Republicans and Some Democrats Go BOOM!!!

There is a dangerous trend from our Presidential hopeful politicians that should scare all peace loving people. They are all sounding like the Bush Administration when it comes to using nuclear weapons against other countries instead of negotiating and trying all other means to avoid using nukes. These people are unfit to be President and should lose all backing from their supporters. This won't happen, but it should.

All the major Republican candidates are unfit to be President because they all stated that they would use tactical nuclear weapons to attack Iran.

Republican debate goes boom

John McCain was silent on the issue but given his 'Hawkish' stance lately he would. In this case silence can be construed as acceptance considering his famous Beach Boy Parody on "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" His lame excuse that this was just in fun doesn't cut it because he just apologized for the singing not the lyrics.

Although Senator Joe Lieberman is not a candidate, he would bomb Iran with nukes. Remember Lieberman being an orthodox Jew, in addition to being a US citizen also is a citizen of Israel, i.e. dual citizenship. So his stance is really not that surprising given that Israel would nuke Iran if given the chance.

Video: Lieberman to bomb Iran

Republican Constitutionalist Ron Paul would not use nukes. This is another reason for Republicans and others to consider him as President. Representative Ron Paul is a Libertarian but is running as a Republican so he can get more exposure and possibly elected.

The mainstream news media has been pushing for a war because they seem to be a propaganda arm of the current neo-conservative leadership that have taken over our democracy.

The Democrats have their war mongering cheerleaders, i.e. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama stated they would use tactical nuclear weapons if they had to which lead to the statement by Senator Mike Gravel saying they really scared him.

Mike Gravel, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich are opposed to using nuclear weapons in any case against any country at any time. This is a reason for Democrats to consider them for President.


The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.

Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."

Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."


John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the table."

A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."

For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all "options" should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington's policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.
This year, with their virtually identical statements about "options" and "the table," the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran.

If you're not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:

On Feb. 22, the national leaders of MoveOn sent an e-mail letter to more than 3 million people with the subject line "War with Iran?" After citing a need to give UN sanctions "a chance to work before provoking a regional conflict," the letter said flatly: "Senator Hillary Clinton has provided some much needed leadership on this."

For those of you who are very involved in the peace movement be aware that the vast majority of front running Republicans and Democrats have openly come out and stated their use of tactical nuclear weapons are very scary and dangerous. They scare me and are not fit to be President. Don't be deceived by their 'peace' rhetoric and mouthing platitudes so they can get your vote. If push came to shove, they would disappoint this base as mushroom clouds appear that they would be responsible for.

Do we really want to see these fired off anywhere in the world by any of our leaders when we have not even started to negotiate with Iran? If we do fire these off against Iran we will have opened up the option for others to use nuclear weapons against us such as China or Russia. India and Pakistan has nuclear weapons as does Israel. The world is dangerous enough without our leaders even hinting they would use these. Once the nuclear Genie is let out of the bottle, it may be impossible to contain.

The Test for Electing an American President

By

Marc Doyle

All Presidents swear to defend and uphold the Constitution, yet most really do not understand or follow it once they are in power and in the case of the Bush administration actually show utter and complete disregard for our supreme law of the land. This is why it is one of our most important duties is to support candidates who will not just mouth platitudes but actually follow the constitution as a guide in ruling our country.

Below are more ideas about what Ron Paul stands for and why he should be considered for President.

He is the only candidate who really stands for restoring the US Constitution and would work to see that our liberties and freedoms are safe guarded.

Ron Paul has been a breath of fresh air in the normally stuffy, Robot Republicans who don't have an original thought among them and are so ignorant about the Law of our Land that most could not even tell you what the Bill of Rights are much less how many amendments we have to our Constitution.

Throughout his career he has worked to safeguard the constitution and as such carefully studies everything that he votes on in that light so when he votes for or against something, it is always in line with the US Constitution. The reason he votes against these things is because they really do not stand up well when you use the US Constitution as the guide, and he fears intrusion into our fundamental liberties and freedoms or how it affects our government as guaranteed in that document. When he drafts legislation, he make sure to see that it is in alignment with the US Constitution.

It is regrettable that the vast majority of people in our country are so ignorant about the Constitution and do not consider it very important. If they were better educated about the constitution, they would back men like Ron Paul, and we would most definitely be better off even though on the surface it does not appear that way. This is how George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Neo-Con Republicans conned us out of our freedoms and liberties - by playing on people's ignorance and fear.

