Friday, August 29, 2008
Denver Is Over. The Theater In The Hall and In The Streets Is Over. In The Hall The Parties Succeeded Better Than They Has A Right To Expect. The Media and Pundits Wanted Red Meat and Blood. Is was not in the script and in the streets we failed miserably as Fascist Fear prevented the numbers needed for a real revolt from ever materializing and far too many Movement Egomaniac Players satisfied with listening to their own speeches and Rhetoric accomplished nothing. I will not be going to Minneapolis as I expect more of the same scenario. I’m not going to waste more words than that on the matter!
Inside the hall the only real speech no one expected is found below and even that one was censored.
Returning to the task at hand. The Court movement on Meirs and Bolton has provided yet again another opportunity for us to move on. One of these we will wake up and move and not get all excited by a few 100 arrests and an ABC News Producer being arrested, when things get so big arrests can’t be made.
Impeachment: Key to Dems' Win in November Read More: Bush Impeachment, Cheney Impeachment, Dennis Kucinich, Dick Cheney, George Bush, George w.Bush, House Judiciary Committee, Impeachment, John Conyers, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Politics News Rob Kall
It's time the Democrats in Congress did what the vast majority of democrats want, and the constitution demands-- impeachment hearings for Cheney and Bush.
I've had a chance, over the past few months, to get a feel for this. I commissioned a Zogby poll which found that a big majority of Democrats wanted impeachment. I've spoken at local democratic meetings and the support for impeachment is always close to unanimous. Even at the recent Obama unity even, when I asked the 25 people in attendance if they thought Bush and Cheney should be impeached, the response was unanimous.
But Nancy Pelosi won't put impeachment "on the table." And John Conyers has offered some pathetically weak arguments on why he should not hold impeachment hearings, including the shameful argument that it will produce and adverse reaction from the right wing.
The fact is, congress's ratings are at an all time single digit low-- a well deserved rating, primarily due to the hijacking of the Democratic party by it's bluedog wing. These right wing DINOs (Democrats in name only,) led by Stenny Hoyer, have sold out The "Dem" bluedogs have sold out the Democrats who voted for them again and again. Glenn Greenwald has written about what to do about them recently. Let's give "Blue Dogs" the boot.
But meanwhile, I think the bluedogs are the reason Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers are refusing to act upon the evidence Dennis Kucinich and all the people who testified in front of the House Judiciary committee last Friday, at the pseudo impeachment hearings.
The brutal fact is, and I do believe it's a fact, impeachment hearings offer the Democrats the best chance they have of not only insuring Obama's victory, but also for taking 60 seats in the Senate.
First, I'm talking about hearings. There's no need to rush to a vote in the senate. The successful efforts to dump corrupt White house administration people never reached the senate. Both Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon were forced to resign because of HEARINGS.
Now that we have a partial decision on House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al. , maybe it's a good time for a little refresher on why the HJC wanted White House documents and Miers' testimony in the first place.
Miers name came up repeatedly over the course of congressional investigations into the U.S. attorney firing scandal, over her communications with former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, Kyle Sampson.
Those communications revealed that Sampson and Miers began exchanging emails discussing the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, almost two years before those attorneys were purged from the department in December 2007. In March 2006, Sampson famously sent an email to Miers, ranking all of the sitting U.S. attorneys in order of "loyalty to the Attorney General."
Though Miers initially suggested that all 93 U.S. attorneys be dismissed, Sampson vetoed that idea, with the approval of the Attorney General, and arranged for limited dismissals, ultimately providing Miers with a seven person list of targeted candidates to be considered for removal.
The House Judiciary Committee has won the first round of its lawsuit against the White House over contempt of Congress in House Judiciary Committee v. Harriet Miers et al.
From the order:
Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena from plaintiff; and Ms. Miers may invoke executive privilege in response to specific questions as appropriate.
and that. . .
Joshua Bolten and Ms. Miers shall produce all non-privileged documents requested by the applicable subpoenas and shall provide to plaintiff a specific description of any documents withheld from production on the basis of executive privilege consistent with the terms of the Memorandum Opinion issued on this date
The ruling is the latest in an ongoing battle between Congress and the White House, to have senior aides testify about the U.S. attorney firings.
After looking over the Opinion, Federal Judge John Bates lays out protocol for Congressional subpoenas, stating that while there may be perfectly legitimate claims of executive privilege, a subpoena from Congress can't just be ignored-- and if it is, Congress has a right to sue for failure to respond.
But as far as those claims of executive privilege go, the questions of their validity is still on the table. The Opinion specifically states that the Court "expresses no view on such claims," but it does go so far as to demand that the White House produce specific descriptions of all documents that relate to the claim of executive privilege. This list of descriptions, often called a "privilege log," helps lift the veil on the swath of documents that are being considered under the Administration's privilege claim.
So in short, the White House can continue to claim executive privilege, and Congress can continue to sue them on the legitimacy of the claims. Unless the two parties can work something out, around and around we go.
World Ends In OctoberBy jeepndesert You had the chance to impeach the fucker. But no, you’re too scared to impeach Bush and Cheney for destroying the US Constitution and killing 3000 Americans on 9/11. Yes, Hillary is a psychopath because everyone knows her husband ...New World Liberty - http://newworldliberty.wordpress.com
And then there is the matter of how long we will be able to use this medium with any degree of meaningfulness. And you wonder why I am so angry!
Net Neutrality, what it is and what it means. Freedom on the Information Highway is on a downhill slide.
WATCH THIS commercial sponsored by The National Cable and Telecommunications Association lobbying groups lying to you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGOPNsB_ymU&feature=related
OKAY, NOW WATCH THE TRUTH:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_k0skYseQ&feature=related
Snopes says the report about Congress' allowing Internet providers to abandon the concept of 'network neutrality' is True.
Snopes report:http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/neutrality.asp
Comcast has announced a limit on bandwidth of 250gb per month to their subscribers according to a Friday August 29th 2008 NAB (National Association Of Broadcasters) news report.http://nab365.bdmetrics.com//NST-2-50095811/story.aspx?utm_source=nab365&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=enewsletter&ocuid=NDExNDcyNQ==-KSYsRd7zcuQ=/
BUT CAN WE STOP IT FROM HAPPENING?http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Wikipedia's history and information of 'Network Neutrality'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Google's own site regarding the issue of 'Net Neutrality'http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
End Post…If you see this it means a major technical problem has been fixed/overcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment