Let's go there, Bill

A long while back, Bill Maher mentioned that people have asked him to bring up the topic of 9/11, and the possibility that it was perpetrated by our own government, on his show. At the time, he said he couldn't "go there."

On Real Time tonight, one of Bill's guests is Richard Belzer. "The Belz" is known for being a huge conspiracy freak.

This should be good.

More impeachment rumblings...

I'm so glad I voted for him.

April 23, 2007 at 07:24:47

"Impeachment Should Be on the Table": Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

by Mikael Rudolph for OpEdNews.com

Four members of ImpeachforPeace.org met with the Honorable Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN 5th) in his Minneapolis offices Saturday morning, April 22nd to discuss the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Early in the meeting, Ellison made clear that his opinion hasn't changed since he introduced a Resolution for the impeachment of President Bush as a Minnesota State Legislator by saying: "Impeachment should be on the table".

(more...)

Happy Earth Day

I haven't been the cause of a car accident in over 20 years, but in the last two months, I've smashed up my SUV twice. I would say that's a sign. Within the next month, I'm trading it in for a hybrid -- most likely a Prius.

I am an excellent reduce/reuse/recycler, but owning this gas-guzzler makes me feel like a hypocrite. Change must start with me.

Here's some good tips from John & Teresa Heinz Kerry's new book, This Moment on Earth:

• Keep your car in good condition: Get your engine tuned up regularly, change the oil, and keep your tires properly inflated -- proper maintenance can increase your car's fuel efficiency by 10 percent and reduce emissions.
• 
  Switch to compact fluorescent bulbs: Change the three bulbs you use most in your house to compact fluorescents. Each compact fluorescent will keep half a ton of carbon dioxide out of the air over its lifetime. And while they may be slightly more expensive than the incandescent bulbs you're used to using, compact fluorescents last ten times as long and can save $30 per year in electricity costs.

• Buy energy efficient products: When buying new appliances or electronics, shop for the highest energy-efficiency rating. Look for the yellow and black Energy Guide label on the product. According to the EPA, the typical American household can save about $400 per year in energy bills with products that carry the Energy Star label as the most efficient in its class.
• 
  Turn off lights and other electrical appliances such as televisions and radios when you're not using them: This is a very simple step, but it's surprising how many times we forget. Install automatic timers for lights that people in your house frequently forget to flick off when leaving a room. Use dimmers when you can.
• 
  Choose PVC-free building products: this can reduce the exposure of your family to toxins in your home environment. Steer clear of vinyl windows and doors and choose wood instead. Adhesives, caulk, grout, and sealants may also contain phthalates. You can check for phthalate ingredients in these products using the National Institutes of Health's Household Products Database: http://www.householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/.
• 
  Choose toys carefully: this is another important step to reduce your children's exposure to toxins. Look for toys and feeding products for babies and young children that are labeled "PVC free."

(Images from Northern Sun Merchandising )

You can hear the quiet rumblings of impeachment (FINALLY)

I received a call from the DNC the other day asking for money, again. I can usually be counted on for a few bucks here and there, but not that day. I was feeling particularly feisty, and when they told me that the call was being recorded, I took that as my cue to let them have it.

I told them that they're not getting another dime out of me until a Senator or Representative brings up impeachment and/or I see proof that the Dems are standing up to Bush on the war spending bill. Period.

I've heard a lot of tough talk from Harry Reid, & Nancy Pelosi, but I think in the end, Dumbya is going to get what he wants -- a blank check with no timetable for withdrawal.

Did I speak too soon?

The following day, this story came out -

___

From The Washington Post:

Articles of Impeachment To Be Filed On Cheney

Looks like he's reached his boiling point.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), the most liberal of the Democratic presidential candidates in the primary field, declared in a letter sent to his Democratic House colleagues this morning that he plans to file articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Kucinich has made ending the war in Iraq the central theme of his campaign. He has even taken aim at the leading Democratic presidential candidates in the field for their votes on authorizing the war. (More...)

___

And, today Motomama emailed this to me:

___

From CNN -

Vermont Senate calls for impeachment of Bush

MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) -- Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. "raise serious questions of constitutionality." (More...)
___

I highly doubt the impeachment talk is going to go anywhere, but at least the subject is being raised. It's about time, huh.

