1/28/2006:   Gallup, which typically skews its polls in favor of Republicans by up 4 to 8 points, reported that the entire Bush presidency is seen as a complete failure by roughly 52 percent of Americans polled. The percentage was even higher for people who thought that, at minimum, he'd failed in his second term.

Failing? No, son. He's failed. He's a failure. He violated his oath of office repeatedly. He's a lying sack of crap.

53% specifically said they thought Bush had misled the nation on the subject of WMDs in Iraq. I'm WAY ahead of that curve. I knew it was a load of crap before we even went in. It wasn't tough to figure out. You just had to read the frikkin' newspaper to hear about CIA managers quitting in protest and lower members of the White House staff quitting or publicly denouncing the case for war.

And Bush is "looking forward to supporting Republicans in the 2006 elections." I think a lot of Republican candidates will be refusing to take his calls by then....

1/28/2006:   The FEMA fiasco just won't end.

FEMA has ordered trailer homes for people in New Orleans who have requested housing aid. The trailers are being rented by FEMA for $60,000 a piece for 18 months. That works out to $3300 per month.

CNN did a little research and found a huge, really nice house for rent in New Orleans. Lovely inside and out, great neighborhood. Rental price: $2600 per month.

But what CNN didn't cover was what the trailers should have cost. I'm not an expert on trailer costs, but I found a site on the 'net where you can price mobile homes. For $48,000, you can purchase a "small double wide home, 1250-1350 sq. ft., mid-grade construction." For $96,000, you can purchase a large double/triple wide home, 1800-1900 sq. ft, mid-grade construction." And that's not a rental, that's a purchase.

FEMA is being run by morons, and the morons' boss is a moron: George W. Bush. When is someone going to grow a frikkin' brain around there? Do they really have that much money to burn? Did they shop the cost of those trailers around? Did they really think that no one would notice the cost? Who got the kick-back on that one? Who did whom a political favor for profit?

What a bunch of dopes....

1/26/2006:   TO ALL DEMOCRATIC SENATORS: Filibuster Alito, vote against cloture, or I will personally keep your name in the public eye as someone who is an enemy of the Constitution, and enemy of America, and not legislative branch material.

I don't like that he's for overturning Roe v. Wade. I don't like that he's pro-corporation and anti-worker. I don't like that he's a bigot and an elitest.

But what I find scariest, with all due respect, is that he favors a unitary executive and that he's not strong on due process. Those two, especially the first, scare the crap out of me. I started out chilly towards him, but the confirmation hearings made me realize why Bush put him forward as a candidate. If he gets on the court, you can pretty much kiss your rights goodbye. He will rubber stamp anything Bush tells him to, and Bush has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that he sees the American people as just so much cattle, resources to be used and placated when necessary.

I don't care about your constituents. You screw the American people by not doing due diligence to stop the Alito appointment, and I will do due diligence in preventing you from wearing the mantle of power ever again.

And you can bank on that.

1/26/2006:   The following people have spoken out against Alito and, in the case of the congressmen listed, have pledged to filibuster and vote against cloture.

Al Gore
John Kerry
Gary Hart

And the following are traitors to the Constitution and the United States of America because they either stood for Alito or only gave lip service to standing against him. These people should be voted out of office as soon as possible.

Robert Byrd: voting for Alito and against the United States
Tim Johnson: voting for Alito and against the United States
Ben Nelson: voting for Alito and against the United States
Harry Reid: voting against Alito, but not supporting a filibuster
Dick Durbin: voting against Alito, but not supporting a filibuster

There are 55 Republicans in the Senate, and 60 votes will shut down the filibuster when a cloture vote is requested. It only takes five non-Republicans to vote on the Republican side and the filibuster will fail, and unless someone reminds the Democrats in the traitor list above of their oaths of office, the filibuster will fail, the vote to confirm will proceed, and a simple majority will allow Bush's mole to penetrate and corrupt the highest court in the land.

And your rights will come tumbling down.

