Is there no difference in the attitudes Nancy Nord and Irwin Mainway?

From the NYT, Stephan Labaton writes:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 — The nation’s top official for consumer product safety has asked Congress in recent days to reject legislation intended to strengthen the agency, which polices thousands of consumer goods, from toys to tools.

In an interview Irwin Mainway said:

Okay, Miss, I wanna correct you, alright. The full name of this product, as it appears in stores all over the county, is Johnny Switchblade: Adventure Punk. I mean, nothing goes wrong.. little girls buy 'em, you know, they play games, they make up stories, nobody gets hurt. I mean, so Barbie takes a knife once in a while, or Ken gets cut. You know, there's no harm in that. I mean, as far as I can see, you know?

Stephan Labaton continues:

Ms. Nord opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistle-blowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws.

Continuing the intervew Irwin Mainway states:

Consumer Reporter: Alright. Fine. Fine. Well, we'd like to show you another one of Mr. Mainway's products. It retails for $1.98, and it's called Bag O' Glass. [ holds up bag of glass ] Mr. Mainway, this is simply a bag of jagged, dangerous, glass bits.

Irwin Mainway: Yeah, right, it's you know, it's glass, it's broken glass, you know? It sells very well, as a matter of fact, you know? It's just broken glass, you know?

... We're just packaging what the kids want! I mean, it's a creative toy, you know? If you hold this up, you know, you see colors, every color of the rainbow! I mean, it teaches him about light refraction, you know? Prisms, and that stuff! You know what I mean?

But acting Chair of the Consumer Products Safety Council has the same ideological fetish that Mr. Bush has:  All Government is Bad and all Corporations is Good.

Judge Mukasey has sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to questions by Senators Leahy, Specter, et.al. concerning "torture" and warrantless surveillence.

This is what he wrote:

"Therefore it is accurate to say that torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited by laws of the United States which of course includes the Constitution. Moreover. this protection, based as it is on treaty and statues enacted by Congress and signed by the President...."

He defines a precatory standard for the Fourth Amendment writes Michael, from Discourse.net, in regard to whether or not the President can spy on Americans without a warrant.  Warrantless searches as Judge Mukasey cites specific cases like vehicle searches, arrest, and border searches are of a different class then what intelliegence gathering agencies under the direction of Mr. Bush has done.  He is using sophistry in his argument for continuing such surveillence.

Write the Senators to let them know that we know that Judge Mukasey is being dishonest in his answers and that his intention is to let Mr. Bush continue to be "the rule of one man" not beholden to "the rule of law". 

I caught this off HuffingtonPost.com:

Ford Saw Clinton As Sex Addict: New Bio

* Quick Read | * Comments (273) | * Related

or this off Buzzflash.com:

In his newest book, published posthumously, Gerald Ford viewed the Iraq war as a mistake, and also believed Dick Cheney was a liability and should have been replaced on the 2004 Republican ticket 10/30 

This is the same story about Ford's posthumous book.

Why is Huffingtonpost still running with a headline about the old-as-the-hills- Clinton-as-sex-fiend-meme and not about Darth Cheney?

Why is the Attorney General worth the time to fight for?  Abu "no express habeas corpus in the Constitution" Gonzales.

Jeralyn, TalkLeft.com, writes:

Many people think the role of Attorney General is simply to be the nation's "top cop," the chief criminal law enforcer. But it is much more. The role of the Attorney General is to serve as America's lawyer, in civil as well as criminal matters. He is not the President's lawyer. He is our lawyer.

The White House has its own legal counsel which is called "The Office of Counsel to the President".  From Wikipedia.org:

The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.

This is why the Department of Justice is critical to having our system of jurisprudience be unbiased and apolitical. 

The attorney general nominee Judge Mukasey on torture has told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he is against, but he now states:

At one point during the hearings, he told Sen. Durbin: "It is not constitutional for the United States to engage in torture in any form, be it waterboarding or anything else." In other words, waterboarding is torture when it rises to the level of torture (however torture might be defined) -- but the technique in and of itself does not necessarily constitute torture.

The ABA reports that even Senator Spector is troubled. 