On the Democratic side, most democrats have not spoken out in defense of restoring our constitution and have admitted they voted for striking the constitution down with the passage of the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. All candidates except Ron Paul admit that they did not read the Patriot Act of 2001 and yet they passed it into law without having read it much less studied it. Ron Paul was the only and I mean only person who read and studied this horrible legislation then tried to give a warning about what was happening and how we would lose our freedoms if this were passed. In light of our current plight in America, he was right on.

Many of the things Ron Paul has voted against actually could be granted by individual states, there is nothing to prevent states from giving Social Security or other forms of retirement to their people, setting high environmental standards, encouraging alternative forms of energy with state grants, have universal health care for all state citizens, universial free education from elementary school to medical school, etc. What is not specifically listed in the US Consitution is actually a state's right!

I personally think that if we believe certain things such as social security, universal health care, great management of our resources, energy policy, etc. are so important to our survival or could put our democracy at peril, we have the mechanism to add amendments to the constitution that would grant all citizens

1. Universal Health care


2. Social Security or a retirement with dignity for all citizens


3. A balanced budget amendment and Not having a national bank like the Federal Reserve which really gives private banks the right to regulate and enslave our nation with huge debts.


4. Federalize, conserve, and regulate scarce resources such as oil, metals, water, etc. for the common good of the American people.


5. The right to a life time education from birth to death.


6. or Any other rights or help necessary to keep our country a strong Republic
   

If these were amendments, then men like Ron Paul would defend them to their death and fight against acts passed by congress to limit them.

The reason why he is against the income tax is because there is overwhelming evidence that the income tax amendment was not really ratified by all the states a fact that would nullify the IRS and make it obsolete. See video below on America: Freedom to Facism.

Unlike the majority of presidential candidates who vote with their eyes on the polls Ron Paul really studies the legislation and votes in line with the constitution something to be admired considering the present group of candidates we have now who are telling people what they want to hear, but rarely follow through.

America: Freedom to Fascism http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

Marc

Cheney says he's in government's legislative branch

What does he want to hide except his criminal activity? One more reason to impeach Cheney. It is sad when you cannout trust your own officials.


Marc

The article is in response to the article that follows it.




Cheney says he's in government's legislative branch
Vice president argues he's not part of executive branch of government to avoid rules on classified information.

Cheney - I don't have to follow the law!

By Julia Malone

WASHINGTON BUREAU

Friday, June 22, 2007


WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney, in resisting routine oversight of his office's handling of classified information, says that his office isn't actually part of the government's executive branch.

In a simmering dispute with the National Archives that heated up Thursday, Cheney has long maintained that he doesn't have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because, in fact, his office is part of the legislative branch of government.

Cheney, noting that his single constitutional duty is to serve as president of the Senate, holds that the vice president's office is not an "entity within the executive branch" and therefore not subject to annual reporting or periodic on-site inspections under the 1995 executive order, which was updated four years ago by President Bush.
The vice president has been refusing to cooperate with the National Archives office assigned to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.

Rep. Henry Waxman, House Oversight Committee chairman, said he had learned that Cheney's office, in a move that "could be construed as retaliation," has even tried to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office, the division of the National Archives set up to enforce safeguards for classified information in executive agencies.
Waxman said the oversight office head, William Leonard, told congressional investigators that the vice president's staff hasn't been successful in the effort.
"I know the vice president wants to operate with unprecedented secrecy," said Waxman, D-Calif. "But this is absurd. This order is designed to keep classified information safe. His argument is really that he's not part of the executive branch, so he doesn't have to comply."

"We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," vice presidential spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said.

Democrats took the opposite view. Waxman, in an eight-page letter sent Thursday to the vice president and posted on his committee's Web site, told Cheney it was "irresponsible" to reject security oversight.

"Your office may have the worst record in the executive branch for safeguarding classified information," Waxman wrote. He cited the conviction of former top Cheney aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby for lying in the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., when asked about Cheney's claim to be part of the legislative branch, quipped: "I always thought that he was president of this administration."

Constitutional experts were startled at the notion that the vice presidency might not be in the executive branch.