1/23/2006:   The White House has scoffed at any connection between Jack Abramoff and George Bush. Apparently he attended a couple of White House parties and a handful of "staff-level meetings". But Time magazine says the pictures are out there of Jack having a little one-on-one time with Bush, and you can bet they'll be published as soon as the price can be worked out.

But who actually needs the pictures? "Staff level meetings?" A lobbyist included in a "staff level meeting"? Since when? And why? What the heck is going on there? Ok, so lobbyists are supposed to meet with Congressmen, and I could see one being given an audience with a White House representative, but by what right would a lobbyist -- a lobbyist -- sit in on a staff meeting at the White House?

Oooo, the stew is starting to bubble! Oh yea.....

1/23/2006:   Karl Rove, the Bush administration's official fuzzy-headed Gnome Of Death, vowed to make national security a central issue in the 2006 mid-term elections.

John Kerry responded by saying he'd like to have that debate every single day.

And that was good.

He continued by saying that Hurrican Katrina had "stripped away the veneer of competence" of the current administration.

And that was bad.

FEMA was completely incompetent. Bush was just stupid, as usual. "Brownie's doin' a heck of a job," will go down in history as one of the dumbest, most out-of-touch statements a president has ever uttered. In the Guiness Book of Records, it'll probably be number #112 or something, competing with hundreds of other Bush quips and oral farts, but it's up there alright.

But to use Katrina as your sword is bad marketing. To use that is to hope the American public's attention span has finally begun to stretch beyond the golden 5 minute mark. But since Bush has managed to run an entire administration based on the fact that it hasn't, that the average American is too caught up in their day-to-day stuff to hear anything except the words "9/11" and "terrorist", this is probably a bad strategy.

Secondly, these words are being delivered by John Kerry.

Now if Al Gore got up there and said all this, I'd be jumping up and down. Well, maybe not jumping up and down -- Katrina is still not the best lead topic -- but I'd have more faith in his ability to tear up Bush, Rove, Cheney, and the rest of the Evil Empire in a debate.

It's not that Katrina isn't important. Refugees, businesses, New Orleans itself as an entity, they're all still staggering from the damage, the loss and uprooting of lives, the destruction of property and finances. If Louisiana wasn't a blue state before, they sure are now.

Man, I wish Gore would jump in there. Kerry is just not the guy we need. If he couldn't win in 2004, he's just not electable. He's too "politician", too "hot button", and frankly, too intellectual for the current population. Because, y'know, them dern intellekchools are the problem, dagnabbit. We need someone that's got the brains, but also has the charisma. Smarts and marketable. I'm not saying Gore is the ultimate product, but he's sure looking Presidential lately.

Now, to give Kerry his due, he struck some great blows. Scott McClellan, Official Whitehouse Liar, said that Democrats were using "misleading and outlandish charges" to attack the illegal White House domestic spying program in which the president actually authorized unconstitutional, warrantless, and top secret wiretaps on U.S. citizens. Kerry shot back that if the current system in which the FISA court can and does approve warrants, even retroactively (they've only ever refused four warrants), is inadequate, the administration can come to Congress to approve a new law.

Imagine that. The Rule Of Law. In America, no less. Wow. Who'd a thunk, huh?

He also jabbed them about Bin Laden ("Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he's killed by Karl Rove and his crowd"), Abramoff ("This is a Republican scandal"), and more about national security. Great stuff. Very smart. Wrong guy.

But, and I'll repeat myself, put President Gore and Vice President Kerry on one ticket, and you've got a winning combination.

1/22/2006:   Little known fact: I once won a breakdancing contest. Yes, it's true, back in 1984 when it was new. Popping, actually, if you understand the distinction. But I found a site today with a couple of guys doing moves I've never seen before. They are absolutely incredible. Check these videos out:

Short-legged mutant breakdancer
Boneless robot popper
Boneless robot popper #2

1/20/2006:   Karl Rove said today that, "Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world. That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

No, Karl, you're wrong, and by "wrong", I mean evil.

Let's review, shall we?

