you have a mouse in your pocket?

Here is a woman running around with a rubber chicken telling Your buddy Nancy ,just what is going to happen to her, and everyone else that dared to MOCK the people of this country!!!

Lot "O" Balls there big Guy!

We're Who?

UNITED WE STAND JOHN!

Some folks are just too stupid to see that they have become totally useless!!

Congressional Primary Challenger Shirley Golub Calls the Speaker of the House Out as a Political Coward

Mr. Chairman, you were there at the hearing.You heard the expert testimony of top-ranked law professors. You heard them say that: Many members of the Bush Administration—including the top individuals--conspired to torture, and conspired to attempt to fix the law around their pre-determined policy of torture. You heard that such actions are illegal under the doctrine of Jus Cogens, and that the statute of limitations for prosecution of violators of this doctrine is “Never”.

In a related development in the last weeks, NPR’s “Day to Day” reported this: US Drops Charges Against “20th Hijacker”. The legal analyst discussed the ramifications of the recent ruling by a military judge that: 1. …on Friday a judge ruled that Guantanamo prosecutor Thomas Hartman had "so blurred the roles of prosecution, defense and judges that he could no longer be involved in the case". 2. The dropping of charges against the "20th" hijacker", despite a lot of evidence against him, because of the way (torture) that a confession had been extracted from him.

The NPR/ Salon analyst went on to describe how the Bush Administration not only violated the Constitution and International law in order to torture “confessions” out of prisoners, but how by doing so, they ensured that those confessions could not be used in a real court of law to prosecute and convict the accused:

"...The government needed to made a decision immediately after 9/11 about whether it wanted to extract information-whether this was in fact, a "ticking time" bomb situation& the most critical thing was to torture people if they needed to--to get information from them, or if you wanted to highlight the rule of law and due process really worked in the West..."

"They made a decision to try to do both and it's becoming clear that you cannot do both. If you're going to try to get information out of people, you can't turn around and try them using that information. The most interesting thing I think it signals is: that this is almost a rebellion that's happening from the ground up-from individual prosecutors, from individual judges, from people who are saying, "look-I'm a military person, I believe that these people are guilty, I believe in these tribunals, but I still can't go forward under these circumstances, this is not real evidence."

Mr. Chairman—can there be any legally defensible reasoning that justifies Congress’s continuing to ignore the crimes, the cover-ups, and the fact that by committing these criminal acts, the Administration has, in fact, put the nation at more risk—by spoiling the prosecution of potentially very dangerous individuals? I am not a lawyer, however, having listened to expert lawyers comment on the criminality of the Administration—I don’t believe there is any legally defensible way that Congress can refuse to enact accountability, without themselves becoming part of the crime and cover-up.

Q U E S T I O N:
Does the City Council need to approve the Fire Chief's recommendation to burn down my home just so that he can better fight the fire burning across town?

You seem to think so, Congressman...

The President needs the consent of Congress for "preemptive" military actions...

Hell, sure. Bless us for the WAR CRIMES we are about to commit.

Preemptive war, blessed or not, are WAR CRIMES!

I just feel for the innocent many in Iran that are sealed to that fate of yours. That they must first die so that you may act... but then that would be in a vein attempt to reel in, what we already know, is an out of control Executive and criminal branch of the US Government.

So, who should I blame for the torching of my house?
The Fire Chief had the blessing of the city council.

Congressman,
You're entertaining folly. FOLLY! Why entertain folly when you already know preemptive military action against a country that poses/posed no threat IS A WAR CRIME... Is one illegal war NOT enough for you? Or are you itching for the opportunity to pen volume II, George W. Bush AND Congress vs. The Constitution. After all, he did it once WITH the blessings of Congress while you found it to have been illegal... yet here we are, entertaining part two. Why entertain what you already know to be a war crime?

WHO HAVE YOU HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR:
~ Outing a CIA agent?
~ Politicization of the DOJ?
~ Advocating and authorization of TORTURE?
~ The willful violation of the Fifth Amendment and FISA?
~ LYING to a joint session of Congress?
~ The illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no imminent threat to the USA?
~ KBR/Halliburton private mercenary army employed by the USA?