I believe that if the American people really knew what waterboarding entailed (shown actual prisoners being waterboarded and not a reporter, Steve Harrigan, from Foxnews  calling it "not so bad") and that people were waterboarded in our system of interrogation camps for the Jack Bauer cold blooded murderer scenario- "Ticking Time Bomb" then there would be a great revulsion to Mr. Bush's policy of using torture techniques.

So, Judge Mukasey doesn't know the technique involved?  It is not necessary to know that because in his role as Attorney General he would be acting as an advisor to Mr. Bush, David Lubin writes:

However, Gonzales, Bybee, and their crew crossed a different ethical line. They were not acting as courtroom advocates but as legal advisers, with a different professional standard to which they needed to adhere. Model Rule 2.1, titled "Advisor," provides that "a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice." Legal advisers must play it straight, even where the "[l]egal advice [may] involve[] unpleasant facts and alternatives that a client may be disinclined to confront." Independence means saying what the law is—as mainstream lawyers and judges understand it—regardless of what the client wishes it to be. Candor requires lawyers with eccentric theories to warn their clients whenever their legal advice veers away from the mainstream. The torture lawyers betrayed both these principles with the advice they gave the White House.

As the Attorney General he would have broad sway of policy implementation and discretion at to what policies to enforce.

David Lubin continues:

But what happens when the client doesn't want candid advice? When the client says, in effect, "Give me a legal opinion saying I can do what I want to do"? Lawyers confront such requests every day—but if the lawyer does the client's bidding, she has crossed the fatal line from adviser to accomplice.

What cannot be clearer is that Judge Mukasey is against torture before he is for torture.

Why should Democrats vote to approve out of committee Judge Mukasey to the full Senate?  The New York Times reporter Philip Shenon writes:

Many Democratic lawmakers say privately that he is still likely to be confirmed, given the need for leadership in the Justice Department after months of turmoil.

What kind of reason is that?  This is capitulation to Mr. Bush who continues to send up unqualified people for administration posts.

Let our Senator Salazar know that we will support a primary challenge to him if he doesn't uphold his oath to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

I caught this off Truthout.org on Micheal Mukasey, Bush's nomination for Attorney General:

WASHINGTON — President Bush's choice for attorney general told senators Friday the Constitution does not prevent the president from wiretapping suspected terrorists without a court order.

Michael Mukasey said the president cannot use his executive power to get around the Constitution and laws prohibiting torture. But wiretapping suspected terrorists' without warrants is not precluded, he said.

Read the rest here.

What's the point that Judge Mukasey is making?  I fail to see the distinction that Judge Mukasey is seeing with regard to how this administration's lawyers at the Office of Legal Consul and the White House legal staff.  How can you say that torture is a not legal under the auspices of the Constitution but still argue that surveillence is to be condoned in contradiction to the Bill of Rights?

The legal reasoning by him will not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

"Torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment are prohibited by the laws of the United States, which of course includes the Constitution," Mukasey wrote. In contrast, "the weight of authority indicates that warrantless surveillance to collect foreign intelligence is not unconstitutional so long as it is otherwise reasonable."

Judge Mukasey is setting a very low standard of judicial proof- reasonable versus probably cause.  Again this is moot since he is backing up the administration's legal argument that the judicial branch has no purvey in how or why surveillence of Americans is justified.

He is not qualified to be the Attorney General because his answers to the Senate Judiciary questions are not forthright in clarity to key constitutional issues that are in play with this administration.

Tell Senator Salazar that Judge Mukasey should be voted down. 

Once again the international press provides the stories that the American corporate media ignores. From Friday's Financial Times, US congress hears war costs could hit $2,400bn over the next decade.

The US House (committee not identified) got this report from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Peter Orszag.  This horrendous number was based on leading comments by the generals in Iraq that troops on the ground will reduce to 75,000 by 2013, and STAY the same for the following four years.

Two key points are that this is being financed by deficit spending, and he had to project the costs of US troops staying in Iraq through 2017.  Maybe that's not as permanent as Mount Rushmore, but it's too much of an occupation for me to accept.