Karl Rove thinks that, because we were attacked on U.S. soil by insane people following an insane man, that you don't have any further claim to the rights outlined in the document that has served for 200 years as the framework for our government. In Karl Rove's "post-9/11 world", you spend your time spying on citizens and confiscating nail clippers at airports, but you don't close the borders and control the influx of multi-national illegal immigrants. In Karl Rove's world, you lie to Congress to get the authority to preemptively wage war against whatever country will provide the easiest target, but you don't make war against those who have demonstrated the capability and willingness to wage effective war against you. In Karl Rove's world, abusing your political power for retribution is ok, even if it damages national security and puts our intelligence personnel in mortal danger abroad.

Karl Rove, the sick twisted little gnome, also said, "The GOP's progress during the last four decades is a stunning political achievement." I guess he's referring to Vietnam, Watergate, Reaganomics, Iran Contra, the creation of Saddam Hussein's rule, the economic fiasco that was the 80's, and the icing on the cake, the destruction of the Constitution while waging an unnecessary and costly war in our name, among other things. "But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party -- in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the common goal." What common goal does this mealy-mouthed bastard refer to? Reshaping the Middle East into a a breeding ground for terrorism? Reinstating the monarchy? And exactly how ossified is it to keep the faith in the Constitution and its protections?

Do I sound like my energy has been drained? Do I seem to you as though I feel like political power has ever been the primary goal to anyone besides George Bush and Karl Rove? What a ploy: Karl Rove has taken his own predicament and projected it onto the Democratic Party. Empty words from a small, stupid, empty little man.

1/20/2006:   My wife once told me that if I felt so strongly about what a lying scumbag our president is, that I should be politically active. "Write some letters or something," she said.

So I do.

Here's one to my local Senators and to worthless, spineless, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

1/20/2006:   CNN, feeling the need to validate and compete against Fox News, has decided to add a hate-spewing moron to their line-up. Glenn Beck, for those who normally eschew raving lunatics, is a talk show host that caters to insane asylum escapees. CNN has not, on the other hand, made a decision yet to balance this wrong by placing a progressive talk show in its lineup.

So here's the quick note I jotted off to them this morning:

If you're wondering why I feel this way about Beck, consider this small collection of some of his more infamous quotes that's making the rounds as people shake their heads and wonder where the madness will end:

See what I mean? A complete ass.

He has used the Rush Limbaugh formula for making a living. In everyone there are two competing voices, the voice of madness and the voice of reason, or, if you like, the voice of childhood meanness and the voice of adult maturity. Rush gets paid to put into your ear the words that you hear inside your head when the "bad" part of you mutters and gripes about the actions of others. Normally, the good and mature side of you wins the internal debate and your actions reflect a responsible member of society. But Rush came along, labelled this maturity as "Political Correctness", and began slamming it wholesale. Rush is the evil in our society climbing up on a soapbox, screeching curses, obscenely gesticulating, and flinging his own dung at the world.

Glenn Beck has taken this formula to the next step, contemplating murder on the air, kicking people when they're down, calling people who have suffered horrific losses names, sinking to any low to achieve that shock value that comes from hearing pure evil spouted on the airwaves. He has taken Rush's stupid intolerance and turned it into premeditated hatred.

And CNN is going to give him his own show.

Rupert Murdoch is laughing.

1/19/2006:   Cheney said he couldn't keep the U.S. safe without spying on U.S. citizens. "These actions are within the president's authority and responsibility under the Constitution and laws, and these actions are vital to our security."

Dear God, someone please fire this moron.

A. Spying on U.S. citizens is unconstitutional. Period.

B. You do not need to spy on me to keep me safe. You only have to spy on me if you're attempting to find a way to control me. I am a U.S. citizen and that should necessarily mean I have a right to a certain level of protection from the government that is of me, by me, and for me.

I'm floored that Bush's staff are completely unable to understand basic Constitutional concepts, Alberto Gonzalez included.