"The vice president is saying he doesn't have to follow the orders of the president," said Garrett Epps, a law professor at the University of Oregon. "That's a very interesting proposition."

Epps said the lines haven't been drawn that clearly: "The vice president spans, in some ways, the branches of government."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino brushed off questions about what branch of the government the vice president resides in, saying she doesn't know enough about the issue.

Susan Low Bloch, a constitutional professor at Georgetown University Law Center, called Cheney's position a "novel claim."

She said that while most people think of vice presidents as executive officials, it's really "a bit of a hybrid" role.

As vice president, Cheney receives his paycheck from the U.S. Senate, which also pays the salaries of much of his staff. However, he also sits in the president's Cabinet meetings and has an office at the White House.

Cheney's lawyers have used his role as adviser to the president to fend off a lawsuit seeking the names of energy executives who advised him on an energy task force.
Paul Orfanedes, who leads litigation for Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan group that joined in that lawsuit, said the vice president's claim that his office is not an executive agency "seems most disingenuous."

The National Archives appealed its case for oversight of Cheney's classified information practices to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales last January. Gonzales hasn't responded.

jmalone@coxnews.com.

Additional material from Washington Bureau writer Ian Lye and The New York Times.



Cheney refuses to cooperate with national security group

June 22, 2007
By Deb Riechmann Associated Press


WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Thursday denounced Vice President Dick Cheney's idea of abolishing a government office charged with safeguarding national security information — and criticized him for refusing to cooperate with the agency.Cheney's office — over the objections of the National Archives — has exempted itself from a presidential executive order that seeks to protect national security information generated by the government, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Under the order, executive branch offices are required to give the Information Security Oversight Office at the archives data on how much material it has classified and declassified.Cheney's office provided the information in 2001 and 2002, then stopped. Henry Waxman, chairman of the committee, said Cheney's office claims it need not comply with the executive order because it is not an "entity within the executive branch."



"Your decision to except your office from the president's order is problematic because it could place national security secrets at risk," Waxman wrote in a letter to Cheney on Thursday.Megan McGinn, a spokeswoman for the vice president, said Cheney's office was not breaking the law, but did not elaborate."We are confident that we are conducting the office properly under the law," she said.The Information Security Oversight Office has asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve the legal dispute over whether the order applies to Cheney's office. So far, the Justice Department has not ruled on the issue.Waxman said J. William Leonard, director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told the panel that after he sought advice from the Justice Department, Cheney's office recommended that the executive order be amended to abolish the ISOO. "I question both the legality and wisdom of your actions," Waxman said.



Waxman said Leonard also told the panel that in 2004, Cheney's office blocked the archives from doing an onsite inspection of his office to make sure classified information was being properly protected."To my knowledge, this was the first time in the nearly 30-year history of the Information Security Oversight Office that a request for access to conduct a security inspection was denied by a White House office," Waxman wrote.The eight-page letter asks Cheney to respond to a series of questions about why he believes his office is exempt, and what steps his office has taken to ensure that national security information is protected.

Congress Should Remove the President and Vice President From Office Now

by Burt Hall consortiumnews.com
May 30, 2007

During the last six years, the President and Vice President have adopted a failing strategy to combat terrorism, have taken us to war unnecessarily, have ignored pressing domestic needs, and have changed our world image from the most-admired country to one of the least-admired. These top officials pose the greatest danger to our country in decades and would have been replaced long ago had a parliamentary-style system of government existed here.

In the U.S., we remove high officials from office through impeachment, which is decided by a majority in Congress. Framers of our Constitution wisely included impeachment provisions for those officials who manage to evade our powerful checks and balances. They can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is a growing list of impeachable offenses being widely debated around the country, as well as among veteran groups and in government. The offenses include: taking the nation to war under false pretenses; diluting new laws; undermining legislative branch authority with signing statements, illegal wiretapping; and obstructing justice over firing of U.S. attorneys. This article adds another, a monumental disregard for extraordinary warnings of the 9/11 attack -- a grave breach of official duty.

For a full year following 9/11, the President opposed an independent investigation. Under pressure from 9/11 families, the Congress finally established the 9/11 Commission. The Commission was comprised of former politicians rather than experts. They were evenly divided politically -- five Republicans and five Democrats, but chaired by a Republican. During much of the Commission's existence, they suffered from lengthy delays, maddening restrictions, and disputes with the White House over access to sensitive documents and witnesses.

