Chief Justice John G. Roberts

God help us. Really. Let's hope he upholds the law and not radical conservative ideology.

Tomorrow's Friday, and my guess is the Friday Dump will be the new Sandra Day O'Connor replacement nomination.

Cindy Sheehan interview at Mother Jones

There's a very good interview with Cindy Sheehan at Mother Jones. Definitely worth checking out. It's short enough to read in a couple minutes, but in that time you'll get a clear view of what her views are. They definitely are not what BushCo would like you to believe they are!

Bill Bennett: Former Education Secretary, Author, Racist

Sometimes I sit back and wonder what goes on in the minds of conservatives. It's a mental exercise, just to keep the old brain limber. Also, like Alice in Wonderland, I try to believe at least one impossible thing a day. It's hard to find anything stranger than a conservative's mind to try to find some to believe in, although it certainly is possible to something impossible to believe in.

Take this for instance. Here's a little tidbit of what goes on inside of Bill Bennett's mind, as in the mind of an unnamed caller. Bill Bennett was the Secretary of Education during the Reagan administration. He also wrote The Book of Virtues and The Children's Book of Virtues. He has a radio show, Bill Bennett's Morning in America. It is broadcast across the nation on the Salem Radio Network. Here is an excerpt from yesterday's show.

CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't -- never touches this at all.

BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as -- abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.

CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

This is interesting. The caller thinks one of the reasons abortion is wrong is because it is denying the government revenue that could fund Social Security, since those aborted would possibly grow up and become good little taxpayers.

And second, Bill Bennett thinks that if you wanted to lower the crime rate, you could abort every black baby in the country.

If you'd like to listen to an excerpt go to MediaMatters.

Congressman John Conyers isn't taking this lightly, nor should any of us! This is an excerpt from a letter he wrote to Greg Anderson, President of the Salem Radio Network.

It is difficult for us to understand how an individual granted a show on your network could utter such a statement in 21st century America. While we all support First Amendment Rights, we simply cannot countenance statements and shows that are replete with racism, stereotyping, and profiling. Mr. Bennett's statement is insulting to all of us and has no place on the nation's public air waves. The fact that Mr. Bennett later acknowledged that such abortions would be "morally reprehensible," but added again that if it was done "the crime rate would go down," is equally outrageous.

To read more, go to DKos.

Bennett's remarks are inexcusable. I urge you to write to the Salem Radio Network and demand they cancel Bill Bennett's Morning in America. While I all for freedom of speech, when it crosses over to hate speech such as this that is unacceptable. Yes, he did say the abortions were morally reprehensible, but right after that he said if it was done it would lower the crime rate. It's still Hate Speech, racist and unacceptable.

And to think this man had the cajones to write books on virtue!

Brown: It's Their Own Fault

"My biggest mistake was not recognizing by Saturday [August 27] that Louisiana was dysfunctional," he said in his opening testimony.

Later in the testimony he said, "My mistake was in [not] recognizing that, for whatever reasons, ... Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco were reticent to order a mandatory evacuation."

To read more from this on the CNN site, click here.

And then read the posts on Nagin and Blanco. Sure there were problems. I've never seen a natural disaster that didn't have problems. Brown was a BAD appointment. No qualifications, just a FOG. (Friend of George) FEMA is broken and Katrina showed it.

Nagin's evacuation order

See this and more here.

CIVIL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS

STATE OF LOUISIANA

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS

PROMULGATION OF EMERGENCY ORDERS

WHEREAS, the National Weather Service has indicated that Hurricane Katrina will likely affect the Louisiana coast with hurricane force winds and heavy rainfall by this evening;

WHEREAS, because of anticipated high lake and marsh tides due to the tidal surge, combined with the possibility of intense thunderstorms, hurricane force winds, and widespread severe flooding, Governor Kathleen Blanco and I, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, have each declared a State of Emergency;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, as the Mayor of the City of New Orleans, pursuant to the authority granted by La. Rev. Stat. 29:727, do hereby promulgate and issue the following orders, which shall be effective immediately and which shall remain in effect until the earlier of five days following the date of this issuance or the declaration by the Governor that the State of Emergency no longer exists:

1. A mandatory evacuation order is hereby called for all of the Parish of Orleans, with only the following exceptions: essential personnel of the United States of America, State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans; essential personnel of regulated utilities and mass transportation services; essential personnel of hospitals and their patients; essential personnel of the media; essential personnel of the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriffs Office and its inmates and essential personnel of operating hotels and their patrons. Unless covered by one of the aforementioned exceptions, every person is hereby ordered to immediately evacuate the City of New Orleans or, if no other alternative is available, to immediately move to one of the facilities within the City that will be designated as refuges of last resort.