Some say President George W. Bush is the worst EVER!!! I happen to agree, however I doubt Congress agrees. Why else is the man still in Office? All polls point to the public stating clearly, George W. Bush is the worst EVER! Is Congress that deaf? Or just Loyally unpatriotic?

What do you support and defend IF NOT the Constitution of the USA?

Here's some insight for you, by Yoo:

Clinton certainly didn’t make it easy. Same as the Bush administration. Knowing what you know now about what they had done, if they had been much more open and forthcoming coming out of the gate, it would have been better for everybody.

But I will say this: I wasn’t in favor of impeachment. I don’t think what Clinton did rose to the level of what impeachment is really for. I think if people in Congress wanted to impeach President Bush they could, not because he committed a crime but because they think he’s a bad president.

That was the phrase [“high crimes and misdemeanors”] that came from Britain, and the British used to, under that phrase, remove people just because they screwed up a war.

There are great examples. Allegedly these were the same standards of impeachments when they impeached a minister because the British suffered a setback in the war with the Dutch. It wasn’t a crime, but you were a bad leader. But it has to be something of significance to the state. Clinton, what he did didn’t seem to rise to that level.

This is an interesting prospect:

The suit, New Jersey Peace Action et al. v. Bush, represented by the Constitutional Law Clinic at Rutgers University Law School-Newark, alleges that the war violates article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which assigns to Congress the authority to declare war.

Clinic director Frank Askin said the framers at the 1787 constitutional convention denied war-making powers to the president except in response to sudden attacks when Congress might not have time to react quickly.

"The founders were very clear that only Congress could make that awesome decision," he said in a statement. "They [members of Congress] were not permitted to delegate that power to the president and thus be able later to disclaim responsibility for a decision gone bad."

...

"[B]ecause the Bush administration is thinking to wage war -- against Iran -- without a Congressional Declaration of War, it is essential that the judicial branch act expeditiously," the suit says. "To avoid the constant repetition of the lawless exercise of the awesome war-making power and restore the proper functioning of our constitutional system, it is necessary that the judicial branch definitively state what the Founders intended when they enacted Art. I, Sec. 8."

==============
I M P E A C H
or R E S I G N !!!

Mr. Chairman, another
clearly illegal act (translation: high crimes and misdeameanors) by the Bush Administration:

“…Pentagon documents released by the Defense Department and posted at its website show that White House officials, including Karl Rove, were aware of the domestic propaganda program under which the DoD coached retired military "analysts" to parrot administration views in television and radio appearances on all the major networks. The Smith-Mundt Act prohibits the federal government from appropriating funds to influence public opinion in the United States. On April 30th George Bush's spokeswoman Dana Perino falsely stated that the WH was unaware of the propaganda program…”

“…On April 30th Dana Perino finally was asked whether the WH knew about and approved the Pentagon program. Perino tried to duck the question, but blogger Eric Brewer pressed for an answer: "Did the White House know about the operation?" Perino's response: "I just said: no."

“…That's false as Glenn Greenwald shows by citing two of the emails the Pentagon was forced to release relating to its program..."

Again, Mr. Chairman, as you well know: “…The Smith-Mundt Act prohibits the federal government from appropriating funds to influence public opinion in the United States…” How many more high crimes and misdemeanors will your conscience allow this Administration to commit on your watch while you’re in charge of oversight?

Congressman,
Your president has called you and your Party, Nazi-appeasers!
I suppose this could explain why he's let to remain in office... NO?

==============
I M P E A C H
THEM BOTH !!!

Max ! IT looks like Georgy Boy is the pot, painting the kettle black!

LARGE SIZE INTENDED

along with some of buddies, such as Gen. Patraeus. As we watch the build up for a war on Iran -- same style as with Iraq!!!

Bogus Claim, al-Maliki Stall U.S. Plan on Iran Arms
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-05-15 14:46. Evidence Iran
By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, May 14 (IPS) - Early this month, the George W. Bush administration's plan to create a new crescendo of accusations against Iran for allegedly smuggling arms to Shiite militias in Iraq encountered not just one but two setbacks.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki refused to endorse U.S. charges of Iranian involvement in arms smuggling to the Mahdi Army, and a plan to show off a huge collection of Iranian arms captured in and around Karbala had to be called off after it was discovered that none of the arms were of Iranian origin.