As the 2004 election approached, partisan disunity broke out among the Commissioners over presidential responsibility for 9/11. To maintain unity, they agreed to include only facts and leave readers to draw their own conclusions. This private agreement was not disclosed by the Commission in its report or in briefings to Congress and the media. The agreement contravened the Commission's statutory requirements for:

• A full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.
• U.S. preparedness for the attacks.
• Findings and conclusions for corrective action.

The facts in the Commission's report (along with those from other key sources) show that the Bush White House received unprecedented warnings of an impending attack and did not try to prevent it. By spring, "the drum beat" had begun; by summer the warnings had reached a "crescendo"; and by the end of July, the CIA director told the 9/11 Commission that the warnings "could not get any worse." Some predicted the actual method of attack -- the hijacking of commercial aircraft.

Intelligence reporting consistently described the upcoming attacks "as occurring on a calamitous level ... causing the world to be in turmoil". When the warnings reached a high peak of urgency in July, the CIA director rushed to the White House to brief the National Security Advisor about an expected attack in several weeks -- it "will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties and will occur with little or no warning ... this is going to be a big one."

Bin Laden's goal is "the destruction of the United States." He urged the White House to go on the offense and preemptively attack Afghanistan. He asked for covert authority to go after bin Laden and his organization -- the same request he had been made three months earlier. In late summer, the warnings continued:

• The King of Jordan sent a message that aircraft would be used in a major attack inside the U.S. To make sure it got through, he sent the same message through another country. (After 9/11, the administration got Jordan to rescind the warning.)
• Germany warned us that commercial aircraft would be hijacked for use as weapons.
• President Putin of Russia warned of suicide pilots in training for attacks on U.S.
• President Mubarak of Egypt warned that a bin Laden attack on America was in the advanced operational stages. Another Egyptian warning a month earlier reported that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into U.S. - four of them training to fly.
• England warned us twice -- once about multiple airplane hijackings. Prime Minister Blair was involved.
• Israel intelligence sent a list of 19 terrorists inside the U.S. planning to carry out an attack in the near future. Four were 9/11 hijackers.

Counterterrorism officials described the warnings as "the most urgent in decades." Two of the officials considered resigning in order to go public with their concerns. The Commission report does not discuss the specific warnings shown above or why the White House did not respond. The report did confirm that government agencies never mobilized a response, got direction, or had a plan. But, it didn't explain why.

According to the Commission report, CIA briefings to the President and Vice President addressed the al-Qaeda threat 40 times before 9/11. Headlines in these briefings included "Bin Laden threats are real," "Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks," and "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S."

Just before the 9/11 attack, the National Security Council placed on the President's desk a strategy aimed at eliminating al-Qaeda in 3 to 5 years. Such a strategy could not possibly confront an imminent threat, one where the CIA director said "The system was blinking red." Several months before 9/11, the President had rejected a national security commission recommendation to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Instead, he asked Vice President Cheney to oversee an effort to respond to domestic attacks. At 9/11 time, the Vice President had not established a capability to respond to domestic attacks.

Had the President tried to defend against the imminent threat, his role as Commander-in-Chief might still be in tact. Instead, he went on a month-long vacation in August. He did not put the nation in a crisis mode; he did not call a cabinet meeting; he did not pursue military options; he did not give the CIA the requested covert authority; he did not prepare for suicide hijacking of commercial aircraft; he did not strengthen passenger screening; and he did not shore up glaring aircraft vulnerabilities, such as cockpit doors. Time Magazine's The Secret History of 9/11 concluded that there was a systematic collapse in the administration's national security apparatus. The Terror Timeline book went further: "The public record reflects that the extreme focus on terrorism in place at the end of the Clinton administration dropped dramatically under the Bush administration. With few exceptions, little attention was paid to terrorism, even as the number of warnings reached unprecedented levels."

The official Commission report assesses blame across government and, therefore, holds no one accountable. The Commission report also claims that the most important failure was "one of imagination." But, how could this be true, when a host of foreign nations had pointed to the actual means of attack?

Commissioner Bob Kerrey said the President did "nothing as far as we can see." However, Kerrey did not make this remarkable statement until after the presidential election and well after release of the Commission report. (See film 9/11: Press for Truth.)