On a side note, that very same day, I got a call from Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot's Fund, asking me to be a part of their Patriot Corps. I gladly accepted. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Feingold should be the candidate. Maybe next time...

I believe it's only a matter of time before Russ brings up the "I" word, too.

And, of course, Feingold is ahead of the curve on this issue:

Co-Sponsor the Feingold-Reid 'Power of the Purse' Bill to Safely Redeploy our Troops from Iraq

Bring back the gun debate

I was going to post something else today, but I decided that I had to comment on the massacre at Virginia Tech.

I heard about what happened while I was sitting in class, which made it even more surreal. I imagined what it might have been like for those professors and students. While I sat there, I looked around the room and tried to formulate a plan in the event of something like that happening in my own classroom. You can't prepare for that.

It's time to bring back the gun debate. Democrats have let this issue fall by the wayside because of their fear of losing support among the 3G's (guns, god, and (anti-)gay) contingent. It's time to stop being afraid. Hell, we don't have their support anyway, so screw 'em.

I know it would be virtually impossible to pass any kind of gun control legislation under the Bush administration, but when we elect the next President, let's get it done, once and for all.

My heart goes out to all the families affected by this senseless act.

Real Time's New Rules 04.13.2007

"President Shit-For-Brains"

On HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last Friday night, Bill's panel included Dana Carvey, Fmr. Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ), and former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan.

Bill Bradley was great, Dana Carvey was annoying, and Scott McClellan was still towing the Bush line. Maher tried to get McClellan to face to truth about the war, but it was like talking to a brick wall. I was hoping that now that McClellan is no longer part of the Bush admin, he would let it all out and speak freely, but that wasn't happenin'

The best part of the show, as always, was New Rules. At one point Bill Maher called Bush, "President Shit-For-Brains" and then looked over and said, sorry, Scott. That little exchange made my whole week.

As soon as someone posts the clip on YouTube, I'll get it on here.

Maybe he should light one up in public?

Barack Obama on Letterman 04/09/2007


You know what I liked most about this interview? When Barack put the politics aside and talked about his struggle to quit smoking. I think he should do more of that.

When you share your flaws, you connect with people. It can make the average person sit up, take notice, and say, ya know, I've got that problem, too.

And, like Letterman jokingly said, it would be kinda cool to have a President that smoked.

Okay, okay, before anyone bites my head off -- I know that smoking is bad for you. I'm just saying that nobody's perfect, and he could use that to his advantage. He'd get the smoker's vote, for sure.

A difficult conversation

Several weeks ago, in a moment of sheer exhaustion and stress, I pulled my Jeep out of the garage while leaving the driver's door open. I bent the door all the way back, and wrecked the frame of my garage at the same time.

I brought my truck into the shop last week and was able to pick it up Saturday. The shop's owner, a Republican, has 2 sons in Iraq, as well as a daughter that may be sent there, as well.

When I came in to pick up my truck, he noticed my "Impeach Cheney First" button that I wear on my army coat. He said, "ahh, but he's such a nice man." Even though I knew he was a Repub, I was taken aback by that comment. He was serious.

I really like this mechanic and his wife. They are good people. I kept that, and their children's situation in mind while we proceeded to have a semi-lengthy discussion about Iraq.

They went on about how the media isn't reporting all the good things that are happening, about how Halliburton isn't all bad, and how the new oil project that is underway is going to help all of the families there.

This was a tough one. I did my best to counter with the facts, but the look in their eyes made it very hard for me to lay it on.

It's heartbreaking.

Our worst fear, realized

654 days left in the Bush administration? Think again.

They have no intention of leaving office in 2009.

I knew something like this was going to happen. They can't leave office yet. Their work isn't done. There are still more countries to invade, there are still more civil liberties to be squashed. After everything they've set in motion, did we really think they'd stand by and let the next administration undo all of that?

From the NY Times:

Cheney: Bush Administration May Challenge 22nd Amendment in 2008 Election.