The signs are all there folks...this is turning into a long-term, on-the-ground presence in Iraq that will rival South Korea and Cold-War Europe.  The Congressional Democrats must use these new spending figures to bring this diabolical occupation plan to halt.  There can be no more detrimental US policy than to force our troops to endure the hate and mis-trust any additional day than absolutely necessary on Iraqi soil.

The National Debt Interest on the Iraq/Afghanistan Supplementals ALONE will reach $700 Billion by 2017 (this looks like he was doing a standard 10-year forecast report).  So the Children's and Grandchildren's tax continues to grow.  While the robber-baron sponsors of the current occupant of the White House are getting rich, our heirs are facing the burdens of growing debt.

You have to wonder at how did those big California fires become so large in the first place?  Aside from the weather what were the human factors?

Here's a cogent answer by Micheal Roston, from Huffington Post:

"When the National Fire Plan came out in 2000, a main emphasis was on local preparedness through a significant infusion of grants for more local firefighting equipment," the aide explained to the Huffington Post. "A significant amount of that money has disappeared as a result of the administration's budget policies. You can have lots of funding going into big federal accounts, but local fire departments get to the fire first, and they carry a lot of the load, particularly when fires are not burning on federal lands. From what I've heard in the news, there has been concern about the local fire departments' preparedness in the areas the fires have burned, and that is the situation those grants are targeted at."

Forest Service staff did not respond to requests for comment on why the budgets were cut.

In addition to the budget cuts, a significant change in policy across the Bush administration made it more difficult to call up federal Forest Service firefighters in crisis situations like the one that destroyed so many homes in southern California. The White House's insistence on the outsourcing of government services has been vigorously applied to the Forest Service. A lone, obscure sentence within the Office of Management and Budget's explanation of the Fiscal Year 2008 budget request for the Forest Service hints at the reasoning for this policy.

"Specifically, the Budget will reduce overhead, business management, and other indirect costs by one-third to improve efficiency and program delivery," the report stated.

The shift to outsourcing government work within the Forest Service has had a unique effect. Traditionally, almost every employee who worked within the Forest Service in even the lowliest of functions, was trained in firefighting and could be sent out to defeat the wildfires. But with more and more work in the Forest Service outsourced, and accelerating retirements among Forest Service personnel, there are fewer and fewer workers to call up and form a firefighting militia in a crisis. The heavy reliance on contractors has therefore made it harder to fight wildfires like those that burned in southern California's chaparral.

Isn't this the same recipe for diasaster that Bush's ideology demands- privatization of public assests (this time fire fighting capability) because freemarket "efficiency" is always better than big, bad government?

Look at the cost of privatization of the US military.  As Bill Willers writes:

Well, perhaps they do. Maybe they make even more obvious the Republican game plan to plunge government so deeply into debt that it can no longer offer support to the larger citizenry, and that this can only result in the corporate sector winning by default and becoming, in principle, like so many mediaeval landowners. Looking ahead, one sees the main controlling element of society not a government of, by and for the people but a corporate sector that controls life’s essentials and charges as much as the market will bear. “Nothing personal; just business.”

Should we live by the "rule of law"?  Apparently not!

What kind of lawmakers in Congress would create a bill that would give law breakers a free pass?

Senator Jay Rockefeller and the Senate Intelligence Committee are such lawmakers.

Giving "retroactive immunity" to telecommunications corporations, with co-conspirators Mr. Bush, his administration, and in the intelligence gathering agencies, who have repeatedly broke the law by not going to the FISA court to receive warrants to spy on Americans would mean that justice will never be served. 

Such a bill would give any future president the right to spy on Americans.  There would be no judicial review because the legal precedent would be set by this bill which is unprecedented.  Corporations that commit criminal acts under our laws would have the legal weapon to invoke "executive" (presidential) priviledge on the grounds of "national security" and "state secrets" to deny lawsuits and Congressional investigations into acts by those corporations against the Constitutionally guarantees within the First and Fourth amendments.

Our nation is said to operate under "the rule of law".  It means that all entities operate under that principal.  No man, even the president, is above the law.