To comply with its statutory mandate, the Commission had no alternative but to assess the job done by the President and his national security team in preparing the country for unparalleled warnings of the upcoming attack. The report contains no such assessment. Instead, it focuses on bureaucratic mistakes at lower levels of government and misses the big picture. The Commission's leadership was given an opportunity to comment on this material and declined.

The Commission should have dealt with Presidential leadership and the President's duty as Commander-in-Chief. His leadership would have stimulated a new level of energy, creativity, and cooperation within and among federal and local agencies and strengthened protection of commercial aircraft. With reenergized government surveillance and public participation, the country would have been much better prepared to avert the horrible tragedy.

In the end, the measures taken by the President should have shown a government in action, anxious to protect its people, and determined to make it difficult for the terrorists to succeed. The critical issue is the President's lack of response to the warnings, his absence of leadership when it really counted, and the White House cover-up since then. It was this dereliction of duty that gave the President the excuse for the war in Iraq -- a war that Congress has been powerless to stop.

When our framers inserted the language "high crimes," they had in mind such things as grave breaches of official duties, criminal negligence, abuses of public office, great crimes against society, and great and dangerous offenses that subvert our Constitution. While most of these grounds apply here in one way or another, a grave breach of official duty seems to be the most relevant one: The President, as Commander-in Chief,
(1) did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster,
(2) conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility, and
(3) exploited the tragedy to justify a misguided war and gain a second term.

Reasons for removal of the President and Vice President go far beyond impeachment issues. Both have become increasingly irrelevant and have lost public trust and confidence in their ability to command. To replace them, Congress should authorize an accelerated presidential election.

Since much of Congress acts more out of fear than conviction, there isn't much hope that the President and Vice President actually will be impeached. However, hopefully, the 9/11 issue will be aired sufficiently enough to hold them accountable for being irresponsible in the face of the greatest threat information in our history. Also, 9/11 families deserve the truth -- the President of the United States was in position to spare their loved ones and did not even try.

-----Burt Hall has served as Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office and authored articles on 9/11, the war in Iraq and terrorism strategy. He co-authored, with Ed Asner, Misuse of Power. He recently published a 5-part series on our deteriorating democracy. It reinforces Al Gore's sweeping new book, The Assault on Reason. The series shows that our country has been on a destructive path, and Congress and the media have not served as checks and balances.

National Debt Looms at $59 Trillion Dollars

NATIONAL DEBT on Lou Dobbs. It's much higher than you think!

It would take every US household to pay taxes of $517,000 a year to pay this off. Judging from this report our greatest threat after Bush leaves office will be make sure that the Republicans are held accountable for this horrendous debt load. This is why any person elected will have a major headache when the economy faulters and they blame the democrats for the great fall.

$760 Billion Deficit, $59 Trillion Debt
The very last thing we want to do at 5 o’clock on a Friday is start reading freakin’ budget reports from the Treasury, but this seems possibly horrifying enough to briefly consider before we turn to “Weekend Wilma,” which is a just-now made-up code name for being drunk until Monday.

Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee claims the real deficit is $760 billion, not $318.5 billion as claimed by the White House. And the national debt is actually $59 trillion, not $8.3 trillion.
More numbers-based fear-mongering, after the jump.

Last year, the U.S. paid $375 billion in interest alone … or, Washington paid $100 billion more in interest than last year’s $275 billion increase in federal revenue.

Scary numbers, but why even mention them? Because Cooper’s a Dem and he suspects the GOP will “reveal” the true numbers once the Dems win back the House and Senate … so that the Democrats will get stuck with the blame for the crazy debt and spending that have piled up since 2001.

The question for non-economists is, But what country is going to try to collect that debt when we can just blow up anybody we want for any reason at any time?

The answer, of course, is that Cinco de Mayo wasn’t originally a day when white people drank a lot of tequila. It actually commemorates the humiliating defeat of the French by the Mexicans … all because Mexico defaulted on its debt to France, so France decided to seize Mexico.

Bush is Hiding the True National Debt. It’s Worse than You’ve Heard. Much Worse. [BuzzFlash]
2006 Financial Report of the United States Government [U.S. Treasury}

Senate Begins Real Push on Habeas Corpus

There is a vote to restore a fundamental right for all people from the constitution which the Bush Administration succeeded in gutting with the help of the Republican Controlled Senate. They also want to do away with the Military Commissions Act (Patriot Act II.)

