Politics Schmalitics: July 2007

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the selling of the Iraq War

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Labels: book review, Bush, idiot, Iraq War

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Bush-Cheney Movie Poster

Is the Supreme Court getting a little lopsided or is it just my imagination?

Fewer See Balance in Court's Decisions
Bush Nominees Have Made Panel 'Too Conservative' for Many, Poll Indicates
By Robert Barnes and Jon Cohen Washington Post Staff WritersSunday, July 29, 2007; Page A03

About half of the public thinks the Supreme Court is generally balanced in its decisions, but a growing number of Americans say the court has become "too conservative" in the two years since President Bush began nominating justices, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Nearly a third of the public -- 31 percent -- thinks the court is too far to the right, a noticeable jump since the question was last asked in July 2005. That's when Bush nominated John G. Roberts Jr. to the court and, in the six-month period that followed, the Senate approved Roberts as chief justice and confirmed Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The two have proved to be reliably conservative justices, and the increasingly polarized court this year moved to uphold restraints on abortion, restrict student speech rights and limit the ability of school districts to use race in student assignments, among other issues.

The public seems to have noticed the shift.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Thursday, July 26, 2007

30 days to absolute tyranny

by Alex Wallenwein, July 26, 2007

Latest Bush Executive Order Outlaws Iraq War Dissent on Penalty of Full Asset Seizure

In an as yet un-numbered Executive Order (at least the number isn't published), president bush has decreed that your property - all of it - can be taken away at the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury at the mere suspicion that you may commit a crime in the future. You can view and read this latest executive atrocity at the White House website.

An executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn’t overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register.

If you own a business, this concerns you. Whether you own it as a sole proprietorship, as a sole shareholder, or even as a partial shareholder of a corporation, you stand to lose all of it if the Secretary thinks you may commit an "act of violence" that may disrupt the war (or peace) effort in Iraq. Naturally, "act of violence" is not defined anywhere in this order.

Once this becomes law, he has all the tools Hitler and Stalin had to keep their respective populations in utter subjection to their will.

The executive order states in Section 1(a) that “all property and interests in property” of “any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of - blah, blah, blah (followed by a laundry list of “purposes or effects”).

This means that the triggering factor underlying any such blocking order is a mere “determination” by the Secretary of the Treasury that you pose a “significant risk” of committing an act of violence in the future that has any of the listed purposes or effects. All the Secretary then has to do is to “consult” with the secretaries of state and defense. There is not even a requirement that these two agree with the Treasury Secretary’s “determination”(!)

In other words, if the Secretary of the Treasury says that you “pose a significant risk” of committing an act of violence with the purpose or effect of “threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people”, then the 'bushprez' can block you from accessing your bank account, retirement account, credit cards, or “any property or interest in property” that you may own.

That technically includes your house, whether owned or rented, your car or other means of transportation, whether owned or rented, your business, all the way down to your cell phone, toothpaste and underwear, as well as the twenty bucks you loaned your buddy that he hasn’t paid you back yet.

What is there to keep the Secretary of the Treasury from “determining” that you, because you oppose the war in Iraq, are probably one of those extremist hooligans who protested the WTO in Seattle a few years back, or that you are likely to act like one of them even though you haven’t even participated in those riots? War protesters do these things, don’t they? They are all the same, aren’t they?

If the Secretary “determines” that you probably are one of them and that you “pose a significant risk of committing” an act of violence intended to frustrate the war (or even the peace effort) in Iraq, all of your stuff can be taken away from you - or you can be “blocked” from accessing it, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

You have no legal recourse under this order. No remedy at law. The order does not provide for compensation to you for the taking of your property. There is no due process requirement that will guarantee you a fair hearing in a court of law.

Unconstitutional? You bet!

But you can’t complain about it.

Why is that?

The president has declared a state of emergency back in 2003 (as he recites in this executive order at the end of the paragraph that starts with “I, GEORGE W. BUSH”). That state of emergency has not been rescinded, to this date.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE

Labels: asset seizure, Bush, dictator, dissent, executive order, impeach, Iraq War, war protest