A Freethinker's Paradise

King George?

Bush blows off the other two branches of government:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.

Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

I thought the President was still a US citizen?  Why should laws not apply to him?

Rush Limbaugh arrested

Rush Limbaugh was arrested and out on bail within an hour today:

The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and left an hour later after posting $3,000 bail, Barbera said. The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescriptions, Barbera said.

Black said his client and prosecutors reached a settlement on a charge of doctor shopping filed Friday by the State Attorney, which Black said will be dismissed in 18 months if Limbaugh complies with court guidelines.

Ah, it must be good to be someone that can get away with these kinds of things.

Republicans truly are whiny babies

They can't even play softball with Democrats anymore because of 'socialist rules.'

Amid all the partisan rancor of congressional politics, the softball league has for 37 years been a rare case of bipartisan civility, an opportunity for Democratic and Republican aides to sneak out of work a bit early and take the field in the name of the lawmaker, committee or federal agency they work for.

This year, the league will be missing something: a lot of the Republicans.

During the off-season, a group of Republican teams seceded from the league after accusing its Democratic commissioner, Gary Caruso, of running a socialist year-end playoff system that gives below-average teams an unfair chance to win the championship.

The league "is all about Softball Welfare -- aiding the weak by punishing the strong," the pitcher of one Republican team told Mr. Caruso in an email. "The commissioner has a long-standing policy of punishing success and rewarding failure. He's a Democrat. Waddya' expect?" read another email, from Gary Mahmoud, the coach of BoehnerLand, a team from the office of Republican Majority Leader John Boehner.

Ah, speaking of punishing success and rewarding failure, anyone hear of a guy named Rumsfeld?

Also, there was Welfare Reform back in the 1990's-- why wasn't Softball Welfare taken care of back then?

Another reason why Republicans seem like whiny babies to me.

Where was this during the '04 election?

Thirty-five years after Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (D) appeared before a Senate committee to call for an end to the war in Vietnam, he defended that decision yesterday in a speech in his home town and linked it to his current insistence on an early drawdown of troops from Iraq.

Kerry, in remarks delivered in Boston's Faneuil Hall Marketplace, cast dissent in wartime as a patriotic act -- a response to Republican critics who insist that questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq emboldens America's enemies.

"I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties," he said. "They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin."

Yesterday's address was the latest move in Kerry's shadow presidential campaign, launched in the aftermath of his 2004 defeat by President Bush. In a series of speeches, guest columns and television appearances, Kerry has sought to right what many Democrats regard as the defects of that race by outlining a clear exit strategy for Iraq and vowing to fight back against GOP attacks on his and other Democrats' patriotism. Kerry's aggressive attitude is also aimed at wooing liberal voters for a potential presidential bid in 2008.

I doubt Kerry will get the nod in '08, even though he is right about this.  But I think if he doesn't, he'll join the team and keep calling Bush out.

Berlusconi is a sore loser

He needs to just go home, its not like he has more money than I'll make in my lifetime:

Berlusconi has not made any public comments since the court's announcement on Wednesday that Prodi had won the lower house by 24 755 votes - a margin virtually unchanged from the one previously announced.

But Italian newspapers yesterday said the premier remained as combative as ever. "We'll fight. They'll have to deal with us," he was quoted as saying in La Repubblica, a left-leaning daily.

Under Italian law, after the review of contested ballots, any further challenges or complaints are dealt with by the electoral committees set up by the new parliament after it convenes. Such checks can take months and are not expected to stall the political process.

Sure they'll have to deal with him.

The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to defame others

Ah yes, the College Republicans/Christians sue Georgia Tech:

Two Georgia Institute of Technology students have filed a federal lawsuit against the Atlanta university charging that current policies, including a "Safe Space" program dedicated to dispelling anti-gay stereotypes, limit their political and religious speech.

"The Institute threatens punishment ranging from sanction to expulsion for any student or student organization that engages in 'intolerant' speech, expression and behavior," states the lawsuit, filed last month in the Northern District Court of Georgia.

The case was brought by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based legal group that describes itself as a "Christ-centered" organization dedicated to "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding and litigation."

The ADF represents Tech students Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar. Both are members of the school's College Republicans as well as separate religious student groups. Their lawsuit also contends that conservative student organizations are denied school funding while liberal groups, such as the university’s gay support group, are funded.

Ah yes, lots of white money being poured in so that some Christians can continue to feel better by putting others down.  Hopefully this lawsuit will be laughed out of court; otherwise, it would mean once again that some Christians can shit on others with impunity.

Barry Bonds, perjurer?

Why couldn't Barry just tell the truth?  The Feds wouldn't be after him on that if they had nothing:

Bonds and his colleagues were offered immunity for their testimony. The deal was simple: Tell the truth, and you draw a walk; lie and go down for perjury.

Raines has long said that the federal government is out to get his client. And without admitting any wrongdoing on his client's behalf, he has suggested that prosecutors, with their immunity deal, are setting a familiar snare for Bonds.

"Look no further than Martha Stewart. The trap is perjury," Raines said. "You offer immunity and you get him in there and then you ask them questions and you get them on lying to federal officers.

"That's the trap. That's exactly what they got Martha for."

What trap? Tell the truth. 

Are there any good reasons to attack Iran at this point?

     The wheels appear to be coming off the Bush administration:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

So long as the US has a belligerent foreign policy, any country that feels the need to defend itself against the US will try to get one.  North Korea has a nuke, Iraq doesn't.  One got attacked, the other didn't.

The US stands to lose much and gain nothing by attacking Iran.  Why? Because eventually everyone will end up with nukes, given enough time and no crazy leaders thinking they can save the world.

Oh, and I hope the American People aren't stupid enough to the believe anything the administration says without independent evidence.

Feingold continues pushing censure

Feingold is right that Bush doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  In my opinion, its only a matter of time until Bush is either impeached or resigns:

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said Sunday that the president is not above the law and continued to make his case for censuring President George W. Bush over domestic spying.

The Wisconsin Democrat told "Fox News Sunday" that Bush "does not have a legal leg to stand on" in regard to his secretive domestic spying program.

Feingold said he wants his resolution to be voted on because the president has broken the law.

At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, Richard Nixon's White House lawyer said Bush's spying is worse than what Nixon did.

But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News on Sunday that it's "really absurd" to compare this to Watergate.

If Graham is saying its absurd, it must be true, since it seems to me that republicans have a bad habit of making things up and/or lying.  Much more so than the Democrats, particuarly lately.

More DeLay Fun

It looks like (according to this DailyKos diary) DeLay and Abramoff are at the very center of the Republican culture of corruption:

So we have convicted felons Jack Abramoff, Tony Rudy and Mike Scanlon tied to DeLay, Fitial and CNMI. Next on the hit parade will be Ed Buckham. Scanlon was on the trip when the a deal was struck with CNMI Legislators Alejo M. Mendiola (Rota) and Norman S. Palacios (Tinian) to switch their votes and elect Ben Fitial Speaker of the CNMI House. So was Buckham. Rudy was the pointman for DeLay in DC. And Tom delivered the payoff through the appropriation process.

So what earmarks did we pay for? How many extra US dollars went to CNMI to help the Abramoff/DeLay/GOP culture of corruption fix elections in the USA?

Interesting, eh?