to San Quentin where he faced extreme hostility from his jailers, including over six (6) years spent in solitary confinement. During this period, it is said that Tookie "rehabilitated himself and made the decision to leave the Crips and speak out against gang violence."

With the help of Barbara Becnel, Tookie wrote a series of award-winning books for school children (from his jail cell). His books warned them against gangs, crime, and prison. Later, he organized the Internet Project for Street Peace (an international peer mentoring and violence prevention effort). He gained worldwide recognition and was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 2001.

In his own words:

"For nearly 20 years I have been pitted against the morbid mind-set of certain unethical prison officials and their confidential informants. On the other hand, I spent half of those 20 years functioning in a predictable pattern of negative behavior. Throughout that first decade on death row, I was a quasi-slave to the prison conditions that dictated how I should think, act and survive.

Being a "condemned" man, I was expected to languish, unchanged, in the silent misery of the doomed. However, from 1988 to 1994, while in solitary confinement, I learned how to battle my hypocritical conscience, gang mentality and personal demons. I underwent many years of soul-searching and re-education, without "debriefing" (another word for "snitching"), without a broken spirit and without violating my moral convictions.

By 1993, I had rediscovered my humanity through the knowledge of God, culture and self, which became the "natural elements" for reshaping my life. I had become a man of principle and accountability, and a servant of God. For me, it was both a spiritual blessing and therapy for my soul to meditate on the teachings of the Qur’an, Metu Neter, the Perennial Psychology of the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible and other uplifting literature."

Tookie Williams may be executed in less than two (2) weeks, and at the end of it, he may very well be innocent of the crimes for which he has been accused. Consider this:

** None of the physical evidence found at the crime scenes, including fingerprints and boot prints, matched Tookie's.

**The main evidence against Tookie was the testimony of jailhouse informants who claimed he had confessed to the murders. All of the so-called witnesses were themselves facing serious felony charges and had very strong motivations to make a deal with the authorities to reduce their own sentences. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals even admitted in 2002 that the informants had "less-than-clean back grounds and incentives to lie in order to obtain leniency from the state in either charging or sentencing."

**Since the original trial, another prisoner has come forward to declare that he witnessed one of the informants being briefed on the Stan Williams case.

**The prosecutor in the original case, Robert Martin, moved the trial from Los Angeles to Torrance, a predominantly white, highly conservative neighborhood. (Robert Martin was later censured twice by the California Supreme Court for his racist practices, leading to death sentences in two of the cases he prosecuted being overturned!)

** All of the African-Americans in the jury pool were dismissed and Tookie's case was heard by an all-white jury.

Since the begining, Tookie Williams has maintained his innocence regarding the four murders, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, exclusion of exculpatory evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, biased jury selection, and the misuse of jailhouse and government informants.

Tookie's case exemplifies many of the key problems with capital punishment, namely, racism, inadequate legal counsel, and the reliance on jailhouse informants. In 2002, Williams appeared before a three-judge panel on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel upheld his conviction, but in a rare move urged then-Governor Gray Davis to consider commuting the death sentence. The judges praised Tookie Williams for his "laudable efforts opposing gang violence" and his "good works and accomplishments since incarceration".

In February of 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Tookie's request for a hearing by a vote of 15 to 9. But in that case, the dissenting opinion harshly condemned the "blatant, race-based jury selection" in Tookie's original trial, and argued that the majority's decision essentially, "sends an unmistakable message that the dictates of Baston [the Supreme Court case that declared race-based jury selection unconstitutional] may be disregarded with impunity."

As such, William's appeal reached the United States Supreme Court back in May. The case sat undecided as the Court waited for John Roberts to take his seat on the Court. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court eventually refused to hear the case, effectively giving prosecutors the right to exclude jurors on the basis of race, in direct opposition to the holding in Baston.

"I have been called an unrepentant sinner, a moral coward, criminal beast, serial killer and a Fox News network reporter even compared me to Adolph Hitler. My belief is that such ungodliness in the judgment of me is the toxic product of American racism. A Black man is not supposed to be capable of redeeming himself.

People tend to forget the transitions of Saul, who became Paul, Moses, King David and Saint Aurelius Augustine, who was not always saintly, given the boy he sired by a mistress. Another controversial transformation was Alfred Nobel, himself, who invented dynamite and, ultimately, created the Nobel Peace Prize. A newspaper mistakenly printed Alfred Nobel’s obituary instead of his dead brother’s: the headline accused Alfred Nobel of earning his wealth through an invention (dynamite) that countless people had used to kill one another. The misprint served as a premonition for Alfred Nobel, allowing him to see how the world would judge him. It provoked his transition.

Yet, my detractors contend that it is inconceivable that I could reorient my life. Back in the day, I was devoted to building a Crip nation at the expense of other Black people. Today, my life is dedicated to building unity among youths, to promoting youth programs, computer literacy and youth empowerment, and to developing an initiative for a broad-based progressive agenda for youth throughout the world."

A clemency hearing is set for December 8, 2005. Governor Schwarzenegger is set to decide whether or not Stan "Tookie" Williams will be allowed to live or whether he will be executed. Campaigning against execution are, among others, activist and former football player Jim Brown, celebrities Jamie Foxx, Elliott Gould, Danny Glover, Laurence Fishburne, Ted Danson, William Baldwin, Snoop Dog, Bob Saget, Mike Farrell, Harry Belafonte, Jessica Simpson, Edward Asner, Jackson Browne, Russell Crowe, Richard Dreyfuss, Nick Carter, Gabriel Byrne, Bianca Jagger; politicians Tom Hayden, Mario Cuomo and Bill Rosendahl; Nobel laureates Desmond Tutu, Mairead Corrigan Maguire; and the Reverend Jesse Jackson.

Please sign the petition to save Stan "Tookie" Williams.

Please call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office at (916) 445-2821 and urge him to grant clemency.

For more information, please visit savetookie.org.

I leave you with these quetions:

Why must we kill a man who has clearly turned his life around and become a beacon for peace?

Is it fair to kill a man for crimes which he very reasonably did not commit simply because he was, at the time, an unsavory human being?

What are we killing him for?

Redefining National Security

2005-12-01T01:57:00.000-08:00

What is National Security? Does the term merely relate to some notion of physically defending our nation or our national (pecuniary) interests? Or does it mean something much greater?

If our nation is built upon the edifice of liberty and justice, then wouldn't national security, ipso facto, entail the defense of the very ideas of liberty and justice? Shouldn't fighting for civil rights and civil liberties be considered a matter of national security too?

Well, apparently a Democratic nominee for Congress in the 19th District of New York, John Hall, is running on the platform of "Redefining National Security." If you ask me, that's a terrific idea!

The current administration has used the term "national security" to take away our civil liberties, to endanger our environment, to promote corporatism over individualism, and to do just about whatever it likes. It is time to take back the term "national security" and use it to include all the things that truly define our security.

Saving the environment is a matter of national security. Educating our children is a matter of national security. Healthcare is a matter of national security. Civil liberties are a matter of national security.

Here is how John Hall defines "national security":

"America will be more secure when:

* Our armed forces are not only the best trained and equipped in the world, but they are used in combat only against a genuine threat and for the specific jobs they are trained to do.

* Our reputation around the world is above reproach, and our nation's actions inspire admiration and the support of our allies.

* All our elected and appointed officials are honest and competent, trusted here and abroad not to manipulate events for political or personal gain.

* A world-class education is provided for all our children, enabling them as innovative adults to contribute to our national brain trust, create new jobs and industries, and compete in the world economy.

* All citizens have access to quality, affordable, accessible health care, including prescription drugs at negotiated, competitive prices.

* Social Security benefits are guaranteed for the indefinite future, for us, our parents, and our children.

* We develop and produce alternative sources of energy that do not poison our environment, ship billions of dollars overseas, or involve us with despotic or unstable regimes.

* Victims of natural disasters in this country are supported and restored as much as possible to normalcy, and our infrastructures here at home are rebuilt as needed.

* Our environment is recognized as central to our security because of the connection between pollution and health, and we join the majority of nations in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

* We invest in America through a fair and adequate tax code, rather than mortgaging our children's future with record budget and trade deficits.

* Our laws and regulations are not written by and for the lobbyists and campaign contributors, but for the health, economic, and physical security of Americans and the United States of America."

John Hall for Congress in the 19th District of New York!

Mitzvahpalooza!!

2005-11-29T16:15:00.000-08:00

It was General Smedley Butler who once said "War is a Racket."

In light of the Bat Mitvah recently thrown by defense contractor David H. Brooks of DHB Industries for his daughter, it's glaringly obvious that Smedley Butler was RIGHT.

Entitled "Mitzvahpalooza," Mr. Brook's daughter's bat mitvah cost an estimated $10 million dollars. Appearing at "Mitzvahpalooza" were the following performers:

50 Cent
Don Henley and Joe Walsh of The Eagles
Stevie Nicks of Fleetwood Mac
Tom Petty
Kenny G
Steven Tyler and Joe Perry of Aerosmith
DJ AM
Ciara

"I'm told that at one point Brooks leapt on the stage with Tyler and Perry, who responded with good grace when their paymaster demanded that his teenage nephew be permitted to sit in on drums. At another point, I'm told, Tyler theatrically wiped sweat off Brooks' forehead - and then dried his hand with a flourish."

While war profiteer David Brooks is throwing a decadent bat mitzvah for his daughter, a war rages on in Iraq. As "150 kids in attendance" were "impressed by their $1,000 gift bags, complete with digital cameras and the latest video iPod," four (4) westerners were kidnapped in Iraq today.

There is an orgy of war profiteering going on in America, from congressmen to defense contractors. Does anybody give a shit?

NOTE: DHB is the "leader in the development, manufacturing and distribution of innovative, technically advanced bullet and projectile resistant garments, bullet resistant and fragmentation vests, bomb projectile blankets, and related ballistic accessories and technologies for the United States Military and Law Enforcement Agencies"

Cheney = War Criminal

2005-11-29T15:22:00.000-08:00

According to a BBC article, the former aide to Colin Powell has not only accused Dick Cheney of torture, but possible war crimes.

I know what your thinking, "Bulldog, we already knew Cheney was a war criminal, so what?!?!"

Well, I agree. We did know Cheney was a war criminal, but up until today, nobody in the government was ever willing to talk about it.

Kudos to Col. Lawrence Wilkerson for having the courage to speak the truth in this scary age where messengers of truth are "Swift Boated" by the right-wing propoganda machine.

Eulogy for Randy "Duke" Cunningham

2005-11-28T12:29:00.000-08:00

Today, my congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigned and pled guilty to fraud, conspiracy to commit bribery and tax evasion.

Justice!!

Plain and simple, the guy was a big festering sore on the ass of the House of the Representatives. He took bribes, he conspired, and he tried to evade taxes.

And if you don't remember, Randy "Duke" Cunningham was the dude who sponsored the silly Flag Burning Amendment.

Duke Cunningham was the poster boy for right-wing hypocrisy. He wrapped himself in the flag, meanwhile he robbed us all blind.

Check out District 50's future congresswoman-- Francine Busby!

Gandhi and Olives

2005-11-28T02:08:00.000-08:00

As Mahatma Mohandas Gandhi stepped aboard a train one day, one of his shoes slipped of and landed on the track. He was unable to retrieve it as the train had already started to move. To the amazement of his companions, Gandhi calmly took off his other shoe and threw it back along the track to land close to the first, with the comment, "The poor man who finds the shoe lying on the track will now have a pair he can use."

---Adapted from "The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes"

On a different note, yesterday, Jewish settlers in the West Bank city of Nablus chopped down hundreds of the town's olive trees. Olive trees are the main source of income for 5,000 Palestinian residents.

More than 245,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank, home to 2.4 million Palestinians.

My Blogging Thanks!

2005-11-24T13:03:00.000-08:00

In the world of blogs, I am thankful for.....