By PHILIP MCKRACK
Published: April 1, 2007

JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina. April 1 — Vice President Cheney delivered a speech early Sunday morning before a formation of soldiers at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The speech was not publicized and the prepared remarks were intended to boost troop morale. The comments were fairly unremarkable except for one short comment near the end of the speech in which Mr. Cheney suggested that the Bush Administration may seek to challenge the 22nd amendment in the 2008 presidential election in an effort to ensure that the war in Iraq is successful.

Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort to combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of the greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisors looking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."

Because the speech was not publicized and was held on a secure military base, very few journalists were present, and none were able to ask questions about what the Vice President's comments might mean. Repeated efforts to contact the Vice President's Office to clarify the comment were unsuccessful.

The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits U.S. Presidents from running for a third term, stating "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951 after President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition that dated back to George Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refused to run for a third term.

Political pundits and Constitutional experts are split on what the Vice President's comments could mean. Some see the comments as an effort to extend the Administration's "war powers" due to the fact that the country is at war. They argue that there is a tenuous case to be made that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply during war time since the Congress waited until after WW II to introduce such an Amendment. Others say that the mere fact that the country had just ended the war in 1951, when the Amendment was passed, suggests that the Congress would have put such an exception into the language of the Amendment if they had intended it not apply during times of war.

Others say that the Bush Administration will argue that the 2000 race was not actually decided by an election and that the Bush administration has technically only been "elected" once since the Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore effectively nullified the popular vote. Anonymous sources inside the White House have corrborated that this may indeed be the Administration's plan.

Arguing that it was not actually elected would be a very interesting approach for the administration to say the least, but most experts agree that it is certainly possible given the Bush administration's history of creative interpretation of the law with regard to such cases as:

• the assertion that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to U.S. detainees captured on the battlefield,
• suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only includes activities that cause death or organ failure,
• the argument that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process" if declared "enemy combatants", which was recently rejected by the Supreme Court,
• Attorney General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the Constitution doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,
• The Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their warrantless wire taps of Americans.

Critics of the Administration argue that these cases are all the proof needed to believe that The Bush Administration would try to argue that its own victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a third term in 2008.

42

9/11

Okay, here it goes...

Over the last few months, I've heard talk here & there that 9/11 was an inside job. I was like everyone else in that hearing something so horrifying was too much to bear, and far too much to stomach.

But, it stuck with me, so I started looking into it. I watched the documentary "Confronting the Evidence," and others. There are well over 60 documentaries on the subject. The information out there is substantial.

Alex Jones' Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State, is the one my sister recommends. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.

When she was telling me about this film, she mentioned Marvin Bush and his connection to World Trade Center building 7. I said "wait, wait, wait, hold on a second, Marvin Bush, who is that?" She said, "it's another brother." I said, "there's ANOTHER one?" Yes, there is indeed another one, folks. Fuck.

I know I'm going out on a limb with this post, so please, do your own research and make your own conclusions. Research building 7 to start. It was not hit by a plane and it was barely on fire, yet it came down as fast as the others.

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]

Look at the Pentagon crash next. A 757 is a big plane. Where is the debris?

And, finally, take a hard look at the Twin Towers. A 110 story steel building cannot come down in 10 seconds, without help.

Do not believe the official story. Do you believe anything else they've said? You shouldn't treat this any differently.

Who gained from 9/11? Who used our fear to put their plans into action, and do whatever else they wanted? Why did Bush sit in that chair for 7 minutes after being told that the "nation was under attack?" I know he's an idiot, but come on! And, why aren't they really looking for Bin Laden?

I know it's the worst possible thing to imagine that it was an inside job. I do, and I'm not alone.

I love George W. Bush

Over the last few days, I've had a change of heart.

I now believe the Bush administration has done everything right. They only have our best interests in mind when they do all of the things they do. The illusion of safety is good enough for me.

Starting an illegal war, torture, signing statements, squashing habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps, hiring cronies to take over important gov't positions, not securing our chemical plants, ignoring Katrina victims, firing the US Attorneys, etc, it's all good.

I'm going to turn in my DNC card and become a Republican. I think I may start eating meat & wearing fur coats, too. Does anyone know of a good pro-life rally I can attend? And the death penalty? Yep, makes sense to me!

Now, excuse me, it's Sunday, I have to go watch Pat Robertson. He's a wise & wonderful man.

(April Fools!)