So do you think that Bin Laden saw that Bush's government is getting kicked around, decided that it would be best if American's continued to lose their freedoms, and released a video tape so Cheney could point a finger and screech, "SEE?! SEE?! There he is! He's still alive! And .... he's coming to get YOU! And YOU! And you and you and you! We HAVE to keep spying on you! We HAVE to continue to strip away the protections of your privacy and your guarantees of due process! If we don't, he'll come and kill us all!"

Cheney is a fraud and an embarrassment to the United States of America and to those who gave their lives to protect the very freedoms he's working so hard to demolish. What an ass.

This is continued from last month.

1. I would get a law passed forming a committee made up of 2 members of every political party in the Senate and 2 members of every political party in the House. This committee's function would be to meet once a month and decide if the President needs to be investigated for violating the Constitution or lying to Congress. If no case can be made for these specific crimes, then the committee's meeting is adjourned for another month. This would end the complicity of the majority. The current round of Republican congressmen have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ability of Congress to adhere to the basic tenets of justice is sorely lacking. Give the majority the ability to either prosecute or shield the president and the decision will be based on his party affiliation. That's got to stop. The same Republicans that wanted to crucify Clinton over an infidelity have not just turned a blind eye to Bush's lies and Constitutional violations but have been accomplices to them, in part by refusing to authorization a full scale investigation and grand jury hearing into those crimes. Those same Republicans must be evicted from office or, lacking recall, voted out of office at the very earliest possible opportunity.

2. Prison reform. The theme is tougher yet safer prisons, better rehabilitation, less recidivism.

3. News media reform. If elected, I would make sure that no one person or organization is allowed to hold on to more than one news media outlet, no more than one major network, and no more than 3 minor media stations. We already have laws protecting business from monopolies and trusts. It's about time we de-monopolized and de-propogandized our information sources. People like Rupert Murdoch and Clear Channel should not be allowed to mandate the content of information disseminated in our printed and electronic media. Murdoch's Fox News has become Bush's number one outlet for propoganda, for scare tactics, for smoke and mirrors. For what Murdoch as perpetrated upon the United States, he should be jailed for treason, but that's just a personal opinion and holds no basis in law. I want to change that and protect the American people from this type of oppression. All the worst dictators have been successful due to propoganda -- Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein -- and Bush is no different. He's only slightly sneakier about it.

4. I would try to get amendments to the Constitution protecting medical decisions, including drug prescriptions and assisted suicide, as personal and private. In the case of prescription drugs, if the drug is strongly physically addictive and recreationally abused on a widespread basis, the federal government will have the power to prohibit such drugs even for prescription purposes, but otherwise the federal government needs to stay out of the picture. Yes, I'm thinking of medical marijuana. Personally I don't use it, but I view it the way others view alcohol. I just can't believe we expend the amount of energy we do trying to stamp it out. Heroin, yeah sure, I can understand trying to destroy that market utterly. Cocaine, same thing. Even so, I'm not talking about legalizing drugs that aren't legal now, but if a doctor prescribes medical marijuana for a patient, then the federal government needs to stay the hell out of that decision.

5. Rebuild the Veteran's Administration. Get them coordinated computer systems that all feed into a single central system to cut down on abuse and double-dipping, and fund the program properly. We're supposed to support our troops while they're in Iraq, but how about when their tour is done? How about honoring their sacrifice when they get back? Bush has done everything he can to keep men in the armed forces for a as long as possible and even beyond, and then cut them off once they are finally allowed to come home. He's a traitor to our greatest patriots. I would make it right.

6. I would push for an amendment to the Constitution stating the minimum requirements for a Supreme Court Justice, in an effort to avoid future Harriet Meiers fiascos:

7. I would demand a complete and public overhaul of FEMA disaster reaction guidelines. I would open source it. I would have FEMA, for the foreseeable future, make all their plans and expenditures publicly available and open to comment and suggestion. They would have to open an internet discussion forum and show, in reports back to me, the best picks from that discussion forum and how they plan to respond to them. And they would have to put out for public bid the purchase of any and all emergency supplies. Those expenditures would have to be signed off, at least for the time being, by me personally. I would want to know what they were doing, why they were doing it, and who was profiting from it. On my watch, FEMA would be lean, mean, and effective.