....The Rude Pundit.

....Crooks and Liars.

....Daily Kos.

....Martian Anthroplogist.

....The Brad Blog.

....Impeach Bush Coalition and ImpeachPAC.org.

....The Raw Story.

....Media Matters.

....and so many more!

And thanks to all of you who frequent The Bulldog Manifesto.

Poll: What Would You Do?

2005-11-23T00:38:00.000-08:00

Hypothetical Facts:
Suppose you are the leader of a fictitional country known as Nari. Suppose Nari has lots of oil. But unfortunately, for the past seventy (70) years, Nari has been under the thumb of various world powers, each attempting to use their power as a means to syphon Nari's valuable oil reserves. Suppose Nari's democratically elected leader was once murdered in a coup d'etat sponsored by the world's largest superpower, known as, A.S.U.

Suppose Nari is neighbored by a country called Qari. And suppose Qari also has lots of oil. Suppose Qari was recently invaded and occupied by A.S.U., the world's largest superpower. Suppose the occupation was based upon false premises, yet nevertheless, A.S.U. has become the patron of Qari's oil reserves.

Hypothetical Question:
If you were the leader of Nari, knowing what you know about A.S.U.'s recent occupation of neighboring Qari, would you think it was a good idea for Nari to build nuclear plants that could one day produce weapons grade plutonium? After all, knowing what you know about the way A.S.U. and others have oppressed your nation for seventy years, and knowing what you know about A.S.U.'s occupation of Qari, wouldn't it be a good idea for Nari to build a nuclear bomb to deter A.S.U. and other foreign powers from further oppressive measures aimed against Nari?

The Bulldog visits Ground Zero

2005-11-21T23:13:00.000-08:00

Today, I returned home from NYC. While I was there, I managed to pay a visit to Ground Zero. Among other things, I wanted to see the proximity of Building 7 in relation to the twin towers. I was amazed at how Building 7 was already completely rebuilt and will be ready for occupancy in 2006.

I was happy to see a gentleman in front of Ground Zero speaking out loud about Building 7. I joined in with him in speaking to a couple of women who apparently had never heard of Building 7 (like most Americans, I presume). While I was talking, I noticed that I was being filmed by a nearby spectator. Considering all that has gone on recently, I had to wonder who was filming me. Perhaps it was just a fellow tourist. Perhaps not. The unfortunate thing about these days is, one never knows...

I had a nice time while in NYC. But it's always nice to make it home.

Oh yeah, the landing gear on my plane worked just dandy. No glitches whatsoever!

Why does it seem as though the mainstream media is so concerned with reporting on landing gear stories these days? Are we supposed to be scared......again?

Question for the White House: Where o' Where is Your "Further Study"?

2005-11-14T22:38:00.000-08:00

On June 29, 2005, the Bush administration took action to implement the WMD Commission's recommendations. The WMD Commission was formed pursuant to Executive Order 13328 in order to address the myriad "intelligence failures" the Bush administration claims resulted in the misdiagnosis of Iraq's WMD program, or better yet, the lack of WMD program.

The WMD commission came back with 68 recommendations. Of those 68 recommendatons, the Bush administration has agreed to follow 65 recommendations.

Funny thing though, as it relates to the very last recommendation (see the bottom of the page HERE), the Bush administration held that "Further Study" was needed.

The final recommendation reads:

"The Director of National Intelligence should hold accountable the organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs."

In response to this recommendation, the White House has stated that it needs "further study" to implement this last recommendation. Why would the White House need "further study" in order to determine whether it is sound policy to "hold accountable those organizations that contributed to the flawed assessments of Iraq's WMD programs"?

And more importantly, where is the White House's "further study"? It's been nearly six (6) months! Surely they should have concluded their own in-house investigation by now, n'est pas?

Is it possible that the White House doesn't want to execute the last recommendation because it would mean that Bush administration "friends and family" would be held accountable?

Is it possible that the White House doesn't want to execute the last recommendation because it would also mean holding itself accountable?

Ah hah! BINGO!

Something tells me that this administration will need a lot more time to "study" recommendation #13.17. Perhaps, three more years?

We need to press the Bush administration to conclude it's "further study" on the final WMD commission recommendation.

They are obviously stalling.

This Week in the Dog House

2005-11-14T12:24:00.000-08:00

The Bulldog Manifesto will be running pretty light this week. Not too many updates. It's a travel week. I'm headed to New York City.

I'll be doing my best to get online, but with family obligations awaiting me there, I'm not so sure I'll be able to do so as often as I'd like.

But one never knows....

God Smites Tobyhanna For Dover's Sins

2005-11-11T12:22:00.000-08:00

All of you non-believers better start believing God's spokesman, Pat Robertson!

Yesterday, he warned the citizens of Dover because they "voted God out" of their city by ousting school board members who favored teaching "intelligent design." He told those Godless Doverans:

"If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city."

Well Doverans, don't go turning to God now! God just smote your punk ass neighbors in Tobyhanna! One hundred fifty three (153) miles away from Dover, God unleashed His opening salvo on Tobyhannans-- just to show you Doverans, 'He is coming for your asses!'

Yup, one day after God's spokesman warned you, The Big Man upstairs unleashed Bushzilla on the residents of Tobyhanna. God ain't fuckin' around, bitches!

Today, Bushzilla launched a bloody propaganda assault upon the citizens of Tobyhanna. Bushzilla roared, "Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and mislead the American people about why we went to war." With Roveian adeptness, Bushzilla coupled notions of 'supporting the troops" with notions of 'supporting the war,' causing some of the honest citizens of Tobyhanna to wince and shake their heads in horror. Bushzilla smote:

"Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that, whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united and we will settle for nothing less than victory."

You see Doverans? Tobyhanna is being subjected to Bushzilla today because of your decision to oust school board members who favored teaching "intelligent design." Don't go praying to God now, you heathen Doverans. As Pat Robertson told you, 'God won't listen.'

Who Said That?!?!?!?

2005-11-11T00:08:00.000-08:00

Question: Guess who made these statements yesterday? (Answer to follow.)

"The Republican Party is in imminent peril of losing the country."

"Under Bush II, social spending has exploded to levels LBJ might envy...."

"Bill Clinton is starting to look like Barry Goldwater."

"Working America and the middle class have been sacrificed on the high altar of the Republican Moloch of Free Trade."

"Thus, in March, 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us, and did not threaten us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have."

"Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Arab and Islamic peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of democracy, they are still Crusaders."

Answer: Republican-- Pat Buchanan!

Is it 1971, or is it Just a Nightmare?

2005-11-09T15:49:00.000-08:00

Torture in 1971
On April 14, 1971, 1st Lt. Michael Uhl, an intelligence officer with the Americal Division from 1968-69, testified before a congressional committee with regard to standard "interrogation techniques" (i.e. torture) in Vietnam, as applied to military and civilian prisoners captured by U.S. forces in Vietnam.

His testimony to the Subcommittee on Government Operations revealed not only a pattern of endemic beatings, but also rapes and similar "sexual" atrocities, electric shock, and water torture. He also testified to the use of summary executions as a regular occurrence.

In 2004, while commenting on Abu Ghraib, Mr. Uhl wrote the following for Antiwar.com:

"Some of the parallels between what I witnessed in Vietnam as leader of a small military intelligence team, and the details reported by [Seymour] Hersh about Abu Ghraib, reflect, in my view, disturbing patterns of American military practice over decades that the American public would prefer not to know about. As one of HershÂs informants puts it, "The process is unpleasant. ItÂs like making sausage. You like the results, but you donÂt want to know how itÂs made." The more serious of these wartime parallels have grievous consequences for both victims (typically civilian non-combatants) and perpetrators, who in time reenter the U.S. population as damaged veterans." (Emphasis Added.)

White Phosphorus and Napalm in 1971
On April 16, 1971, a reporter named Fred Branfman, who had spent the period of March 1967 through February 1971 in neutral Laos, testified before a congressional committee, unmasking a "secret" U.S. policy of saturation bombing over Laos-- using white phosphorus and napalm. Branfman later wrote:

"Village after village was leveled, countless people buried alive by high explosives, or burnt alive by napalm and white phosphorous, or riddled by anti-personnel bomb pellets"

Later, a Senate Report concluded that:

"...throughout all this there has been a policy of subterfuge and secrecy through such things as saturation bombing and the forced evacuation of population from enemy held or threatened areas-we have helped to create untold agony for hundreds of thousands of villagers."

As I blogged yesterday, it has been reported that white phosphorus and a napalm-like substance have again been used to decimate civilians in Fallujah. Today, it was uncovered by The Daily Kos that the U.S. Army's March Edition (PDF file) of Field Artillery Magazine even admits to the use of White Phosphorus in Fallujah:

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

Branfman and Uhl both testified within two days of one another. Here we are, thirty four (34) years later, and we apparently haven't learnt one damn thing. Once again, we are talking about torture, white phosphourus, and napalm.

Wake me up from this bad dream...PLEASE!

Keep Your Salary Arnold, We Want Our $300 Million Dollars Back

2005-11-09T00:04:00.000-08:00

Dear Arnold,

When you became governor of California, we had a projected two year budget deficit of $38 billion dollars. Two days after you were sworn in, you pledged to work for free, rebuking your $175,000 a-year Governor's salary. At the time, you stated:

"I'm not going to take a salary. I'm going to start straight right away there and make that cut... and leave it in the general fund, because I want to make the first positive move forward on that."

Well, Mr. Governor, feel free to take your $175,000 salary. But in return, we the citizens of Cahleefohrneeeah want the $300 million dollars you cost the State in calling this frivolous Special Election.

You have a lot of nerve in stating tonight:

"No matter what the results are ... tomorrow the victories and the losses will be behind us....No matter what ... we're going to continue to fight for California."

Let me ask you Mr. Governor, 'what victories are you referring to?' You had no victories tonight. You cannot get away with saying, in essence, "I'll be back." Sorry Mr. Governor, your days leading this great State are, for all intents and purposes, finished. Like our defunct president, you too are now a lame duck.

We, on the other hand, are $300 million dollars more in debt, and without any leadership. Please do us a favor now, and simply go away. But before you leave, please drop off the check for $300 million and take your damn salary. In hindsight, your salary is nothing compared to the greater cost of your Special Election gambit.

Thanks for nothing, Arnold. Really....thanks for nothing!

Sincerely,

The Bulldog Manifesto

[Cross-posted at The Daily Kos]

Time For Action: Join Barbara Boxer's Boycott

2005-11-08T00:46:00.000-08:00

The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is home to over 150 species of wildlife. Recently, the Senate approved a bill requiring the Interior Department to begin selling oil leases for the coastal plain of the Alaska Wildlife Refuge within two years.

California Senator Barbara Boxer, however, has not given up the fight. She is planning to organize a consumer boycott of any oil company that decides to drill in the refuge.

Please GO HERE and join the effort by informing the oil companies that if they drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, they will be boycotted. It takes one minute of your time.

Please spread the word too!

[Cross-posted at Boycott Thieves and Blogtemps.]

Napalm and White Phosphorus in Fallujah

2005-11-07T12:32:00.000-08:00

In contravention to various international treaties, the United States has used outlawed weapons of mass destruction against Iraqi civilians. Consider the irony.

An Italian New Channel (RAI 24) televised a graphic VIDEO documenting U.S. use of white phosphorus and napalm against Iraqi civilians. I strongly suggest everybody watch the entire production. It is graphic, but people need to see it.

Where the fuck is our own media?

Why do I feel like a German citizen living in Nazi Germany, watching as my countrymen comletely ignore the atrocities being committed under OUR FLAG?

Viva Maradona!