2. In order to effectuate the mandatory evacuation, at the direction of the Mayor, the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of Homeland Security for the City of New Orleans or any member of the New Orleans Police Department, the City may commandeer any private property, including, but not limited to, buildings that may be designated as refuges of last resort and vehicles that may be used to transport people out the area.

The City Attorney is directed to file this declaration promptly in the office of the Clerk of Court and with the Secretary of State.

Gov. Blanco's Letter to Bush

Here's Gov. Kathleen Blanco's letter to Bush.

August 27, 2005


The President
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Through:
Regional Director
FEMA Region VI
800 North Loop 288
Denton, Texas 76209

Dear Mr. President:

Under the provisions of Section 501 (a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR § 206.35, I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing. The affected areas are all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting the thousands of citizens evacuating from the areas expecting to be flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. A State of Emergency has been issued for the State in order to support the evacuations of the coastal areas in accordance with our State Evacuation Plan and the remainder of the state to support the State Special Needs and Sheltering Plan.

Pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal.

Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of emergency assistance needed under the Stafford Act, and emergency assistance from certain Federal agencies under other statutory authorities are tabulated in Enclosure A.

The following information is furnished on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of this emergency:
• Department of Social Services (DSS): Opening (3) Special Need Shelters (SNS) and establishing (3) on Standby.
• Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH): Opening (3) Shelters and establishing (3) on Standby.
• Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP): Providing generators and support staff for SNS and Public Shelters.
• Louisiana State Police (LSP): Providing support for the phased evacuation of the coastal areas.
• Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF): Supporting the evacuation of the affected population and preparing for Search and Rescue Missions.


Mr. President
Page Two
August 27, 2005


• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD): Coordinating traffic flow and management of the evacuations routes with local officials and the State of Mississippi.


The following information is furnished on efforts and resources of other Federal agencies, which have been or will be used in responding to this incident:
• FEMA ERT-A Team en-route.

I certify that for this emergency, the State and local governments will assume all applicable non-Federal share of costs required by the Stafford Act.

I request Direct Federal assistance for work and services to save lives and protect property.

(a) List any reasons State and local government cannot perform or contract for performance, (if applicable).

(b) Specify the type of assistance requested.

In accordance with 44 CFR § 206.208, the State of Louisiana agrees that it will, with respect to Direct Federal assistance:

1. Provide without cost to the United States all lands, easement, and rights-of-ways necessary to accomplish the approved work.

2. Hold and save the United States free from damages due to the requested work, and shall indemnify the Federal Government against any claims arising from such work;

3. Provide reimbursement to FEMA for the non-Federal share of the cost of such work in accordance with the provisions of the FEMA-State Agreement; and

4. Assist the performing Federal agency in all support and local jurisdictional matters.

In addition, I anticipate the need for debris removal, which poses an immediate threat to lives, public health, and safety.

Pursuant to Sections 502 and 407 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5192 & 5173, the State agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the United States of America for any claims arising from the removal of debris or wreckage for this disaster. The State agrees that debris removal from public and private property will not occur until the landowner signs an unconditional authorization for the removal of debris.


I have designated Mr. Art Jones as the State Coordinating Officer for this request. He will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency in damage assessments and may provide further information or justification on my behalf.

Sincerely,




Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
Governor
Enclosure


ENCLOSURE A TO EMERGENCY REQUEST


Estimated requirements for other Federal agency programs:
• Department of Social Services (DSS): Opening (3) Special Need Shelters (SNS) and establishing (3) on Standby. Costs estimated at $500,000 per week for each in operation.
• Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH): Opening (3) Shelters and establishing (3) on Standby. Costs estimated at $500,000 per week for each in operation.
• Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP): Providing generators and support staff for SNS and Public Shelters. Costs estimated to range from $250,000-$500,000 to support (6) Shelter generator operations.
• Louisiana State Police (LSP): Costs to support evacuations - $300,000 for a non-direct landfall.
• Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF): Costs to support evacuations - $200,000 for a non-direct landfall.
• Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD): Costs to support evacuations - $2,000,000 for a non-direct landfall.