FISA was enacted to counteract that lawlessness of Mr. Nixon and his use of the intelligence agencies.  What we are witnessing now is what Mr. Nixon dreamed of- unchecked presidential power to spy on all Americans that could never be reviewed by the judiciary and Congress.

Giving such power to the president is dangerous.  The bill passed out by the Senate Intelligence Committee would set the legal grounds to circumvent the bedrock principal upon which this nation lives under- "the rule of law". 

Sign the petition to tell Senator Reid "NO LEGAL IMMUNITY".

A little dustup in who Obama campaigns with. Steve Soto, TheLeftCoaster.com, writes:

Why in his drive for a “new kind of politics” does Obama associate with Republicans who believe in a religious war to reform gays? Whenever Obama channels his inner Lieberman, he looks less and less appealing, and frankly, less and less progressive.

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com, writes:

Barack Obama has called on the Dept of Justice to fire an employee who Obama thinks endorses bigotry against minorities. We're hoping to hear from the Obama campaign that the Senator has the same zero-tolerance for bigotry against minorities when the bigot works on his own campaign. Obama's Web site is still promoting McClurkin all over it.

Keith Boykin writes about gospel singer and reverend Donnie McClurkin:

"Love is pulling you one way and lust is pulling you another and your relationship with Jesus is tearing you," McClurkin told the media. He says that God delivered him from homosexuality, and since that time, he has been counseling adolescent boys that homosexuality is merely a lifestyle choice that can be overcome...

Donnie McClurkin had a very rough childhood. That alone is a tragedy. But what makes his otherwise inspiring story so troubling is that he is now violating young people in much the same way that he was violated. By teaching young people that they can pray their way out of who they are, he is essentially creating a generation of newly confused adolescents.

What do progressnowaction members think? 

From the live blogging by Glenn Greenwald:

Sen. Feinstein: As critical as I've been of Dianne Feinstein, her questioning was far and away the most important and enlightening thus far, and Mukasey's answers were deeply disturbing, though I am quite certain they will not impede her vote for confirmation.

She focused on Mukasey's ruling in Padilla (overturned by the Second Circuit) that the President has the power to detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without charging them with a crime.

Feinstein asked whether Mukasey would advise the President that -- as he ruled -- he does have the power to detain American citizens on U.S. soil with no charges.

Mukasey tried initially to evade the question by claiming (inaccurately) that the Supreme Court in Hamdi ruled that the President does have that power (the Hamdi decision actually held the opposite: that while the President could detain U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants," some basic due process must be provided in order for the accused to prove his innocence. Upon the ruling, the Bush administration released Hamdi rather than prove his guilt). But worse, as Feinstein pointed out, Hamdi was detained on a battlefield in Afghanistan, not on U.S. soil.

So she asked again: would you advise the President that he has the power to detain American citizens on U.S. soil with no charges? This time, forced to answer, Mukasey gave a disturbing, evasive non-answer: he said, in essence, that he is not sure that there is legal authority now to do so given the Second Circuit's reversal of his decision. To Mukaskey, then, it is an open question whether the President can imprison U.S. citizens, arrested on U.S. soil, with no charges of any kind. Shouldn't that be a rather significant hurdle to his becoming Attorney General, to put it mildly?

Feinstein also asked quite vigilantly about Mukasey's statement in the Padilla case that "courts may not review the level of force selected by the President." She asked whether he believes that Congress has the power to limit the President's decisions regarding wars and the use of military force. Mukasey, in essence, failed and refused to answer again. First, when she asked how long this Presidential authority lasts to use force, Mukasey replied: "it lasts as long as it has to last until other political bodies can take the matter up and deal with it" -- implying, though not necessarily, that the only thing Congress can do is authorize, but not prohibit, the President's use of military force.

When Feinstein pressed further, Mukasey said he hopes the conflict between Congress' powers and the President's powers on the issue of war would never have to be resolved, because he hopes there will never be a conflict. But Feinstein -- clearly referring to Iran -- said he had to know the answer, because soon "we could be faced with an exercise of executive power that we would want to bind."

Thus, she asked again: "would Congress have authority under Article I to do so?" Mukasey replied: it "would depend on how it was done and what was done." He said that he doesn't really know the answer, because his "learning curve [about these issues] has been pretty steep."