2005-11-07T00:52:00.000-08:00

From The Guardian:

Earlier, the tone was struck by the former football star Diego Maradona, who wore a "Stop Bush" T-shirt to an anti-Bush "counter-summit" that drew some 4,000 protesters from around the world and easily eclipsed the official summit in the public's attention. "I'm proud as an Argentine to repudiate the presence of this human trash, George Bush," said Maradona.

Human trash? I prefer to say-- "piece of shit".

Blog Spotlight: NeoAlertz

2005-11-07T00:44:00.000-08:00

Check out NeoAlertz. Pretty cool activist blog that enables you to sign various petitions. One stop shopping for letter writing and petition campaigns.

Dick Gets Fingered.....for Torture

2005-11-03T19:03:00.000-08:00

In an NPR radio interview on November 3, 2005, former Bush administration official Col. Laurence Wilkerson pinned the blame for the torture committed at Abu Ghraib squarely on Vice President Dick Cheney. You can hear the interview HERE.

So far, only French newspaper Le Monde has picked up on Wilkerson's public statement. Check it out.

If your French is rusty, here is a rough translation using Babel Fish (Pardon the sometimes incoherent translation...Babel Fish isn't perfect.):

The office of the American vice-president Dick Cheney is at the origin of the directives having led American soldiers to torture prisoners in Iraq and in Afghanistan, affirmed, Thursday, a former high person in charge for the State Department.

Colonel Laurence Wilkerson, who was a principal private secretary of the former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, on the waves of the public radio (NPR) which it had found trace of a series of memos and directives authorizing torture, addressed to the Defence Department by the collaborators of Dick Cheney. These directives contradicted another directive of president George W. Bush, ordering with the American army to respect the convention of Geneva which prohibits such practices.

"There was a visible trace energy of the vice-presidency to the commanders on the ground, while passing through the secretary with defense, to authorize torture in order to obtain information on the ground", affirmed colonel Wilkerson. "the directives, it indicated, were written in careful terms, but they did not give any less the commanders on the ground freedom to act, which led to many cases of abuse counters prisoners". According to him, "If you are a soldier of career, you know that similar things are not allowed."

"LAWYER SOLVED FOR THE RECOURSE TO TORTURE" [< ----I have a feeling this is not an accurate translation.]

It added that Mr. Powell, when he was a Secretary of State, had asked him, after the scandal of the prison of Abou Ghraïb, to inquire to discover how torture had become an instrument of the American policy.

Washington Post had revealed last week that Mr. Cheney intervened recently with the Senate to obtain that the CIA is exempted obligation to respect a bill prohibiting abroad the use of torture.

According to Mr. Wilkerson, the new principal private secretary of Dick Cheney, David Addington, who was up to now legal adviser vice-presidency, was a "lawyer solved" to authorize the recourse to torture. He as affirmed as Mr. Cheney had created the national Council of safety "(a)" espionnant and sapping the work carried out by the national council of safety of president Bush. He added that the members of this council had ceased resorting to the electronic mails by discovering that the collaborators of Mr. Cheney peeled their messages.

It in addition estimated that the former chief of the CIA, George Tenet "had not had courage" to inform the services of Dick Cheney of his doubts about the existence of weapons of massive destruction in Iraq or on the efforts of Saddam Hussein to obtain.

-------------------------

So there you have it. A former Bush administration official is coming out and pointing fingers at the Cheney cabal for the torture at Abu Ghraib. I look forward to seeing how this develops.

Cartoon Week Continues.....

2005-11-03T17:20:00.000-08:00

Shwarzenegger Street
The campaign for Democratic candidate for Governor of California, Phil Angelides, created this hilarious cartoon:

http://www.arnoldsneighborhood.com/

Starring:
Ahnold as Ernie
George W. Bush as Bush Bird
Ken Lay as Ken Von Lay the (Mis)Count
Karl Rove as Rover
Bill O'Reilly as O'Reilly the Grouch
Dick Cheney as The Cheney Monster

With special guest appearances by Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.

By George, America is Waking Up!

2005-11-03T02:06:00.000-08:00

The most recent poll conducted by CBS reveals that America is indeed starting to wake up. (It's about time!)

Bush's Approval Rating:
Approve
35%
Disapprove
57%

But even more amazing is this statistic:

U.S. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM

War in Iraq 21%
Economy and jobs 17%
Terrorism 5%
Education 4%
Gas/oil crisis 4%
Health care 4%
President Bush 4%

In other words, as far as the public is concerned, George W. Bush is just as much a problem as terrorism! This begs the question-- at what point will America be willing to take part in the War on Bush?

Well, for some us, that war has already begun.

Bush Cartoon

2005-11-02T00:26:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Duane's Games for this cartoon.

Where is the Mainstream Media?

2005-11-01T14:39:00.000-08:00

Lately, The Brad Blog has been en fuego!

Ever since the election of 2004, The Brad Blog has been dutifully and painstakingly breaking stories relating to voter fraud.

Most recently, on October 20, 2005, The Brad Blog broke the news about the non-partisan GAO's 107 page report report[PDF] on Election Voting Machines in America.

Considering how important elections are, one would think that the shocking revelations contained in the GAO Report (set forth below) would somehow find their way into the mainstream media ("MSM"). But as The Brad Blog noted in today's blog entry, "Silence: Mainstream Media Completely Ignores GAO Report, Joint Congressional News Release on E-Voting!"

The Government Accountability Office ("GAO") is the investigative arm of Congress. It is typically referred to as the "congressional watchdog," and as such, is independent and nonpartisan.

"It studies how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. GAO advises Congress and the heads of executive agencies (such as Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Department of Defense, DOD, and Health and Human Services, HHS) about ways to make government more effective and responsive. GAO evaluates federal programs, audits federal expenditures, and issues legal opinions. When GAO reports its findings to Congress, it recommends actions. Its work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, and save billions of dollars. From the GAO website.

So when the GAO reports that recent elections have been plagued by a range of security vulnerabilities and violations in Electronic Voting Machines, one might assume that the MSM would pay attention. No such luck.

And when the GAO states that issues brought to the attention of the GAO by elected representatives, activists and other concerned citizens, "merit the focused attention of federal state and local authorities responsible for election administration," one might rightfully presume this to be newsworthy, to say the least. Apparently the MSM doesn't think so.

As it relates to certain electronic voting machines, the GAO's report reveals that, inter alia:

Cast ballots, ballot definition files, and audit logs could be modified.

Supervisor functions were protected with weak or easily-guessed passwords.

Systems had easily picked locks and power switches that were exposed and unprotected.

Local jurisdictions misconfigured their electronic voting systems, leading to election day problems.

Voting systems experienced operational failures during elections.

Vendors installed uncertified electronic voting systems.

Considering how closely contested the Presidential election of 2004 was, you would think the MSM would look into the matter. Nope!

As The Brad Blog points out:

It's been nearly a week and a half since the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its 107-page report [PDF] confirming what many of us have been reporting for what seems like forever: That electronic voting machines are not secure, are hackable, and employ secret software that is frequently neither certified nor adequately inspected.

The GAO report which The BRAD BLOG broke on October 20th, confirms that "[C]oncerns about electronic voting machines have been realized and have caused problems with recent elections, resulting in the loss and miscount of votes."

Furthermore, it was released in tandem with a joint bi-partisan news release which lauded the report. The extremely rare joint news release was issued by six high-level U.S. Congressmen in the House of Representatives (three R's and three D's) all Committee chairman and ranking minority members including the Chair and ranking member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.

And yet, not a single wire service (AP, Reuters, UPI, AFP, et al) nor the NY Times nor the Washington Post has even run a single paragraph on the landmark GAO report or even the news release to our knowledge. Not one. Even though many of those same outlets reported on numerous occasions that the claims now confirmed as very real by the GAO were little more than "conspiracy theories" forwarded by "leftwing blogs" such as this one. (Emphasis Added.)

The GAO Report needs to be covered. Actually, that is an understatement! The GAO Report is an earth shattering report which reveals the truly remarkable ease in which our election system is corruptable. Therefore, it MUST be covered.

The GAO Report raises major questions about the health of our democracy. (Note: To all right-wingers that feel the need to correct me on the fact that this is a Republic, not a Democracy, I issue you a preemptive "Go to hell, you Pahvlovian dog!"...but I digress.)

We can all do something about the MSM's silence. First, we can send letters and email to the MSM. Second, we can continue to blog this subject ad nauseum until the pricks in the MSM figure it out. (As The Brad Blog says, "If you aren 't happy with the media, be the media.") Third, we can visit The Brad Blog and donate some money to his blog. Just imagine if we didn't have The Brad Blog. Who would have brought this to our attention?

SCOTUS: Attack of the Clones

2005-10-31T11:46:00.000-08:00

Today, President Bush nominated an Antonin Scalia clone to the Supreme Court.

This nomination is a shot across the bow.

It's time for a bloody war.

From Think Progress:

"ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

"ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.” [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

"ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.” [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

"ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.” The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

"ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

"ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard” and “ignores our precedent.” In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.” [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]"

Terrorism by Deception: "The Air is Safe to Breathe"

2005-10-27T00:48:00.000-07:00

Typically, when we think of 9/11, we tend to think solely of the terrorist attack involving the alleged four hijacked planes. But there was another terrorist attack related to 9/11. This other "attack" was indisputably perpetrated by the government-- by deception.

The Lie
Seven days after the 9/11 attacks, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency declared to the people of New York City that "the air is safe to breathe." As it turns out, the EPA was lying. But worse, as revealed in an investigation, the White House pressured the EPA to prematurely assure the public that the air was safe to breathe. In an EPA watchdog report released in 2003, it was reported that "competing considerations, such as national security concerns and the desire to reopen Wall Street, played a role in EPA's air quality statements." (Emphasis Added.) (See, EPA Report, at page 17)

In other words, our beloved government knowingly lied to us, putting our citizens in danger, for "the desire to reopen Wall Street."

All of this is fact. (Check it out for yourself at Page 17)

If you still don't believe me, perhaps you will believe the EPA Ombudsman who investigated the matter. In February of 2003, EPA Ombudsman Robert Martin stated that the EPA intentionally utilized inferior testing methods in order to avoid finding evidence that environmental conditions threatened public health. "I believe the EPA did not do that because they knew it would come up not safe and so they are involved in providing knowingly false information to the public about safety."

The Danger
When the towers came down, they contained "approximately 50,000 computers each made with four to twelve pounds of lead." (This does not take into account the five other buildings that were destroyed.) "Tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs each contained enough mercury to contaminate a quarter of a city block." In the months following 9/11, PCB levels reached 75,000 times their previous record: "PCBs were detected at high concentrations. The Toxic Equivalency (TEQ)... is 151pg/L. In previous harbor work...the highest observed PCB TEQ was 0.002pg.L." (EPA Report), September 20, 2003)"

The thousands of smoke detectors within the twin towers each contained radioactive americium 241. (EPA Policy Analyst Hugh Kaufman). In early October, 2001, Dr. Thomas Cahill of the University of Davis at California found levels of very- and ultrafine particulates that were the highest he'd seen of 7000 samples taken around the world including at the burning Kuwaiti oil fields. Months after the disaster the EPA recorded hitherto unseen levels of dioxin.

When the towers exploded and came crashing down, along came 200,000 pounds of harmful asbestos, pulverized into fine dust, to be inhaled by all.

The Victims
On September 18, 2001, when the head of the EPA told the public that "the air is safe to breathe," people believed her. As a result, Ground Zero workers often labored without benefit of respiratory protection. At a hearing held by Ombudsman Robert Martin, Lieutenant Manuel Gomez testified that when he brought his own respirator he was instructed not to wear it for fear of frightening the public. New York City Transit worker Walter Jensen has stated that when he asked for a respirator he was threatened with disciplinary action and firing. He later suffered a heart attack and at the age of fifty-five. Scientists such as Dr. Cate Jenkins, Dr. Marjorie Clarke, Paul Bartlett and others warned of the consequences of inhaling the toxic dust and fumes but were ignored by the agencies in charge.

As it relates to Ground Zero workers, a federal screening program found that, within 10 to 11 months following 9/11:

"52 percent of workers suffered from ear, nose and throat ailments, 46 percent showed pulmonary symptoms and 52 percent reported such mental health problems as post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their work in and around the dusty, smoky rubble."

Meanwhile, the New York Fire Department says that first responders, on average, have lost 300 mililiters in breathing capacity, with the most symptomatic losing a liter. It is further reported that:

"Two and a half times as many firemen have retired on respiratory disability since 9/11 as did in the three years before the attacks. Their doctors have also seen twenty cases of the chronic lung disease sarcoidosis, as opposed to the usual rate of two per year; four bizarre cases of something akin to miner's lung; and a slight increase in thyroid cancer..."

Ground Zero workers have brought class action lawsuits against the EPA and Christie Whitman, the head of the EPA, for making "false and misleading" statements.

But firefighters and first responders aren't the only victims of the government's terrorism by deception. (Note: 14 Rescue dogs have died since 9/11) Children in nearby schools have also reportedly suffered from ear, nose, and throat problems. Additionally, another researcher, Dr. Sally Ann Lederman from Columbia University, studied pregnant women living within two miles of the World Trade Center in the four weeks immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

She studied 300 women in the group, many in their first or second trimester. Lederman found that the babies tended to be lighter and shorter than other babies.

While Lederman said lower birth weight can sometimes translate into health problems, it's impossible to know whether those post-9/11 children would be more likely to have lower IQ's or development problems.

Now go ahead....make excuses for your government. Rationalize it. Tell me how it's perfectly okay for the White House to pressure the EPA into telling the public that the "air is safe to breathe". Tell me how the government didn't want to create a panic. Tell me how we should be lied to.

Armageddon Dreams in American Churches

2005-10-25T12:37:00.000-07:00

Can somebody please tell me why 3,200 American and Canadian churches agreed to screen the movie "Left Behind: World at War"?

Adapted from the "Left Behind" book series, the movies star Cameron, best known for the TV sitcom "Growing Pains," as a reporter investigating the rise to power of an anti-Christ figure and the coming battle between good and evil prophesied in the Bible.

Church should be a place to come together to speak of God and the Gospels. Church should not be a place for commercializing Armageddon movies based upon so-called "Christian" themes.

And look at the plot:

"A week after the rapture, grief-stricken survivors continue to search for the millions of people who vanished into thin air. Chaos engulfs the world as suicide rates skyrocket, businesses are looted, and martial law remains in effect. A desperate world turns to United Nations President Nicolae Carpathia for guidance and reassurance. But as global events begin to take on strange significance, signaling the oncoming terror of years to come, a small group of rebels known as the Tribulation Force embarks on a dangerous mission to open the eyes of the world to the truth--Nicolae Carpathia is the Antichrist!"

In other words, it's a movie propogandizing an evil United Nations.

Sounds like a movie that would make John Bolton happy.

More War Crimes in Iraq

2005-10-25T00:51:00.000-07:00

Press Release:

Today, the ACLU made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.

“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable. America must stop putting its head in the sand and deal with the torture scandal that has rocked our military.”

The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today’s documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

The records reveal the following facts:

* A 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Notes say he “struggled/ interrogated/ died sleeping.” Some facts relating to this case have been previously reported. (In April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. Although Lt. Gen. Sanchez later rescinded the September 2003 techniques, he authorized “changes in environmental quality” in October 2003.)

* An Iraqi detainee (also described as a white male) died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated by “OGA.” He was standing, shackled to the top of a door frame with a gag in his mouth at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. Notes summarizing the autopsies record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA, gagged in standing restraint.” (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Jaleel.)

* A detainee was smothered to death during an interrogation by Military Intelligence on November 26, 2003, in Al Qaim, Iraq. A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of General Mowhoush, lists “asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression” as the cause of death and cites bruises from the impact with a blunt object. New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by MI, died during interrogation.”

* A detainee at Abu Ghraib Prison, captured by Navy Seal Team number seven, died on November 4, 2003, during an interrogation by Navy Seals and “OGA.” A previously released autopsy report, that appears to be of Manadel Al Jamadi, shows that the cause of his death was “blunt force injury complicated by compromised respiration.” New documents specifically record the circumstances of death as “Q by OGA and NSWT died during interrogation.”

* An Afghan civilian died from “multiple blunt force injuries to head, torso and extremities” on November 6, 2003, at a Forward Operating Base in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Abdul Wahid.)

* A 52-year-old male Iraqi was strangled to death at the Whitehorse detainment facility on June 6, 2003, in Nasiriyah, Iraq. His autopsy also revealed bone and rib fractures, and multiple bruises on his body. (Facts in the autopsy report appear to match the previously reported case of Nagm Sadoon Hatab.)

The ACLU has previously released autopsy reports for two detainees who were tortured by U.S. forces in Bagram, Afghanistan, believed to be Mullah Habibullah and an Afghan man known as Dilawar.

“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

The documents were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

As part of the FOIA lawsuit brought by the ACLU, a federal judge recently ordered the Defense Department to turn over photographs and videotapes depicting the abuse of prisoners held by the United States at Abu Ghraib. That decision has been stayed until October 26. The government has not yet indicated whether it is going to appeal the court's decision.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To date, more than 77,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The documents released today are available online at http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Yeah, I know. Who gives a shit about a bunch of Iraqis, right? After all, they were probably terrorists, eh? Aren't all Iraqi males terrorists? And heck, the United States is always on the side of truth and justice, right? No American soldier would ever commit a war crime. Nooooooo, we're too fucking superior to be commiting crimes! Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, right? Turn Iraq into a parking lot! Fuck 'em all, eh?

American Terrorism Is the Deadliest

2005-10-24T00:38:00.000-07:00

Consider this.

Over the past 20 years, "non-state" and "jihadist" terrorists have killed approximately 5,000 Western civilians (this figure includes Israelis killed by terrorism, as well as the 2,752 people killed on 9/11). According to calculations, the average annual death rate of Western civilians (current population about 760 million) from non-state violence has been 0.00003 per 100 per year i.e. 0.00003% (over the last 20 years).

Now consider this.

As of October 2004, it was estimated that approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians had already been killed as a direct result of the American war and occupation in Iraq.

Can somebody please tell me why we are the ones living in fear?

Top 10 List: Buried Stories

2005-10-20T23:55:00.000-07:00

10. Pat Robertson's Business Ties
You would think the media would investigate Pat Robertson's ties to the former ruthless dictator Charles Taylor of Liberia. After all, the media frequently seeks Pat Robertson's opinions as though his opinions are worthy of recognition. But the media completely fails to investigate the facts surrounding Robertson's $15 million investment in the Liberian gold mining venture known as Freedom Gold Limited-- allegedly negotiated between Robertson and Taylor. Taylor is only responsible for the deaths of over 200,000 Liberians.

The media might be interested in further investigating and reporting on the fact that Charles Taylor harbored key al-Qaeda operatives for months after September 11 in exchange for a payment of $1 million. In essence, Pat Robertson is doing business with an al-Qaeda supporter.

9. Halliburton and Bechtel
It sure would be nice if somebody in the media actually gave proper attention to Dick Cheney's Halliburton and George Schultz's Bechtel. After all, these two defense contractors have made a fortune from the War on Terror, as well as the War in Iraq.

According to a recent non-partisan congressional report, Vice President Cheney's Halliburton stock options rose in value by 3281% in one year.

An analysis released today by the Office of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reveals that Vice President Cheney's Halliburton stock options have increased in value 3,281 percent in one year. The stock options, which were worth $241,498 one year ago are now valued at $8,165,489.07. In light of the surging value of Vice President Cheney's holdings, Senator Lautenberg reiterated his call for the Vice President to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL). Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options and receives almost $200,000 a year in deferred salary from Halliburton.

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so do the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and they were awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it. The Vice President should sever his financial ties to Halliburton once and for all."

Considering the fact that Cheney is one of the architect's of the War in Iraq, it would be nice if the media spent some time shedding light on Cheney's blatant self-interest. Furthermore, in light of the fact that Halliburton is frequently given "no-bid contracts" it would be nice if the media illuminated the fiduciary breach involved with Cheney's obvious self-dealing.

8. War in Iraq
Sure, we hear about the War in Iraq, but do we ever get to SEE the War in Iraq? If you watch a PBS Frontline Special, you may see some real footage from Iraq. But you will rarely see any "war footage" on the nightly news. No caskets. No funerals. By omission, the media has tacitly supported the war the whole way through.

7. 52 Warnings
1. In the 105 days before 9/11, the FAA received 52 warnings that mentioned Osama Bin Laden. One of the warnings was a CD-ROM that discussed suicide hijackers.

2. President Bush decided to take a vacation for the month of August in 2001.

3. On August 6th Bush received the infamous memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the US." Bush remained on vacation.

4. On the morning of 9/11, both Bush and Condi thought, "what a terrible accident."

6. The Downing Street Memo
What is the Downing Street Memo? Unless you are a blogger or a news junkie, you probably have never even heard of it. Yet it's only the smoking gun which shows that the Bush and Blair regimes fixed the intelligence and facts around the policy of going to war in Iraq. The memo conclusively shows that, as of eight months prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush and Blair regimes had already decided to invade. Our president lied to us to lead us to war. Apart from a few reports on the subject, the media has almost completely ignored the Downing Street Memo.

5. 9/11 Omissions and Distortions
Failing to realize that the government's version of the events of 9/11 are every bit as much a "conspiracy theory" as the alternate theories, the media has failed to objectively investigate the glaring omissions and distortions contained in the 9/11 Kean Commission Report. The media also failed to realize that the 9/11 Commission Report, at the outset, presumed the truth of the government conspiracy theory and merely cherry picked evidence that tended to support that theory while ignoring evidence which tended to contradict or impeach the government's version.

Just one example (there are so many more!), the media completely failed to investigate the facts surrounding the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad.

There are so many omissions and distortions. If only the media gave a shit.

4. Patriot Act II
Also known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, the act was written by John Ashcroft's Department of Justice. The draft version of the bill would greatly expand the powers of the United States government to unprecedented levels, while simultaneously eliminating or curtailing judicial review of these powers.

Provisions of the initial draft version included:

* Removal of court-ordered prohibitions against police agencies spying on domestic groups.

* The FBI would be granted powers to conduct searches and surveillance based on intelligence gathered in foreign countries, without first obtaining a court order.

* Creation of a DNA database of suspected terrorists.

* Prohibition of any public disclosure of the names of alleged terrorists, including those who have been arrested.

* Exemptions from civil liability for people and businesses who voluntarily turn private information over to the government.

* Criminalization of the use of encryption to conceal incriminating communications.

* Automatic denial of bail for persons accused of terrorism-related crimes, reversing the ordinary common law burden of proof principle. All alleged terrorists would be required to demonstrate why they should be released on bail, rather than the government being required to demonstrate why they should be held.

* Expansion of the list of crimes eligible for the death penalty.

* The Environmental Protection Agency would be prevented from releasing "worst case scenario" information to the public about chemical plants.

* United States citizens whom the government finds to be either members of or providing material support to terrorist groups could have their US citizenship revoked and be deported to foreign countries.

* Revokes portions of the Freedom of Information Act.

* Allows the Bush Administration to revoke your residency or U.S. citizenship.

And so much more!

It sure would be nice if the media informed the public that their liberties are about to be taken away like never before.

3. Connections between the Bushes, Bin Laden's, and the Carlyle Group
As reported once in the foreign newspaper-- The Guardian:

"For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the [Carlyle Group] has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defense firms.

But since the start of the "war on terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $3.5bn - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.............What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the presidential election in the younger Bush's favor? It's a kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely a mark of Carlyle's success" (Emphasis Added.)