Totals: $ 9,000,000

Estimated Requirements for assistance under the Stafford Act:

Coordination: $0
Technical and advisory assistance: $0
Debris removal: $0
Emergency protective measures: $ 9,000,000
Individuals and Households Program (IHP): $0
Distribution of emergency supplies: $0
Other (specify): $0

Totals: $ 9,000,000
Grand Total: $ 9,000,000

Should Bush and Cheney be impeached?

Are we that angry that we want impeachment? Are there grounds for impeachment? I do believe there are grounds for being angry at Bush and his (mis)administration.

We've long been skeptical of our elected officials and of the government in general. But look at the voting percentages. We are also apathetic; we like to complain, but don't bother to vote. People, you had your chance to participate in our political process and blew it off. And now look where that got us.

Bill Clinton was impeached because he couldn't keep his zipper in a locked and upright position. Nobody died.

George W Bush lies about weapons of mass destruction and thousands are dying. "Exit strategy"? What's that? Top positions in the administration were filled not by qualified candidates, but by FOGs: Friends of George.

And you want to get really pissed? Come back in a couple days when I post my rant on Abramoff! (Here's a spoiler: he calls Native Americans monkeys and troglodytes. I'm part Lenape. Give you any idea of what the tone will be like?)


This is from ImpeachNow. My guess is it's going to be one of many groups actively calling for Bush and Cheney's impeachment or resignation.

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT
The President and Vice President misinformed citizens in the most serious act that a government can undertake—leading its people to war. The principal reasons they gave have been exposed as unfounded, namely:

That there was an imminent threat of a secret attack by Iraq which would use weapons of mass destruction against the US and its allies;

that Saddam Hussein was cooperating with the al Qaida terrorists, with the implication that he was involved in the attack of those terrorists on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

There is ample evidence to believe that the President and Vice President systematically misrepresented the poor intelligence provided them with the intention of deliberately deceiving the public and Congress in order to take the nation to an unnecessary and illegal war. Even if the President and Vice President were misinformed by their intelligence agencies, they did not take due diligence in evaluating the information and analysis provided them in making the decision to go to war, for which they are accountable.

The President undertook aggressive war against Iraq under cover of a defensive, preventive first strike, contrary to the United Nations Charter which by treaty is the law of the land in this country. Therefore he violated US law.

The President undertook aggressive war against Afghanistan without pursuing the negotiations offered by its government to deliver Osama bin Laden to international authorities for trial.

In the aggressive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan tens of thousands of civilians and military personnel were killed and wounded on all sides for which the President and Vice President must be held responsible.

President Bush took the nation to war twice in violation of the authority to declare war that is solely vested in Congress by the Constitution. The President sought and received from Congress unconstitutional authority to take the nation to war against any persons, groups or nations that he designated as responsible for the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, or as harboring such groups. A year later he sought the same authority to go to war against Iraq without a declaration of war by Congress. In both instances he took the nation to war at his own discretion against parties and at a time of his deciding rather than seeking authority from Congress, which is a violation of the war-making power that the Constitution gives only to it. Further, the war powers resolution with regard to Iraq specifically provided that the President secure the authorization of the UN Security Council, which he failed to do, thereby violating the power that Congress gave to him, albeit, illegally.

President Bush also took the nation to war against Afghanistan without approval of the UN Security Council. Its resolution 1368, drafted by the US, specifically avoided seeking UN authorization of the use of force because the Bush administration claimed that its right to self-defense did not require approval by the UN, a clear violation of the UN Charter that forbad retaliation. Afghanistan was not mentioned by the resolution. The US attack on that country weeks later therefore added a further violation of the UN Charter and hence US law.

The President in The National Security Strategy that he promulgated in September, 2002, declared it to be the policy of the United States to seek military and economic supremacy around the world as necessary to US security and prosperity. It adds that the US will be ready to use pre-emptive first strikes unilaterally and without UN approval against any nation or group that threatens US supremacy. In a supplementary statement in December of that year the President declared that the government was entitled to use nuclear weapons for this purpose. These brazen statements violate the Preamble of the Constitution’s declaration that the aim of the US government should be to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity….” They also violate the UN Charter’s goal of world peace through collective security, to which the US is legally bound..

The President rammed through Congress the USA Patriot Act and subsequent legislation that abridge the civil liberties of citizens and non-citizen residents, protected by the Constitution. The fact that the Congress approved this legislation does not in itself make it constitutional.