The news media's failure to report that the arms captured from Shiite militiamen in Karbala did not include a single Iranian weapon shielded the U.S. military from a much bigger blow to its anti-Iran strategy.

The Bush administration and top Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus had plotted a sequence of events that would build domestic U.S. political support for a possible strike against Iran over its "meddling" in Iraq and especially its alleged export of arms to Shiite militias.

The plan was keyed to a briefing document to be prepared by Petraeus on the alleged Iranian role in arming and training Shiite militias that would be surfaced publicly after the al-Maliki government had endorsed it and it used to accuse Iran publicly.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters on Apr. 25 that Petraeus was preparing a briefing to be given "in the next couple of weeks" that would provide detailed evidence of "just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability". The centrepiece of the Petraeus document, completed in late April, was the claim that arms captured in Basra bore 2008 manufacture dates on them.

U.S. officials also planned to display Iranian weapons captured in both Basra and Karbala to reporters. That sequence of media events would fill the airwaves with spectacular news framing Iran as the culprit in Iraq for several days, aimed at breaking down Congressional and public resistance to the idea that Iranian bases supporting the meddling would have to be attacked.

But events in Iraq diverged from the plan. On May 4, after an Iraqi delegation had returned from meetings in Iran, al-Maliki's spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said in a news conference that al-Maliki was forming his own Cabinet committee to investigate the U.S. claims. "We want to find tangible information and not information based on speculation," he said.

Another adviser to al-Maliki, Haider Abadi, told the Los Angeles Times' Alexandra Zavis that Iranian officials had given the delegation evidence disproving the charges. "For us to be impartial, we have to investigate," Abadi said.

Al-Dabbagh made it clear that the government considered the U.S. evidence of Iranian government arms smuggling insufficient. "The proof we have is weapons which are shown to have been made in Iran," al-Dabbagh said in a separate interview with Reuters. "We want to trace back how they reached [Iraq], who is using them, where are they getting it."

Senior U.S. military officials were clearly furious with al-Maliki for backtracking on the issue. "We were blindsided by this," one of them told Zavis.

Then the Bush administration's campaign on Iranian arms encountered another serious problem. The Iraqi commander in Karbala had announced on May 3 that he had captured a large quantity of Iranian arms in and around that city.

Earlier the U.S. military had said that it was up to the Iraqi government to display captured Iranian weapons, but now an Iraqi commander was eager to show off such weapons. Petraeus' staff alerted U.S. media to a major news event in which the captured Iranian arms in Karbala would be displayed and then destroyed.

But when U.S. munitions experts went to Karbala to see the alleged cache of Iranian weapons, they found nothing that they could credibly link to Iran. . . .

see more here

Don't you think i'ts time to IMPEACH this murderous, torturous, lying sociopath?

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

I sure hope this is true, it's long overdue
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn’t, said Conyers, “We’ll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We’d hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested.”

Conyers said the committee wants Rove to testify about his role in the imprisonment of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, among other things.

“We want him for so many things, it’s hard to keep track,” Conyers said.
Conyers: 'We're closing in on Rove'

Well now, that is nice. And I appreciate it.
Frosted Flake

To heck with the "Real I.D" argument, which is "merely" a ploy to enslave the entire population. Right now a 'gentleman' named Troy Hearne is leading a 'movement' to disenfranchise millions of citizens under the false rubric of 'potential voter fraud.' (And the not-so-'supreme' court has already upheld the criminal action in one state - (Indiana). ) It is the totally unconstitutional demand that any potential voter be able to show a government issued "Photo I.D." at the polls before being allowed to vote. Since no government issues such documents for free, this amounts to a Poll Tax, (already declared unconstitutional, but unrecognized as such by the SCOTUS in the Indiana decision) which is intended to, and WILL, disenfranchise anyone who does not have a driver's license, which includes many American Indians, Latino CITIZENS (as well as the undocumented), poor people in general, blacks, Amish, and NUNS! Of course, the mainstream media are taking no notice of this totally unAmerican effort, and the alternative press has not noticed it yet. If people want their votes to be even allowed, not just counted, they'd better holler before it is everlastingly too late!

What First Amendment?