2. Voting Irregularities
Voting is merely the foundation of a democracy. Far be it for the media to actually investigate the myriad examples of voting irregularities.

1. Anthrax
Does anybody else find this quite odd? One week after the 9-11 attacks, somebody or some group, mailed a bunch of letters containing lethal anthrax spores to two Democrat United States Senators, as well as, certain media outlets and anchormen who the ultra-right have repeatedly accused of being "too liberal," including Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and the New York Times.

Immediately after the attacks, the country was lead to believe that the anthrax attacks were possibly the work of Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. And while that perception existed, the Anthrax story was front page news.

Then, after an FBI investigation, it was learned that Anthrax spores came from a United States Army Laboratory. It was also learned that the suspect was most likely a "government insider". It was also learned, that the Anthrax attack must have been planned, to a large extent, prior to September 11!

But for some strange reason (or maybe not very strange at all!), the Anthrax story vanished from our radar.

We know a few things from the FBI investigations, however. One, the Anthrax spores were a strain that came from the United States, most likely from Fort Detrick (yes...the United States Army!). Two, the anthrax was mailed from the United States. Three, the anthrax was mailed to liberal/democrat Senators only. No conservative Senators were targeted. Four, anthrax was mailed to media parties who, prior to the attack, were accused of being "liberal" (e.g. Dan Rather, the New York Times) and media who were accused of being too hard on Bush's family (National Enquirer). For good measure, one hoax letter, however, was sent to Fox News. (a red herring?). Lastly, we know that the anthrax "attacks" had to be planned in advance of 9-11.

This story hasn't even been mentioned in the news in the past few years. How could that be possible? How can a terrorist attack originating at a United States Army Base against certain Liberal American figures be forgotten?

Was it a coincidence that the anthrax attacks took place within a week of 9-11?
And is it a coincidence that after 9-11 and the anthrax mailings, George W. Bush managed to take this country into war against Iraq? Is it surprising that most liberals were too weakened after 9-11 and the anthrax attacks to stand up to the president as he unveiled a ridiculously weak case for war against Iraq?

One last bit of news to make your head spin-- did you know that the White House (including Bush, Cheney, and the Cabinet) were given the antibiotic CIPRO on September 11, seven (7) days prior to the date the anthrax letters were even mailed? 9-11 didn't involve anthrax, it involved planes. Why would they do such a thing?

For more info and a timeline on the anthrax case, go HERE.

Just consider the effect the anthrax scare had on America's psyche back in 2001 and 2002. Consider how Colin Powell, on behalf of the Bush administration, used anthrax during the UN presentation prior to the lead up to the war in Iraq. Why didn't they mention that the anthrax used in September of 2001 originated from a US Army base?

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Out the Cheney 'Cabal'

2005-10-19T20:18:00.000-07:00

With sharpshooter precision, the top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, gave an indicting speech to an audience at the New America think tank yesterday. In the speech, Colonel Wilkerson publicly indicted the Bush administration, making the following charges:

** The detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere was “a concrete example” of the decision-making problem, with the president and other top officials in effect giving the green light to soldiers to abuse detainees. “You don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it.”

** Condoleezza Rice, the former national security adviser and now secretary of state, was “part of the problem”. Instead of ensuring that Mr Bush received the best possible advice, “she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president.”

** The military, particularly the army and marine corps, is overstretched and demoralised. Officers, Mr Wilkerson claimed, “start voting with their feet, as they did in Vietnam. . . and all of a sudden your military begins to unravel.”

** Mr Wilkerson said former president George H.W. Bush “one of the finest presidents we have ever had” understood how to make foreign policy work. In contrast, he said, his son was “not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either.”

** “There's a vast difference between the way George H.W. Bush dealt with major challenges, some of the greatest challenges at the end of the 20th century, and effected positive results in my view, and the way we conduct diplomacy today.”

If you have the opportunity, I highly recommend you view the speech HERE. If you don't have time to watch it all, start at the 48 minute mark of the video and simply view the question and answer session.

Note: Colonel Wilkerson had previously stated that his involvement with Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

Year 2007: President Condoleeza Rice?

2005-10-18T23:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, U.S. News reported on the potentiality of a Cheney resignation. If Cheney resigns, pursuant to the 25th Amendment, President Bush would be authorized to nominate a new Vice President. U.S. News is reporting the likely candidate would be Condoleeza Rice.

Now, I know we are getting far ahead of ourselves here, but this is a blog, so I'm allowed to get ahead. Thus....

Imagine Condi Rice becomes the new V.P. after Cheney resigns. Then in 2006, if present conditions remain or further deteriorate for the Republicans, it's certainly not unlikely that the Democrats would win back the House of Representatives. If that happens, it's rather certain that a Democratic House would move to impeach Bush immediately for the lies which took this country to war in Iraq.

Remember, by that time, Bush would be Roveless and Cheneyless-- perhaps sitting at a 30% approval rating....or worse! And much like President Nixon before him, it's certainly not hard to imagine that Bush would be forced into resignation.

Accordingly, Coni Rice would succeed Bush in the same fashion as unelected Vice President Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon in 1974 after the elected vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned in 1973. Just like Gerald Ford, Condi Rice would become president without ever having been elected to any executive office!

Who knows....maybe she would nominate Colin Powell as her Vice President?

Imagine how pissed off the Republicans would be if two African-Americans were in office. They would lose their racist base overnight!

The amazing thing is, none of this is too far-fetched (except maybe the Colin Powell appointment).

Forgotten in Iraq: Eisenhower's Cross of Iron

2005-10-17T23:56:00.000-07:00

Recently, many bloggers have reminded us of President Eisenhower's 1961 speech wherein he presciently warned us of the need to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

But there is another speech by President Dwight D. Eisenhower that is just as timeless, and perhaps just as important. It is known as the Cross of Iron speech.

In that speech, delivered in 1953 to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower humanely set forth five precepts which the United States should be governed by:

"First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow-nations.

Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations."

Today, as our military occupies Iraq, and as our government attempts to impose a form of government and economy on the people of Iraq, we must ask ourselves-- 'what happened to these precepts?' Why have they been so ignored?

Could it be that, as Eisenhower warned us, the military-industrial complex has "acquired unwarranted influence"? Examining current events in light of Eisenhower's Cross of Iron speech, can there be any other explanation?

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Now that we have already spent approximately $220 billion dollars on the war in Iraq, it bears asking-- 'How many schools could we have constructed?'

How many homes could we have built?

How many bushels of wheat could we have purchased to feed the hungry?

How many hospitals to aid the sick?

"This is one of those times in the affairs of nations when the gravest choices must be made, if there is to be a turning toward a just and lasting peace.

It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.

It calls upon them to answer the questions that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?"

How do YOU respond? Is there no other way?

The Bulldog Manifesto Is Now Linked by The Rude Pundit

2005-10-17T02:30:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty excited about this.... One of my all-time favorite bloggers, The Rude Pundit, has added this site to his blog roll.

The Rude Pundit is raw, exhilirating, entertaining, controversial, insightful, nasty, smart, and downright artistic. If you've never visited his blog, I strongly suggest you make your way over there.

I suppose most people might issue a warning along with this recommendation. After all, The Rude Pundit uses some "bad words." As a result, some might say that he is profane, or even obscene. I beg to differ. To me, CNN is profane. Fox News is obscene.

The Rude Pundit is liberating.

You are a Conspiracy Theorist!

2005-10-14T00:31:00.000-07:00

A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.
- Lao Tzu

You area conspiracy theorist, and you probably don't even know it.

You read about conspiracy theories everyday in your newspaper. You hear about conspiracy theories everynight on the evening news telecast. You gather around office watercoolers, and you talk about conspiracy theories-- and most of the time, you believe in them without realizing that you have made a leap of faith to do so. You see, you believe in conspiracy theories in such instances where the conspiracy theory does not make you feel uncomfortable.

Then suddenly, along comes a well-supported, factually based conspiracy theory to make you feel squeemish. A conspiracy theory that challenges your beliefs. A theory that causes you to question your worldview, and perhaps even your identity. A conspiracy theory that would require you to make a paradigm shift just in order to examine it. And it is at this point that you "rationally" decide to denounce conspiracy theories. It is at this point where cognitive dissonance takes place, and you belittle the entire notion of conspiracy theories altogether (even though you believe in them elsewhere, perhaps unknowingly). It is at this point where you scoff and make references to "tin foil hats" and a living Elvis Presley.

It is only when a non-dominant, progressive, or controversial alternative theory or description of events is set forth, that you choose to backhandedly dismiss conspiracy theories with absolute finality. If a particular conspiracy theory illicits an uncomfortable feeling, beckons self-examination and/or a paradigm shift, more likely than not, you will deem that theory 'irrebuttably false.'

At the point where a conspiracy theory challenges your world view, you suddenly use the term "conspiracy theory" as a perjorative term.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

A "conspiracy" is defined as "an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action."

A "theory" is defined as, "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Let's look at a couple examples, shall we?

Story #1
First we have the following news item reported by Reuters today:

"HARARE, Zimbabwe (Reuters) -- President Robert Mugabe's guards briefly detained the U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe after he entered a restricted security zone near the African leader's residence, state television reported Thursday....[snip]....a calculated disregard of the rules governing relations between states ... clearly intended to provoke an unwarranted diplomatic incident."

In this story, Reuters is reporting that more than one guard calculatedly (e.g. by agreement, either expressed or implied) broke rules governing relations between states. This is a story about an alleged conspiracy-- a group of people coming together to break a rule or law.

Now, who would question this story's veracity? In my estimation, most people would likely accept this story without any extra scrutiny. After all, the story does not cause us any personal discomfort, nor does it provoke us to examine ourselves. The story does not challenge any of our world views. Yet this story is unquestionably a conspiracy theory.

Is the story true? We really do not know for certain, we are left to either trust the media's description of events or not.

Story #2
Next, on Aug. 5, 1964, American news media reported that North Vietnamese forces -- for the second time in three days -- had launched unprovoked (e.g. illegal) attacks on U.S. ships in the Tonkin Gulf. The New York Times claimed that the U.S. government was retaliating "after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin." The Washington Post's headline stated: "American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression."

Once again, here we have a conspiracy theory set forth by the news media. Similar to the present day Zimbabwe story, the Gulf of Tonkin story was, at that time, not too hard to swallow. In fact, the conspiracy theory was so believable when it was reported that, two days later, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed by Congress authorizing the president "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression."

Essentially, the public's unflinching acceptance of the government and media's "conspiracy theory" set the stage for America's entrance into what became known as the Vietnam War. How many Americans even realized, at the time, that they bought into a conspiracy theory?

In the Tonkin case, history now shows us that the government and media presented a false conspiracy theory to the American public. Little did most people know at the time, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as theorized in the newspapers, was a lie. Recently released tapes of White House phone conversations indicate the attack probably never happened.

Now consider this. What would have happened if, at that time, another newspaper (or alternative media source) reported that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie? What if somebody challenged the mainstream theory with credible evidence? In 1964, how many people would have considered the possibility that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was indeed a lie? In order to believe a "conspiracy theory" like that, one would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that the government or media was fabricating the truth. One would have to face the uncomfortable possibility that their country was capable of lying on a grand scale. Most likely, a person would have to experience a complete paradigm shift just to entertain critical examination of the alternate theory.

Essentailly, we would have two opposing conspiracy theories. Which one should we believe? The easiest theory to digest? The theory with the most evidence? The easiest theory to explain?

You see, this is where most people get a bit squeemish. This is where most people begin to invoke the "be rational" or "common sense" card. What many people do not realize though, is that they are invoking "rational thinking" and "common sense" not because they have suddenly partaken in critical examination, but merely because they are viscerally repugnant to the alternate theory. In essence, they are not being rational at all. They are being emotional.