The President and his appointees also issued executive orders that infringe the constitutional rights of citizens and residents, including persons held in custody as “enemy combatants,” a newly invented category of what international law calls prisoners of war. These prisoners have been held in indefinite custody without charge, denied benefit of legal counsel and the right to attorney-client confidentiality.

The President has obstructed justice by restricting the investigation of the attacks of September 11, 2001. He has also refused to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of congressional oversight of executive functions.

President Bush must be held accountable for engineering the coup against the elected democratic president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and instructing the US ambassador to Haiti and US troops to remove him from office by threat and force, when his presidency should have been defended. This constitutes a violation of US law, the UN Charter and other international law.

These are all on-going offenses, and the failure to prosecute them will compound the damage already done, increasing the numbers of lives lost and maimed, the disruption of world affairs and increasing the terrorism that these officials claimed they sought to halt.

Now let's be serious for a moment. Impeachment? Prosecution? At this moment in time, our country is in a crisis caused by natural disasters. We are in a war we cannot win. Our economy is going down the tubes. Do we want to spend the time working on impeachment or rebuilding our country?

I think we need to keep the impeachment option open. But right now there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who need food and shelter and medical care. The deserve to have it and an impeachment would just slow down their healing.

Also, an impeachment would add even more chaos to an already inept government. My gut say wait until 2008 and vote the crooks out!

However, I will keep the Impeach Bush banner up as a reminder that we need to be very vigilent. We need to watch Bush and his FOGs. And we need to point out injustice, lies, and just plain stupid things this (mis)administration does.

It's time to be "eternally vigilant" citizens of this country many of our ancestors fought and dies for.

Up to 300,000 Strong Protest in Washington

This is heartening! From the Melbourne Herald Sun:

300,000 protest against Iraq war
26sep05

MORE than 100,000 protesters in Washington and thousands in London yesterday demonstrated against the US-led war in Iraq.

Prominent anti-war protester, Cindy Sheehan, who camped outside US President George W. Bush's Texas holiday ranch for weeks after her son was killed fighting in Iraq said: "We need a people's movement to end this war."
Organisers of the Washington demonstration said 300,000 people had assembled -- triple the expected 100,000. But Washington police refused to confirm this.

A US veterans' group said the protests would devastate troop morale.

But a 22-year-old who fought in Iraq until medically discharged four months ago, disagreed. "People join the military to defend their country, not lies," said Adam Reuter.

I wish I could have been there, but given health and finances, this time around I couldn't make it. I do intend to go to as many protests as I can. Why? Like Adam Reuter said, "People join the military to defend their country, not lies." This war is wrong. Period.

My father is a Korean War veteran, and is adamantly against the war. Though he lives in New York, he would have loved to go to Crawford, as would I. Crawford is just the beginning though.

We need to mobilize and have a consistent message: ending the war in a timely and realistic manner in necessary because it was based on lies. You know what? I don't even feel comfortable calling it a war. I'm not sure what to call though. It's not a "police action". Profiteer-led invasion? GWB Legacy Campaign? Operation Fraud?

What do we say to the Iraqis whose country is now in ruins? Yes, most, are thrilled that Saddam Hussein is out of power and his sons are dead. They were scum. But will we help rebuild what we destroyed?

If I were an Iraqi woman, I'd be asking these questions:

Where's our water and electricity?
Why have car bombings skyrocketed?
Why aren't we safe in our own country?
Why is al Qaida here now trying to get my sons to join them?
Do we have to worry about election results being tampered with? (Yeah, I wonder our results here, too.)
Can we really be united as a nation, or will our religious differences result in Federalism?
If we institute Sharia will I and my daughters have to be veiled when outside?
Will be have to have a male relative with us when we go out?
Will my daughters and I be allowed to drive?
If I or one of my daughters are raped, will the only way to get a conviction against the rapist be to have four male witnesses who saw the rape testify that yes, a rape occurred?
If I or one of my daughters is accused and convicted of adultery, would we be stoned to death or beheaded?

What has Bush done? Did he even understand the culture of the area before he decided to put on the White Knight suit and go to "democratize" Iraq. Do Iraqis and Bush even have the same definition of democracy? I honestly don't know. But I feel this war has put the United States in more danger, not just from terrorist attacks, but from attacks from within when protesters are labeled traitors and American citizens, like Manuel Padilla, who are suspected of terrorist ties are denied their constitutional rights.

And I don't want this democracy Bush so wants to put in place result in a form of government where Sharia is used to legally condemn a women to death by stoning or beheading for committing adultery.

Do you want your sons and daughters to fight for that?