Please contact your Senators about this telling them to support this important initiative to restore the Constitution.

Many Republicans and some foolish Democrats have decided to fight against this which means that they are really against Americans having any guaranteed rights or liberties as outlined in the US Constitution. They should be marked as traitors against the Untied States because they have sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution not destroy it and our liberties.

Olbermann's Comment on Habeas Corpus Loss


Why is Habeas Corpus important?
habeas corpus

Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition. Also, a party may file a habeas corpus petition if a judge declares her in contempt of court and jails or threatens to jail her.

In Brown v. Vasquez, 952 F.2d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1778 (1992), the court observed that the Supreme Court has "recognized the fact that`[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.' Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969). " Therefore, the writ must be "administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected." Harris, 394 U.S. at 291.

Senate Begins Real Push on Habeas Corpus

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed an important bill to restore habeas corpus, the sacrosanct Constitutional right to challenge government detention in court, by a vote of eleven to eight.

Habeas corpus was revoked by last year's Military Commissions Act, which has been assailed as unconstitutional and un-American by leaders across the political spectrum. Today's habeas bill was backed by the Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman, Patrick Leahy, and its Republican Ranking Member, Arlen Specter. "The drive to restore this fundamental right has come from both sides of the aisle," said Sharon Bradford, an attorney at the bipartisan Constitution Project, in response to today's vote. "Restoring America's commitment to the rule of law is not a partisan cause; it is a patriotic one," she added.

Today's vote means the habeas bill can now be brought to the Senate floor at any time. One source with knowledge of the legislative plan said Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bringing the bill to a vote within the month.

Some Democrats are pushing Reid to go further, advocating more comprehensive human rights protections and a repeal of the entire Military Commissions Act. Senator Chris Dodd, the most aggressive defender of the Constitution in the presidential race, is pushing legislation that would not only restore habeas, but also ban the use of evidence obtained through torture and recommit the U.S. to the Geneva Conventions. "We must recognize that our security is enhanced by upholding our nation's historic legal principles as we vigorously pursue terrorists," he said in a statement today. Dodd is giving a major address about his proposal at the Cardozo School of Law Commencement exercises in New York on Thursday, part of a larger effort to prioritize Constitutional rights on the national agenda – and in the presidential campaign. The Dodd Campaign has gathered over 10,000 "citizen cosponsors" for his bill, the Restoring the Constitution Act, while using YouTube, blog and netroots outreach to rally more support.

Obama, Clinton and Biden, the other Senators in the presidential race, have cosponsored the habeas legislation but not Dodd's bill, which currently has eleven cosponsors. The legislation faces an uphill battle in the Armed Services Committee, a much less hospitable venue for Constitutional rights than the Judiciary Committee. But there is one influential Armed Services member who opposed the Military Commissions Act and could jump start the effort to restore Constitutional rights: Hillary Clinton.

CNN Learns From ABC’s Censorship and Deletes All Ron Paul Comments

VANISHED CNN COMMENTS ON RON PAUL IN THE DEBATECNN put up a comments page about last night’s New Hampshire GOP debateat CNN Political Ticker Who Won the Debate? The comments were overwhelmingly for Ron Paul.
CNN removed the comments and replaced them with a page ofcomments about the June 3, 2007 Democratic debate. SMOOTH. Unfortunately I was unable to get a screenshot this time because I had to get up early this morning. Ah, the middle class life, how it hinders the ability to micromange the media.
Here is a copy of the comments as they were before CNN removed them.
(Disclaimer: If you read all of these comments that they deleted you may get really pissed off and do something like… cry, boycott CNN and or want to cause a revolt.)
I will be providing a list of advertisers as soon as I get the chance, if anyone reads this and has some already please comment or e-mail and let me know. Many many thanks.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/missingcomments.php
When ABC did this very thing not a month ago-
MySpace Continues Censoring Ron Paul, ABC Deletes all Comments
ABC Allow Ron Paul Comments, Guardian Unlimited Calls Out the Neo-Cons, Cheney Connected to D.C. Madam- Ignored by Mass Media
Ron Paul Censorship on ABC, it’s Time to Step it Up, Boycotting the Advertisers- A Compiled List
Ron Paul On Tucker Carlson (06/06/07)

The Republicans Put in a Frenzied Call to Central Casting for a "Great White Dope" and Get Fred

GOP Hypocrite of the Week (Buzzflash.com)

Fred Thompson Shown with his favorite Illegal Cuban Cigar.