When Feinstein pressed again and asked whether the President would be required to at least advise Congress of his intentions and actions with regard to war, Mukasey didn't answer that either, saying instead: "The President does do that. It would depend on the level of detail." It "would be unwise" for the President to use force without telling Congress.

These are rather critical issues -- and ones easily anticipated -- that he has showed up unprepared to answer. And some of them -- such as the power of the U.S. President to detain U.S. citizens without charges and the ability of Congress to limit the president's war powers -- ought not need a "learning curve" to answer.

I agree with Glenn that Judge Mukasey should know the constitution, separation of powers, and war making powers embedded in Articles I and II. For him to come to the confirmation hearing without knowing shows that he is unfit for the AG or else he is being less than forthcoming with his answers which shows that he is still unfit for AG.

Contrary to the fact the Senator Leahy "likes" Judge Mukasey, the Senator should pay much more attention to the Constitution and the role that Congress has, as enumerated in Article I, with the "rule of law" which all must live by- the people, government, and corporations.  

This is what it is really about for Mr. Bush and his gangsters in government.  It is never about security (but only about using the FBI, CIA, NSA for political advantage and to create an elected King).

Remember when convict Tom Delay used the Department of Homeland Security's agents (and FAA resources) to track down Texas Democratic state lawmakers in order to have a Texas vote to jerrymander districts in 2003? 

Why would it be any different now that Congress is ready to give to an un-American president the ability to spy on any American on his say so?

It is time for your voice to be heard by Representatives and Senators on tabling RESTORE Act because it is a blank check for continuied spying on Americans by Mr. Bush without "probably cause".

Within the RESTORE Act is a concept called "basket" warrants which are clearly unconstitutional.  Firedoglake.com's Scarecrow writes:

"...particularized, case-by-case warrants historically required under the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment. House efforts to require particularized warrants have apparently failed, even though the Fourth Amendment is clear:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

When you call use these talking points, curtersy of the ACLU:

Talking points for phone calls, courtesy of the ACLU:

1. Only pass a FISA modernization bill that has individualized warrants for people in the United States.

2. DO NOT to provide telecom companies with immunity for breaking the law.

3. Blanket or program “warrants” that allow the government to vacuum up the international telephone calls and emails of Americans aren’t really warrants at all, and they aren’t constitutional.

Call:

Do make some calls on FISA today as well. You can find direct dial numbers for all Senators here, along with direct links to all of their web pages. The members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is primarily responsible for this bill, are as follows:

*Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman —   (202) 224-6472      FAX: (202) 224-7665
*Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — (202) 224-3841      FAX: (202) 228-3954
*Sen. John Warner (R-VA) — (202) 224-2023      FAX: 202) 224-6295
*Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — (202) 224-5244      FAX: N/A
*Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — (202) 224-4224      FAX: (202) 224-5213
*Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — (202) 224-5623      FAX: (202) 228-1377
*Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) — (202) 224-4654      FAX: N/A
*Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — (202) 224-5344      FAX: (202) 224-1946
*Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) — (202) 224-5274      FAX: 202-228-2183

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) — (202) 224-3154      FAX: (202) 228-2981
Sen. Kitt Bond (R-MO), Vice-Chairman — (202) 224-5721      FAX: N/A
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) — (202) 224-3521      FAX: 202-224-0103
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — (202) 224-5251      FAX: (202) 224-6331
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) — (202) 224-5323      FAX: (202) 224-2725
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) — (202) 224-2921 FAX: 202-228-6362

The bolded Senators are the ones that need concentrated calls — the ones which are not highlighted are already on the right track or, unfortunately, likely hopeless on this issue. If Feingold or Whitehouse are your Senators, do take a little time to call and give them some thanks for standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law, but the bolded names need the most push in the next few days. Might as well make the calls count as much as possible. You can reach them toll free as well thanks to these numbers that katymine found:

1 (800) 828 - 0498
1 (800) 459 - 1887
1 (800) 614 - 2803
1 (866) 340 - 9281
1 (866) 338 - 1015
1 (877) 851 - 6437