In a suspiciously timely coincidence, at the same time that O’Rielly and Fox “News” have been attacking GE /MSNBC, the White House counselor, Ed Gillespie has
Sent a Letter to MSNBC, Complaining about MSNBC’s coverage of Bush’s recent speech in Israel which stirred up so much anger from the Democrats.

According to talking points memo:

“…Bush's Counselor writes to NBC News' President, asking them to air a full version of a weekend interview and questioning the network's policies…”

Huffington Post also reports the White House’s action:

“…White House official Ed Gillespie, in a nice bit of synergy with their Fox News patrons, has shot off a lengthy letter to NBC News' Steve Capus, contending that President Bush's interview with Richard Engel was "deceptively edited" from the original in it's rebroadcast. Here's the blow-by-blow as Gillespie see it...” (extended version at the above link)

Mr. Chairman I have two questions regarding this bizarre action by the WH, which has the appearance of the government attempting to intimidate a news medium:

1. As the WH action and the Fox News actions are aimed at MSNBC and/or its parent company—Is the WH helping Fox News attack Fox rival MSNBC, a network that has been taking market share from Fox?

2. Why is the White House demanding explanations of alleged distortions in news reporting at MSNBC, but they’ve never once required Fox news to explain their distortions—such as labeling on screen lawbreaking Republican lawmakers as Democrats; or allowing swiftboating lies about Senator Kerry? Could it be because Fox has been an unfailing ally to the White House and enemy of the Democrats for the last seven years?

Could it be that the White House is less concerned about distortion of the news than they are about silencing a network that has been a leader in reporting the truth about White House lies, scandals and cover-ups?

Mr. Chairman, will Congress stand by and allow the White House to intimidate a news network because they report truth about those in power? Is this a case of the Executive Branch again overstepping its powers and trying to abridge the First Amendment rights of the news media? Sir, this seems to be nothing but a blatant attempt by the White House to silence criticism.

Why are we restricted from knowing who our supposed enemy is?

I mean I know I am just an ordinary citizen and all but I thought that afforded me you know freedom. The network traffic never responds...

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=168823

A funny coincidence regarding this when I posted it on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3305716&mesg_id=3305716

In the posts I began to engage conversation regarding being censored approximately an hour after my first post.

Others began to post they had Comcast and were able to get through.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3305918&mesg_id=3305918

I had retried the link many times testing that it wasn't just poorly constructed network route tables. Then suddenly after others were able to get through I was able to get through.

Now this didn't really raise a flag in my head until I tried to go to the site from three very different networks all comcast; three different cities and was denied in all three today.

Update -- 8:39 pm PST : Seems access is now open to the source...

Another example of a truth and reconciliation commission doing the impossible.

You can read this mans mind, can you not? You know why he is looking at the cameraman. He is looking at the cameraman to talk to us. Here. Now. He is looking at the cameraman to talk to us, here, now, because the cameraman is wearing our uniform. That is why he is talking to us. Here. Now.

Some of us are listening. Some of us find it more profitable to pretend not to hear. And all of us know who we are.

If I am wrong, if there is one among us who does not know who he is, I can help him find out. The test is simple : Whose life is it that is being taken away from this man? Is it his, or does it belong to the State?

There was a time this photo, much less the story, would shock me. That was a few years ago.
Frosted Flake

As reported on Think Progress, you may wish to get to "The Core" of the spy-gate issue.

I am not cattle and WILL REFUSE to be treated as such from my own Government.

How is an American a threat when s/he exorcise their Constitutional Right to peaceably assemble? The mere exorcising of my Rights makes me a threat? Then am I truly FREE to exorcise my FREEDOM to peaceably protest if doing so lands me in a "DETENTION CAMP"?

Congressman, I do recall the president telling us why we are fighting this war of terror. He did remind us, that our freedoms are under attack, that they hate us for our freedoms.

So, just who is attacking our Constitutional Rights? Our FREEDOMS? These Muslim extremists we're told we must fight? Or members from within our own Government? Is this NOT another rip at that fabric we once recognized as the Fist Amendment AND the Fifth Amendment.

==============
I M P E A C H

Posted on Docudharma

The picture just shows the new "burry the man alive" event for the Chinese Summer Olympics!

Human rights? That's just a God Damned MYTH!

AND!!!! Some will say why worry about that guy, there's a BILLION more where he came from!

Civilized? Hell we are so civilized we start wars for kicks.