Fred Thompson

Welcome back to the BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of the Week. Well, the Republicans appear to have found their latest "Great White Dope" to field for president: Fred Thompson.Thompson may have been a senator and Republican counsel to the Watergate investigation, but his real asset to the GOP is that he's an actor.Ronald Reagan taught the GOP what a B-actor can do for playing the part of a candidate and then acting the role of president for 8 years. Then they got Arnie elected in California, even though his claim to fame was a movie role called "The Terminator" and his sexual harassment of women. Come to mention it, he also starred in a film that could be the Republican motto of sorts: "True Lies."So given a field of flawed candidates for the presidency, the fixers and money men behind the GOP one-party rule machine have made a casting call to -- Gasp! -- Hollywood.

They want that "Law and Order" guy to come to the rescue.Thompson has his "common man" PR stunts down to a science, including a made for press photo-op "red pickup truck." This is a guy who favors limos and a young second wife more than 20 years his junior. Just like Newt's third wife.In fact, the GOP field is so crowded with divorced men (Giuliani is on his third), they could form an alimony club.A short time ago, Thompson took a cue from Bill O'Reilly and started to beat up on Michael Moore for going to Cuba. In response, "Moore, seizing on a detail from a story in The Weekly Standard last month -- that Thompson's office features many boxes of Montecristo cigars -- wrote a letter to Thompson suggesting the former senator is a hypocrite for liking to smoke Cubans [which are illegal to import or possess in the U.S.]"

Thompson's shadow campaign then posted a YouTube attack on Moore, with Fred defiantly "chomping" on a cigar. Of course, Thompson didn't explain the little issue of breaking the law by buying and smoking Cuban cigars, nor did he address the hypocrisy of it all.Hmmm…. isn't it kind of ironic that the Republicans are always lambasting Hollywood -- but when they need a candidate to save the day for them, they place a call to central casting? Until next week, remember our motto: So many Republican hypocrites, so little time.Catch up with you soon.

Considering the feeling the majority of Americans have that have resulted in smoking bans across the nation, it is amazing that Fred Thompson chose this as one of his props. The video does not really show a man who is very presidential and just gives fodder for his republican and democratic opponents.
* * *
This is Fred Thompson's first HOTW Award. Welcome to the Club.

The Dopy Fred Thompson Hypocrite of the Week Award

Michael Moore's challenge - http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=208

Fred "Hypocrite" Thompson's Video Reply

Democrats Are Weak

Cindy Sheehan hit the nail on the head.

Like the story of Judas, Democrats sell out their base, the troops, and the American people for the proverbial 30 pieces of silver.

That giant clucking sound we hear coming from the east is

THE GREAT CHICKEN LILLY LIVERED, YELLOW STRIPED, PANTYWAIST, FORK TOUNGED, GUTLESS WONDERS WHO CALL THEMSELVES - CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS are giving Bush everything he asks for.

Neville Chamberlain compromised with Hitler in the 1930's, and Chamberlain went home thinking he had appeased this madman dictator by declaring "Peace in our time.!" He learned that there was never enough appeasement for the voracious appetite of Hitler, and this strategy did not work except to draw utter contempt from his adversary and minions as well as his fellow countrymen. The Democrats were given a clear mandate at the polls and once again have failed us by appeasing our madman. They need to get a spine and dig in their heels.

Below is the Roll Call Vote for the Iraq Funding Bill that the Democrats Caved in on. This will show you who the scoundrels are so we can target them at the polls in 2008.

Thank those who took a stand and remember those who sold out the American people.

Our congressman Lloyd Doggett deserves praise for taking a sensible stand against compromising and not caving in. He gets it because this is what the majority of American people want. Edwards also spoke out. Only 11 senators had the guts to take a stand.

The funding bill was H R 2206.

House of Representatives Roll Call Vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml

Senate Vote for Iraq Funding with Not Limits
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00181

Cindy Sheehan, the face of the US anti-war movement, is calling it quits. In a rare live interview following her Memorial Day farewell message, she talks with Riz about why she is leaving the peace movement, her disillusionment with US policy and what lies ahead.