Also, the Senate Judiciary Committee membership and contact information is as follows:

Arlen Specter - Pennsylvania - (202) 224-4254      Fax (202) 228-1229
Orrin G. Hatch - Utah - (202) 224-5251      Fax (202) 224-6331
Patrick J. Leahy (Chairman) - Vermont - (202) 224-4242      Fax (202) 224-3479
Charles E. Grassley - Iowa - (202) 224-3744      Fax (515) 288-5097
Edward M. Kennedy - Massachusetts - (202) 224-4543      Fax (202) 224-2417
Jon Kyl - Arizona - (202) 224-4521      Fax (202) 224-2207
Herbert Kohl - Wisconsin - (202) 224-5653      Fax (202) 224-9787
Jeff Sessions - Alabama - (202) 224-4124      Fax (202) 224-3149
Dianne Feinstein - California - (202) 224-3841      Fax (202) 228-3954
Lindsey Graham - South Carolina - (202) 224-5972      Fax (864) 250-4322
Russell D. Feingold - Wisconsin - (202) 224-5323      Fax (202) 224-2725
John Cornyn - Texas - (202) 224-2934      Fax (972) 239-2110
Charles E. Schumer - New York - (202) 224-6542      Fax (202) 228-3027
Sam Brownback - Kansas - (202) 224-6521      Fax (202) 228-1265
Richard J. Durbin - Illinois - (202) 224-2152      Fax (202) 228-0400
Tom Coburn - Oklahoma - (202) 224-5754      Fax (202) 224-6008
Benjamin Cardin — (202) 224-4524      Fax — 202-224-1651
Sheldon Whitehouse — (202) 224-2921      FAX — 202-228-6362

Well, well look who was pushing the meme about telecommunication immunity from Rockefeller's Intelligence committee from Firedoglake.com today (but it doesn't get the Dems off the hook if the bill comes out of committee with that telecom immunity intact):

Yesterday, Spencer Ackerman did a process piece about the contacts that we’ve been pushing on FISA via the ACLU and others. What Spencer didn’t know, because I wasn’t contacted, was that I got the tip from Liz Rose at the ACLU, then contacted several Hill staffers for independent confirmation of her report. And that I also spoke with a print reporter about the issues involved….and discovered through various sources that a lot of the discussion on the telecom immunity issue is eminating from Kit Bond’s office, among others on the GOP side, who are working hard to push that meme out into the media — haven’t yet ascertained whether it’s an attempt to split the Dem caucus from grassroots support, or whether it is a wholesale attempt to sway Dems on the Senate Intel committee, but I’m working on it.

 BTW:

One of the recurring topics yesterday, though, was that the drop-off in calls and contacts gives folks who are wavering an excuse to keep their vote as a no on SCHIP in particular.  We cannot let that happen.

I asked a number of these Hill denizens what is most effective in terms of Congressional contact, and what I was told was this:  all of the above.  Any and all contact with the member of Congress and/or their staff is a good nudge.  But more than one contact is even better.  Consistent, steady contact is great.  And personal contact is the best.

 SCHIP is a winner with the American people.  Without SCHIP reauthorization then there will be no funding for the program.  I believe that this is being lost in the commentary about expansion of the program. 

Call today about FISA and SCHIP.  Then call on Monday.  Then visit your local representative office (House and Senate).  Since Speaker of the Colorado House has a once a week open meeting time with people go on down and talk to Andrew Romanoff.  Same with Mayor Hickenlooper.

Why doesn't the Colorado House and Senate pass a resolution for support of SCHIP?  

If the Dems cave on this issue it is time for you and me to run as candidates against them.

From Firedoglake.com:

Well this gets a big, fat “hell, no” from me.  Via e-mail from Liz Rose of the ACLU on the draft Senate version of the FISA bill, which is not yet publicly available and not being widely shared for review either:

…the Senate bill (Committee draft) does contain immunity/amnesty for the telecom companies…Including retroactive immunity for anything they’ve done wrong in cooperating in illegal domestic spying for the past six years.