Are conspiracy theories ever true? Of course. Generally speaking, preachers don't tell on preachers; soldiers don't tell on soldiers; cops don't tell on cops; doctors don't tell on doctors; and so on. Politicians will not turn on one another unless there is a greater goal to be gained. Conspiracies, for the most part, develop quite organically. Most of us don't tell on our friends, and from this, you can understand why we shouldn't just immediately shut ourselves off to the notion of a conspiracy.

Just look at the run up to the Iraq War. There may have been a conspiracy amongst the Neocons to take this country to war. Shouldn't we investigate it? Of course we should. We should investigate all colorable conspiracy theories, even the ones that make us feel squeemish. Even the ones that challenge popularly held theories of "facts."

Are conspiracy theories ever false? Of course. In fact, it's safe to say that they are false more often than they are not. But, we are not served by dismissing conspiracy altogether, we ARE served by investigating it. And by investigation, I mean critical investigation. The worst thing we could do is simply turn our attention away from conspiracy (or any other quest for knowledge, for that matter). By doing so, we allow them to go unchecked. We deny ourselves potential knowledge, and perhaps even justice.

This is why I laugh when I hear somebody use the term "conspiracy theory" as a perjorative term. I laugh because most people fail to recognize that conspiracy theories are everywhere, and more often than not, most people swallow conspiracy theories without recognizing that they have done so.

Gulp!

What we need is critical examination. What we need is an open mind. We need to examine theories, even when they make us feel sick to our stomach. And we need to dismiss theories only when they are no longer colorable. But so long as they are colorable, we must, at the minimum, keep our minds open to the possibility that they may be true.

As humans, we tend to seek absolute order. We crave answers. Generally speaking, we do not feel comfortable with the inherent insecurity of chaos. But it is from chaos that we may ultimately find knowledge and wisdom, even when we don't find absolute answers. It is the balance between order and chaos, knowing and not-knowing, believing and not believing, which brings us the greatest fruit. It is the marriage of doubt and faith which illuminates the never-ending path of knowledge.

Impeach Bush Coalition -- One Month Report

2005-10-12T11:02:00.000-07:00

It was a about a month ago that The Martian Anthropologist and I came up with the idea to start the Impeach Bush Coalition.

Oh, what a month it has been!

Considering the fact that both the Martian and Bulldog Manifesto blogs are relatively new to the blogosphere, our campaign to promote discussion about impeachment began truly as a grassroots effort.

On September 8, 2005, it began with A Call to All Blogs. Within days, Martian and I had designed a new blog and bloggers were sending in their requests to sign up.

Soon thereafter, a corner ribbon and graphic banners were designed. This helped spread the word around the blogosphere.

Thankfully, IBC members have graciously offered up their support. They have written well-researched articles related to impeachment (just to name a few-- 1, 2, and 3). They have participated in an email writing and letter writing campaign. They have chased pollsters, demanding more polling on impeachment.

It's been a wild month -- culminating with a fundraising drive to raise money so that we could hire an independent polling firm to survey the public re: impeachment. Initially organized and promoted by IBC member and blogger Luke Ryland of Wot is it Good 4, the IBC lent it's support, teaming up with Democrats.com and AfterDowningStreet.Org.

As a result of the fundraising drive, $10,446.00 has been raised so far (as of October 11), and the polling has already begun.

The After Downing Street Coalition hired independent polling firm Ipsos Public Affairs to conduct a poll during the period of October 6-9. By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq.

More polling is on the way (perhaps after some indictments are handed down?).

The impeachment movement has begun. As the topic of impeachment becomes more common in discussion, impeachment becomes more viable as an option. And regardless of whether or not you ultimately believe impeachment can be successful, it is a matter of justice which causes us to seek it. Success or failure be damned. We seek justice. Impeachment is just.

So this is our first month! Not bad considering it began with two relatively new bloggers.

But there is plenty of work to be done:

Tell every polling company to poll on impeachment! LINK

Tell Your Representatives to Impeach Bush! LINK

Tell the media to wake up! LINK

Please sign up with the Impeach Bush Coalition. (Email us at: prideof55@myway.com).

We don't sell anything on the IBC blog. We don't advertise on the blog. We want nothing from you other than your willingness to stand side-by-side with us for impeachment. Heck, we will even link to your blog. We all want a link, don't we? :-)

Last but not least: I want to thank everybody who has taken part this past month. I have been touched by the words of support we have received, and amazed by the offers from people around the world to pitch in and help. It has been quite a positive experience just to see how much some people care. Special thanks to all the IBC contributors The Brouhaha, Club Lefty, Democrats.com, L'esprit de Christophe, On The Left Tip (RenaRF), The Rudicus Report, Stinkin' Desert Post, The Truth is Out There, and last but certainly not least, Wot is it Good 4 by Luke Ryland.

The Latest Insanity from Pat Robertson

2005-10-10T23:13:00.001-07:00

On Sunday's episode of CNN's Late Edition, Pat Robertson said the following about Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez:

"He is negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material. And he also sent $1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11."

First off, how would Pat Robertson know that Venezuela is negotiating with Iran for nuclear material when nobody else has reported this allegation? So far, Venezuela has merely endorsed Iran's nuclear aspirations. That's it. Is Pat Robertson privy to some sort of classified memo? My guess is, as usual, Pat Robertson is lying.

Second, even if we assume Pat's arguendo to be true, the Iranians don't even have weapon grade uranium (nor plutonium)! In the worst case scenario, it would take Iran ten years to make weapons grade uranium. So even if Chavez is trying to get on the "pre-order list," it's completely premature to turn this into an issue. But like I said, there is nothing on record even showing that President Chavez is actively trying to procure nuclear material from Iran.

Now, as it relates to Robertson's allegation that Chavez "sent $1.2 million in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9/11." Once again, there is nothing anywhere to substantiate this claim. Either Pat Robertson is privy to classified information, or he is simply lying again. What do you think is more likely?

The bogus Kean Commission Report on 9/11 fails to mention anything about Venezuela and Osama bin Laden, and God knows the Kean Commission lobbed plenty of softballs for the administration. [Then again, the Kean Commission failed to mention that Mahmood Ahmed, head of Pakistan's ISI (Pakistan's version of the CIA), wired $100,000.00 to alleged hijacker Mohamed Atta in August of 2001, and just so happened to meet with George Tenet (then head of the CIA) from September 4 through September 9, 2001....but I digress.]

Pat Robertson is crazy. It should be pretty clear to everyone by now. Surely even the media should be able to pick up on this fact by now. At what point will they stop pointing a camera at Pat Robertson? At what point will the media realize that Pat Robertson is simply an egomaniacally bold-faced liar? How many more times will they expose us to Pat Robertson's lunacy?

Venezuela Switches to Euros -- Ominous News for the American Economy

2005-10-10T02:23:00.000-07:00

The U.S. economy faces utter collapse if OPEC and other oil-producing countries were to begin pricing their oil in euros rather than dollars. When Iraq tried to switch to euros in 2000, they were attacked by the USA soon thereafter.

Recently, Business Week reported that oil producer, Venezuela, "has moved its central bank foreign reserves out of U.S. banks, liquidated its investments in U.S. Treasury securities and placed the funds in Europe."

The importance of this news should not be underestimated.

Dollar Hegemony
Generally speaking, international trade has become a process in which the U.S. produces dollars and the rest of the world produces goods and/or services that dollars can buy. Nations trade to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to amass dollar reserves in order to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies. As it currently stands, if a country wants to prevent damage to its currency, that nation's central banks must acquire and hold dollar reserves in amounts corresponding to their own currencies in circulation. Fortunately for the U.S., this system (in place since WWII) creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces the world's central banks to acquire and hold even more dollar reserves, making the dollar stronger still.

This phenomenon, known as "dollar hegemony," is created by the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, such as oil, are denominated in dollars. And because oil is priced in "dollars" for the most part, everyone accepts dollars as the currency of choice.

The strength of the dollar since 1945 is a result, for the most part, of the dollar being the international reserve currency for global oil transactions (i.e., "petro-dollar"). As a result of the dollar being the standard denomination for oil transactions, the U.S. prints hundreds of billions of these fiat petro-dollars, which are then used by nation states to purchase oil from the oil producing nations. These petro-dollars are subsequently recycled from the oil producing countries back into the U.S. via Treasury Bills or other dollar-denominated assets such as U.S. stocks, real estate, etc.

Because of this system, dollar reserves must be invested in U.S. assets which produces a capital accounts surplus for the U.S. economy. Luckily for the United States, the U.S. capital account surplus finances the U.S. trade deficit to a certain extent. [But if the capital account surplus should diminish (as countries shift to euros rather than dollars) and the U.S. trade deficit continues to grow even wider, the American economy will rupture quickly.]

Since the U.S. prints the petro-dollars, for all intents and purposes, the U.S. controls the flow of oil. When oil is denominated in dollars as the only fiat currency for trading in oil, an argument can be made that the U.S. essentially owns the world's oil for free.

So what happens if the oil producing nations decide to suddenly begin trading oil on the euro standard? Without being dramatic, the United States would go into economic ruin. Oil-consuming nations would be forced to flush dollars out of their central bank reserves and replace them with euros. The dollar would crash in value and the consequences would be similar to the types of currency collapses we have seen in Mexico, Argentina, etc. Foreign investments would pour out of the U.S. securities markets. Similar to the 1930's, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, many banks would collapse overnight.

And that's just what would happen in this country. America's economic crash would result in the economic crash of many other nations. Most notably-- Japan.

We all know what happened to the last major oil producing country that shifted from dollars to euros. We also know what might happen to other major oil producing countries if they shift to euros.

As we have discussed at The Bulldog Manifesto (here and here), history is filled with examples where the United States has used military force to protect it's economic interests.

And now that Venezuela is shifting, what will happen to them?

"Most Peace-Loving of Nations" (Part 2)

2005-10-06T23:43:00.000-07:00

Continued from yesterday's post.....

1961: Escalation of troops in Vietnam

1961: CIA involved in a plot to assassinate France's President Charles de Gaulle.

1961-64: CIA uses disgruntled Brazilian army colonels to overthrow President Koao Goulart. As a result of the ensuing coup d'etat, the new puppet regime in Brazil allows the CIA to set up a political police apparatus which ostensibly serves as the prototype for the U.S. "Office of Public Safety" (OPS), the mechanism through which death squads are created later in the decade within Latin America.

1962: Cuban Missile Crisis.

1962: The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Unit lands in Thailand to support the country "from communism."

1962-76: From October 1962 until 1976, the United States plays a role of "military support" in Laos.

1962-96: CIA launches its most sustained counterinsurgency campaign ever, lasting over thirty years, supporting the military dictatorship (including the use of torture) it installed in Guatemala after the 1954 coup. By 1994, over 200,000 would die, mostly Mayan Indians, at the hands of the dictatorship.

1963: Troops land in Haiti (again!) to protect American business interests.

1963-93: U.S. agrees to build nuclear reactors for India, allowing India to begin nuclear weapon production in 1974.

1964: U.S. provides airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.

1964-85: U.S. induces a rightwing coup d'etat in the Dominican Republic. A naval force is stationed in Panama to deteran initiative by Panama to nationalize the Canal. Military forces begin to move into Thailand, begining a twenty year long counterinsurgency campaign.

1964-72: The OPS created by the CIA in Brazil is used against Uruguay. During this period,approximately 20,000 Uruguayans are murdered and/or subjected to sophisticated torture. Thousands are wrongly jailed for indefinite periods. In 1972, the CIA finally overthrows the Uruguayan government.

1964-74: CIA sponsors a series of military plots against the democratic government. In 1967, a coup d'etat finally takes place, and the government is toppled. The US manages to put a military junta led by Georges Papadaopoulis into power. Over the next seven (7) years, hundreds of Greek opposition leaders are murdered, and thousands are tortured and imprisoned by the American-led junta.

1965: CIA uses the Indonesian military to overthrow the Sukarno government in Indonesia.

1965: The U.S. fabricates the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, using the fraudulent attack as justification to engage the North Vietnamese. This event sets off a chain of events which will evenetually lead to the death of 3.2 million Indochinese over the next ten years.

1965: 23,000 troops are used in the Dominican Republic to put down a popular revolt meant to restore democratic governance.

1965-73: Secret bombing of Laos begins. Two million tons of munitions are dropped on the tiny country by 1973.

1966: In Ghana, the CIA overthrows pan-Africanist president Kwame Nkruhama in a coup d'etat. A dictatorship is then established in Ghana with U.S. military and economic support.

1966-69: The U.S. unlawfuly and repeatedly encroaches upon North Korea with Naval vessels. As a result, in 1968, the North Koreans seize an American spy ship, the Pueblo, and intern her crew. War is narrowly averted.

1967: A combined CIA/Special Forces group in Bolivia operates with an elite Bolivian unit, destroying a guerilla unit led by Ernesto "Che" Guevara. Guevara is wounded, captured, and then executed.

1967: The United States sends three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.

1967: 4,000 troops are sent into Detroit to quell a rebellion in Detroit. MOre troops are sent later during a massive anti-Vietnam war protest.

1967-74: The Army Security Agency and other military intelligence units begin Operation Minaret, illegally surveilling the communications and activities of American citizens. Once the public finds out about it, the government shuts down Operation Minaret. But immediately thereafter, the CIA begins operations Chaos, Merimac, and Resistance-- all for the same purpose as Operation Minaret. The three programs continue until 1974.

1968: After Martin Luther King Jr's assassination, 70,000 troops are deployed nationwide to quell civil unrest.

1969: 40,000 troops are deployed to Washington D.C. during a huge protest against the Vietnam War.

1969-72: The CIA, with DoD cooperation, ushers LSD and methamphetamines into the cities. Vast amounts of heroine are also released in the African American and Latino communities.

1969-99: U.S. enters into a thirty (30) year agreement with Argentina to build nuclear plants in Argentina, resulting in Argentina attaining nuclear weapons production capability in 1985.

1970-71: The CIA arms rightwing insurgents in Costa Rica to bring about a coup d'etat of the liberal democratic government.

1971: U.S. and South Vietnamese forces invade Laos.

1972-2002: U.S. enters into a thirty (30) year agreement with Taiwan to build nuclear reactors resulting in a Taiwanese nuclear weapon program in 1979.

1973: Military airlift of advanced weaponry and other materials to bolster Israel for war against its Arab neighbors.

1973: Counterinsurgency specialists, FBI, and U.S. Marshals are used to put down a Native American "uprising" at Wounded Knee, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.

1973-76: The CIA sponsors a coup d'etat in Chile, resulting in the overthrow of democratically-elected President Salvadoe Allende. Allende is assassinated during the coup, as are other. U.S. military advisors then join the CIA in propping up military strongman Augustus Pinochet as Chile's new leader. Pinochet brutalizes the Chilean people over the course of the next 27 years.

1973-86: Despite "ironclad evidence" of its carcinogenic/mutogenic effects, the DoD denies any link between diseased veterans and Dioxin (aka "Agent Orange").

1973-2002: U.S. enters into an agreement with South Korea to build nuclear reactors for the South Koreans, resulting in South Koreas ability to produce nuclear weapons in 1985.

1974: Troops land in Cyprus to rptect American commercial interests

1974-2002: U.S. enters into a an agreement to build nuclear reactors for Portugal so that Portugal can attain nuclear weapons by 1984. However, due to a nuclear reactor problem, in 1981, Portugal shuts down its nuclear reactor.

1975: Marines land in Cambodia and engage in combat.

1975: The CIA, in conjuction with the Shah of Iran and the Mossad of Israel, establish a program to arm Kurdish guerillas in northern Iraq. Later, when American interests change, the U.S. abandon the Kurds, resulting in the death of 50,000 Kurds at the hands of Iraq and Turkey.

1975-78: CIA intervenes in Zaire to reinforce dictator Mobutu Seso Seko. Moroccan troops are used as proxies for Americans in Zaire. In exchange, theMoroccans receive military support from the U.S. in Morocco's war against guerillas at home.

1975-79: The CIA uses mercenaries to bolster the regime of Anastasio Somosa, a U.S. puppet in Nicaragua. The dicator is finally overthrown by Sandanista guerillas-- 60,000 die.

1975-91: The CIA and mercenaries sponsor and support prowestern factions within Angola. 60,000 people die in fighting as these factions try to seize power.

1976: Troops land in Lebanon during a civil war created, in part, by Israel's Mossad.

1976-80: CIA subverts military and police officials in Jamaica, using them to depose the liberal government of Michael Manley.

1977: Troops are sent to Uganda in a show of force against anti-Israel dictator, Idi Amin.

1978-80: Troops are sent to Iran as Iran collapses.

1979-81: The CIA employs mercenaries to stage a coup d'etat (unsuccessful) in the Seychelles Islands.

1979-91: CIA and Special Forces establish a counterinsurgency campaign in El Salvador, eventually costing the lives of over 150,000 Salvadorans.

1980-91: The CIA and Special Forces provide extensive training and support to MUjahadeen guerillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Among those trained, Ramsey Yousef (World Trade Center bomber in 1993) and Osama bin Laden.

1981: The U.S. shoots down Libyan planes in the Gulf of Sidra.

1981-91: The Iran-Contra covert operation takes place. In order to support Honduras, the CIA sells drugs to raise money, and sells weapons to Iran (in violation of an embargo). The money is used to fund a campaign against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua. The Sandanistats are eventually deposed at the cost of 85,000 lives. A U.S. puppet regime is installed in Nicaragua.

1982: Logistical support is provided to Great Britain in its war against Argentina over the Argentine Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.

1982-84: Marines land in Lebanon (again) to support and Israeli invasion and partial occupation. The CIA uses the threat of subversion to coerce the government of Surinam into refusing Cuban aid.

1982-96: Troops deployed to the Sinai to assist Israel.

1983: U.S. invades the tiny island of Grenada and topples the government there. A U.S.-friendly puppet is installed.

1983: The U.S. transfers sophisticated weaponry to the antidemocratic Saudi Arabian government.

1984-89: Special Forces and the CIA undertake a prolonged counterinsurgency campaign in the Phillipines in order to defeat leftist guerillas. 30,000 die.

1985: The U.S. bombs Triploi and Benghazi in Libya, personally targeting the head of Libya, Muamar Qadaffi. The attack is made in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco, however, German intelligence had already concluded that Libya was not involved in the disco bombing.

1985: After the International Court of Justice enters an opinion declaring U.S. military operations in Nicaragua to be in violation of international law, the U.S. (under Reagan) pulls out of the ICJ and thereby repudiates the ICJ's jurisdiction.

1987-88: The U.S.S. Vincennes shoots down an unarmed and clearly identified Iranian commercial airliner flying over the Persian Gulf, killing 290. At the time, the U.S. happens to be supporting Iraq against Iran in the Iran/Iraq War. The captain of the Vincennes is decorated as a result of this incident, citing his "bravery" during the incident.

1989: The U.S. shoots down Libyan aircraft (again) as they fly over the Gulf of Sidra

1989: U.S. troops dispatched to the Phillippines to prevent a coup.

1989-90: The U.S. invades the tiny country of Panama with a massive force. As a result, the U.S. topples the government, installs a U.S.-friendly regime, and arrests Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega who was himself a former CIA "asset". Hundreds of Panamanians are killed.

1990: Troops are sent to Liberia to protect business assets.

1991-94: Troops are sent to Somalia to protect U.S. business interests in the Horn of Africa. Unsuccessful, the troops withdraw. But a smaller "peace keeping" force is kept behind to rid the country of its warlords. This plan results in the "Black Hawk Down" incident in which a few U.S. soldiers and thousands of Somalis are killed.

1991-2002: The U.S. assembles a coalition of countries to attack Iraq after the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait. Known as "Operation Desert Storm," Iraq's military and civilians infrastructure is pulverized as a result of the war. Nevertheless, as a term of treaty, the U.S. imposes "no-fly zones" over most of the country in Iraq, and regularly takes part in bombing campaigns throughout the country over the course of over ten years. Simultaneously, the U.S. spearheads an economic embargo against Iraq, lasting over ten years, during which 1 million Iraqis die as a result of the embargo (half of them children).

1992: Troops sent to Los Angeles after riots break out due to the Rodney King case.

1992-99: U.S. "peace keeping" forces sent into the former Yugoslavia in an effort to ensure that any government which emerges is pro-USA.

1992-2002: Just like the Agent Orange denials, the DoD denies, despite clear evidence, that there is any connection between depleted uranium usage in Iraq and what is known as "Gulf War Syndrome."

1993: Delta Force sniper teams are sent to assist the FBI in a protracted siege of the Branch Davidian Compund near Waco, Texas. By the end of it, 78 people, including 23 children, are massacred. Litigation reveals the existence of a highly classified "Praetor Protocol" under which the President is revealed to hold the authority to secretly "waive" Posse Comitatus constraints at his/her desire. In other words, the President may employ the military against the domestic population whenever and for whatever he/she so chooses.

1993-96: Troops sent to Haiti (again!) to establish U.S.-supported government. Troops are sent to Rwanda to evacuate Americans, but not interfere with the simultaneous genocide that is occuring there.

1995-2002: Federal troops are sent to take part in what are normally civilian operations, namely border patrol. In essence, this is another violation of Posse Comitatus.

1997: The U.S. bombs a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant in Sudan, in an attempt to bomb an al-Qaeda base. It turns out, the factory was never used by al-Qaeda, but the U.S. tries to quash this revelation.

1998-2002: The U.S. refuses to conform to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

1999: Delta Force troops are used against World Trade Organization protesters in Seattle (another violation of Posse Comitatus).

1999-2001: The U.S. deploys air and naval units to fight against Yugoslavia. The U.S. bombs Belgrade, destroying (by mistake) the Chinese embassy.

2001-: After the September 11, 2001 "attacks" by CIA asset Osama bin Laden, the U.S. undertakes a "War on Terror" against whomever it so chooses to label as a "terrorist." At the outset, this results in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. installs former Unocal executive Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan and begins construction on the highly coveted natural gas and oil pipeline. Osama Bin Laden has never been captured, and it seems that his capture is no longer a high priority.

2002-03: Special Forces are sent to the Phillippines to destroy the Abu Sayyaf guerilla group whom the U.S. government claims is linked to al-Qaeda. (However, many Filipinos believe Abu Sayyaf is a CIA front)

2002-03: Special Forces are sent to Chechnya and the Republic of Georgia.

2002-03: President Bush designates Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as being a part of the "Axis of Evil." Although not linked to al-Qaeda or the September 11 incident, the U.S. prepares for an invasion of Iraq.

2002: The U.S. fired smart missiles into sovereign Yemen, killing alleged terrorists.

2002-03: Selected Afghanis and alleged al-Qaeda operatives captured in Afghanistan are drugged and brought to secret prisons in Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. The prisoners are said to have no rights under internation law or otherwise, and are subsequently tortured.

2003-: Claiming that Iraq is an emminent danger to the U.S., and creating a justification for war based upon countless lies, the U.S. invades and occupies Iraq, toppling the Saddam Hussein government. Eventually Hussein is captured and imprisoned. Thousands of Iraqis are imprisoned, many of them tortured by American troops. Over 100,000 Iraqis have died in this war, to date. To date, nearly 2,000 American soldiers have died.

2003-: The U.S. has made numerous threats to the governments of Syria and Iran that 'they could be next.'

"Most Peace-Loving of Nations"

2005-10-05T23:07:00.000-07:00

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson stated (without cracking a smile):

"We go to war but grudgingly and then only when compelled by the requirements of restoring peace, justice, and good order, for we among all the peoples of the world comprise the most peace-loving of nations."