The members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is primarily responsible for this bill, are as follows:

*Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman — (202) 224-6472
*Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — (202) 224-3841
*Sen. John Warner (R-VA) — (202) 224-2023
*Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — (202) 224-5244
*Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — (202) 224-4224
*Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — (202) 224-5623
*Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) — (202) 224-4654
*Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — (202) 224-5344
*Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) — (202) 224-5274

No retroactive immunity for law breaking.

No umbrella warrants.

The CIA, NSA, FBI, NRO, NSA agencies must obey the law.  Having Bush order them to committ criminal acts with the ready compliance of telecommunications companies like Verizon, ATT, Sprint, etc. does not make it legal.

Telecommunications companies have to accountable to the law.

Glenn Greenwald writes:

And even more unfathomable is the idea that the Congress would pass a law that has no purpose other than to protect from all legal consequences the largest and most powerful corporations in the event that they are found to have broken our nation's surveillance and privacy laws. What possible justification is there for any of that? Those twin prongs simultaneously eviscerate the rule of law, equality under the law, and the core Fourth Amendment protections the Founders guaranteed.

Further more the Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell is a proven liar and deeply involved in telecommunications companies.  Glenn writes: 

And then, more importantly still, there is the fact that McConnell has more extensive private sector connections than virtually anyone in the country to the very telecommunication companies for which he is now demanding amnesty, and he has spent the last decade working on behalf of the very companies who would be the prime beneficiaries of this extraordinary legislative gift. In a healthily functioning political system, McConnell would be disqualified from opining on an amnesty bill for companies to which he is so closely tied.

So Sen. Jay Rockefeller's committee writes up a bill that enables Bush and the biggest telecommunications to spy on American citizens and customers without any oversight at all.  No judicial oversight as to what reason Bush and the teleco's need to spy.  Just the mantra of "trust me to protect you".

This is not what the Constitution is about.  It is "rule of law" meaning that no government is above the law and certainly no one man is above the law.  

We have witnessed the breaking of the law with respect to FISA and these literally thousands of criminal acts that Bush has committed and readily admitted to.

Without the "rule of law" as the means to enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights this nation will become a nation of corporations, miltias and gangs . 

If the Dems pass this then who will run with me?

Less likely or more likely?

Al Gore, U.N. panel share Nobel for Peace

In recent years, the Norwegian committee has broadened its interpretation of peacemaking and disarmament efforts outlined by Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel in creating the prize with his 1895 will. The prize now often also recognizes human rights, democracy, elimination of poverty, sharing resources and the environment.

"We believe that the Nobel Committee has shown great courage by so clearly connecting the climate problems with peace," said Truls Gulowsen, head of environmental group Greenpeace Norway."

I've seen this posted on Crooksandliars.com and Dailykos.com about the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives are ready to lay down to Mr. Bush's illegal spying on American citizens without a court warrant.

What I've read is that the Democrats are afraid of looking "weak" on terrorism and "protecting" Americans.  

Well, I don't think Americans need to be fearful of any terrorist.  This is why:

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

   Read More »

Why not call in to such shows like Gunny Bob and ask them if only Republicans should be fighting in Iraq?

MyDD has the action on Rush and his phony soldiers story.

Wesley Clark has a petition to kick Rush off Armed Forces Radio here.

While Rep. Mark Udall has a resolution to condemn Rush's comment, I believe that using economic pressure is more effective.  As Matt Stoller notes:

We need to start matching our moments of outrage to policy solutions that reinforce our ideological vision for the country.  Part of that vision is for a government that no longer subsidizes right-wing hate speech but instead promotes a diversity of views over the media.  And that's what this ask is directed to do, in an environment suitable for such an ask.

 Glenn Greenwald has this:

How about if demanding equal application of the Condemnation Standard is the only way to put a stop to it (which is what I think)? Then would you support that? Assume - as I think is true - that there are only two choices:

(1) Republicans keep using formal governmental condemnation as a political weapon, or

(2) Democrats take the same weapon and apply it to Republicans, thereby eliminating the advantage of this pernicious tool, thereby causing it to end.

Which is better? Clearly, you prefer option (3) -- the weapon is never used at all -- but as the MoveOn vote shows, that is not an option in the real world.

 What will Progressnowaction members do?