Funny thing is, when President Wilson made that statement, he failed to mention that from the country's inception, the United States has been involved in some military conflict nearly each and every year.

Since 1917, little has changed. Here is a chronology of American conflicts since President Wilson made his speech. Tell me how "peace loving" we really are....

1917: Marines land in China to influence an American friendly outcome to a Chinese political crisis.

1917: U.S. enters the Great War (World War I)

1917-21: American troops are used to break up a mining strike in Butte, Montana.

1918-19: U.S. army invades Mexico a total of nine times.

1918-20: U.S. sends troops to Panama to oversee an election (This was about the fifth or sixth time the U.S. had sent troops to Panama).

1918-20: Marines land in Vladivostock, Soviet Union to support counter-revolutionary forces in Siberia. Soon, the marines are joined by 7,000 army personnel. Another 5,000 troops are sent to Archangel to combat the Soviet forces (500 Americans die). A separate marine unit participates in a Marine landing on the Murman Coast of the USSR.

1919: American troops land at Trau, in Dalamatia to "maintain order" during a dispute between Italians and Serbs because of the threat the dispute poses to American commercial interests.

1919: Marines land in Constantinople, Turkey during a Greek occupation.

1919: Marines land in Honduras (again!) during yet another attempted revolution there.

1919: Troops are used to put down an AFL general strike in Seattle. Martial law is used.

1920: Troops are sent to Guatemala to quell labor unrest.

1920: Marines land in Kiukang, China to put down a riot threatening American commercial interests.

1920-22: A marine garrison is set up near Vladivostock to protect a radio facility.

1920-1922: The army is used to break strikes in ten states.

1921: Naval forces are posted on both sides of the Panamanian isthmus to influence a border dispute between Panama and Costa Rica.

1922: Troops sent to the city of Smyrna to "preserve order."

1922-23: Marines go ashore five (5) times in China to protect American interests in China.

1924-25: Troops are sent to Honduras (again) to oversee elections.

1924-25: Marines land in Shanghai to settle political disputes.

1925: Marines land in Honduras (again) to counter popular rebellion against the outcome of the U.S. supervised national election held a year earlier.

1925: Army intervenes in Panama (again) to put down a national strike which threatens American interests.

1926: Forces are put ashore in Hankow and Kiukiang, China to protect American business interests.

1926-33: Marines are dispatched to Nicaragua to reinforce the pro-American government against a popular uprising and coup d'etat attempt.

1927: Increased naval forces are sent to numerous Chinese port cities. Americans fire upon Chinese troops.

1932: Marines land in Shanghai (again).

1932: 600 troops are used against impoverished American veterans of World War I (the "Bonus Army") peacefully encamped in Washington D.C. The veterans were seeking payment from the government for unpaid bonuses owed unto them.

1933: Naval forces dispatched to Cuba to help prop American puppet in Cuba, Gerardo Machado.

1934: Marines land in Foochow, China to protect American property.

1937: A U.S. gunboat is sunk by Japanese forces in China.

1940: "Lend Lease" air and naval bases are established in Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad and British Guayana.

1941: U.S. troops occupy Greenland, Iceland, and Dutch Guyana. Navy engages in antisubmarine operations against Germany even though the two nations are not at war.

1941: F.D.R. violates the Posse Comitatus Act by using federal troops at an aircraft plant in Los Angeles in order to break up a strike.

1941-45: U.S. participation in World War II.

1945: U.S. drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1945: U.S. troops occupy Trieste.

1945-46: Troops are garissoned in Iran and China to counter the Soviets.

1945-52: War Department (Department of Defense) arranges for impoverished Navajo Indians to receive small business loans to become self-employed uranium miners in New Mexico and Arizona. Information concerning the extreme health dangers associated with the radon gas naturally emitted by uranium ore is intentionally withheld from the Navajos. Lung cancer mortality among the miners eventually nears 100%.

1945-54: Military conducts radioactive tests in the atmosphere, harming the civilian downwind populations (cancer) Thousands of troops exposed to the direct radiation of nuclear blasts so that the DoD can assess the "effects on combat efficiency attending committment to the atomic battlefield."

1945-54: In Alaska, DoD researchers coerce indigenous Inuits to swallow capsules of pure uranium in order to "study the effects of massive contaminationon the human organism."

1945-58: Using the "trust authority" it had asserted over the Marshall Islands after World War II, the U.S. converts its "protectorate" into a test range for nuclear weaponry. The islands of Bikini, Kwaljalein, and Enewetak which had been inhabited were rendered uninhabitable thereafter. Moreover, residents of nearby islands Utirik and Rongelap are essentially used as human lab rats so that the DoD can study the fallout effects (horrific mutations occur in these islands as a result).

1945-2002: After what was supposed to be a temporary partition of Korea after WWII, America installs an American friendly regime in South Korea, backed with 50,000 troops. After numerous (2,617) troop incursions in the North, a war ensues when North Korea finally invades South Korea. A three year war takes place, ending in stalemate. American troops remain in South Korea to this day.

1946: U.S. deploys troops to Turkey.

1946-54: U.S. troops coordinate a counter-insurgency campaign in the Phillipines. U.S. gains 23 military bases in the Phillipines.

1946-73: The U.S. backs the army of Chaing Kai-shek with material assistance and 100,000 American troops. This army wages a bitter but unsuccessful counterinsurgency war against Chairman Mao's "people's liberation army." Chaing's forces take refuge on the island of Formosa (now Taiwan). Thereafter, CIA and American clandestine military forces conduct an array of operations against China, lasting until at least 1973.

1947-48: The CIA subverts free elections in Italy by threatening "another world war" if the communist party were to win at the Italian polls. The subversion results in the defeat of the communists, but vicotry for a corrupt anticommunist party.

1947-51: U.S. wages counterinsurgency campaign against Greek communists. Greece eventually is pushed into an anticommunist dictatorship.

1947-57: The CIA uses guerilla soldiers from Baltic states (many of them former nazis) to fight guerilla wars against Soviet troops. 80,000 Soviet troops are killed in these guerilla wars.

1948-49: U.S. deploys combat units to Berlin.

1950: Strategic planners prepare a secret study known as NSC-68, outlining the requirements for turning the U.S. into a fullblown "National Security State." The document calls for curtailment of political expression, comprehensive indoctrination of the general public against communism. NSC-68 shamelessly suggests falsifying data to serve its purpose.

1950-2002: The U.S. violates the Treaty of Ruby Valley with the Shoshone indians, thereby confiscating and using Shoshone land to detonate over 1,000 nuclear devices for testing purposes.

1953: The CIA overthrows the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran and installs the anti-democratic Shah of Iran. Military is immediately sent into Iran to consolidate and control Iran's future as an American client state.

1953-54: CIA overthrows the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and replaces it with a military dictatorship "friendlier" to American business interests.

1953-54: Military airlift to supply French troops in Dien Bien Phu.

1954-55: CIA attempts overthrow in Costa Rica.

1954-55: U.S. military advisors sent to Laos. CIA personnel sent to South Vietnam.

1955-61: CIA and Special Forces troops create and lead and indigenous guerilla force in Tibet to liberate the country from China.

1956: Troops sent to Morocco.

1956: Troops sent to Egypt.

1956: CIA helps instigate an armed revolt in Hungary but then abandons the insurgents, resulting in the deaths of thousands.

1956-57: CIA attempts (and fails at) overthrowing Ba'athists in Syria.

1956-57: Military troops sent to Thailand and train Thai troops to invade Cambodian border areas.

1957-58: The CIA attempts eight (8) separate overthrows of the Nasser government in Egypt.

1957-58: The CIA sets out to assasinate the president of Indonesia, but fails. Then, the CIA supports a coup d'etat against the same government in Indonesia. That too fails.

1957-1988: The US government enters into an agreement to build nuclear reactors for the racist government of South Africa. South Africa finally begins production of nuclear weapons in 1979, thanks to American assistance. The US supports South Africa until the regimes collapse in 1988 despite a UN embargo.

1958: 14,000 marines land in Lebanon to "keep order" during the nation's civil war.

1958: The CIA coordinates a coup d'etat in Laos.

1959: Special Forces begin secret combat operations in Laos.

1959: Marines land in Haiti to prevent the overthrow of a ruthless and brutal (but American-freindly!) regime.

1959-79: The U.S. enters into an agreement to build nuclear reactors for the Shah of Iran. The reactors fall into the hands of the anti-American revolutionaries in 1979.

1959-2002: Troops land in Cuba to bolster a pro-American Cuban dictator. The dictator, however, is eventually overthrown in 1959 by Fidel Castro. CIA soon begins organizing what will become known as the Bay of Pigs invasion against Cuba. It fails. Over the years, the CIA attempts numerous assasinations of Castro. The CIA also uses bacteriological and chemical warfare against Cuba.

1960: CIA coordinates and backs a coup d'etat in Laos.

1960: The CIA leads, trains, and arms guerillas in Guatemala and puts down a popular insurrection meant to restore the democratically elected government.

1960-63: The CIA quells a leftist guerilla movement in Ecuador via a counterinsurgency campaign.

1960-64: The CIA deliberately causes a civil war in the Congo by exacerbating rivalries and ideological differences. the Congo's leader is assassinated.

(To be continued....from 1961...tomorrow)

Rumor: 22 Indictments!

2005-10-05T15:50:00.000-07:00

AmericaBlog is reporting:

"The D.C. Rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

Can it be a coincidence that the White House appears to be distancing President Bush from embattled aide Karl Rove? “He’s been missing in action at more than one major presidential event,” a member of the White House press corps tells us."

Neocons in Space

2005-10-03T21:27:00.000-07:00

As most of you should know by now, the Project for a New American Century published a policy document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ("RAD") . And as we all know, to date, the Bush administration has pushed forward nearly every facet of the RAD. A portion of the RAD relates to the neoconservative desire to "control the commons," most notably including, the "control of space." And from the looks of it, the Bush administration is going forward with these plans too.

The RAD states, inter alia:

"The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern, high-technology warfare. . . . How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether US military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38–39).

"As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. (Pp. 54–55). (Emhasis Added.)

Accordingly, ten days ago the U.S. launched "an electronic-warfare unit capable of jamming enemy satellites."

So it seems that we are weaponizing space. What an absolute shame. To think, space could be the place of our greatest dreams, yet although it's still early, it seems space is destined to be the place for more of our earth-born nightmares.

The Bulldog is Back!

2005-10-02T23:42:00.000-07:00

First off, I want to thank all of you who sent me good wishes down below. Very cool to come back and see such supportive comments. THANK YOU!

It's Sunday night now, and I'm feeling a lot better.

I had a raging fever for a few days. Quite an experience it was. I spent two or three days hallucinating. I hallucinated archetypical images and mundane images. I won't get into the archetypical images here. But as for the more mundane things I witnessed, most of them related to GWB. It was as if I was watching a broken record play an endless loop of dream-like kaleidescope images of George W. Bush while faintly hearing my inner monologue in a garbled playback.....over and over again. I'm glad it's over now. But I notice a change in me. I've been feeling a bit feistier since my fever subsided. I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's merely a residual effect from the tortuous hallucinations, but whatever it is, I do sense it.

I'm not sure how long it will last. We shall see.

In any event, I'm glad to be back. You probably noticed the changes to the template. I'm still working on it. So you may not see some of my links, etc. The old site is currently at the bottom of the new site (just scroll down all the way to see it...)

The Bulldog is Sick

2005-09-30T01:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Brief Analysis of the Latest Pew Research Center Report

2005-09-27T01:20:00.000-07:00

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.....

Operation Garden Plot -- From FEMA to the Military, a Prelude to Martial Law?

2005-09-25T23:56:00.000-07:00

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?

Fictional Movie Eerily Foreshadows Real Life Current Events

2005-09-23T21:38:00.000-07:00

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".