8. I would request an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent the president from violating a U.S. citizen's rights, as outlined in the Constitution, during times of war. Period. No more illegal wire taps, no more suspension of due process, no "enemy combatants," etc.

1/17/2006:   Gore sure looked Presidential last night. Wow. And he sure took a strong stand against Bush. He didn't mince words at all.

I do not want to see Kerry run for president again. No thanks. He does not have the charisma and strength to market himself. On the other hand, a Gore/Clinton ticket would rock and roll! Don't put Hillary in as president -- the flag-burning amendment and her "plantation" comment are making her look like she doesn't know where to put her energy or her words. But Gore looked like a leader last night.

Hey, he won it once before; he can do it again...

1/17/2006:   Snippets from Gore's speech on 1/16/2006:

"What we do know about this pervasive wire tapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently."

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our founding fathers were adamant that they had established a government of law and not men."

Imagine that. A government of law. Wow. I have a dream....

Gore borrowed from John Adams, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men. The executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the founders sought to nullify in the Constitution: an all powerful executive, too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free."

"Arrogates." Remember when presidents gave speeches that were intelligent? Remember when our leaders were educated, well-read, and could string together two words without sounding like they were teaching a class of degenerate third graders? I'll bet Bush couldn't spell "arrogates" on a dare.

And Bushie, in case you're having this read to you, arrogates means, "to claim or seize without justification; to make undue claims to having."

In response, Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman said, "This is authority the president does have. It's authority that is consistent with protecting our Constitution and our civil liberties, and it's an authority that is critical to learning the lessons of 9/11."

Mr. Mehlman: No he doesn't, no it's not, and no it isn't. The Constitution expressly forbids what the president did. It is a direct violation of our Constitution and our civil liberties. And the undermining of the Constitution makes 9/11 more of a success for Bin Laden. Mr. Mehlman, you are a jackass, and a traitor to your country.

Bush and Cheney knew they weren't being implicitly given that power because they had been explicitly refused that power in an early draft of the "Patriot Act." That's right, The Monkey Faced Frat Boy and Darth Cheney tried get verbage passed in the Patriot Act that would have allowed them to use secret wiretaps, and Congress didn't even bother to try to let that get past the Supreme Court. They just tossed it out, knowing it was a waste of time to even consider it. It is a clear violation of the Constitution. Period.

Scott McClellan, during a press conference, said, "I think the American people clearly understand the importance of what we're trying to do to protect them and prevent attacks from happening."

Actually, Scott, no, I don't understand how making wiretaps no faster, no easier to perform, only making them top secret, makes me any safer from a terrorist attack. I don't see how the MFFB can destroy the foundation of our country and still call it defending it. That chimp faced moron is one of Bin Laden's pawns, played like a frikkin' puppet on a remote control. I, and one hundred million Americans just like me don't understand how destroying our freedoms saves our country.

Then again, you have to pity Scottie McClellan. Poor guy's job is to lie every day, knowing full well that the president is a moron and the forces steering him are evil. That's gotta suck. How do you look at yourself in the mirror everyday knowing that you've got to stand up in front of the press and the entire nation and lie your butt off everyday for a traitor? I'll bet he needs therapy by the time this administration finally gets shown the door.

On the other hand, once his job is over, look at the dirt he'll have for his tell-all book! Talk about a best-seller waiting to happen. I'd call it, "No More Lies." He'll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice...

1/17/2006:   When asked if he agreed with Gore, Kerry was unequivocal: Yes.

He shot down all of Bush's excuses for violating the Constitution say, "It was a clear violation of the law." He also took a shot at the GOP, saying the Democrats were unable to respond to it because, "with a Republican Congress we've had a particularly hard time getting any legitimate recourse taken under almost any circumstances "don't have the power to issue subpoenas [and] don't have the power to call hearings."

1/17/2006:   New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin expressed the sentiment that God wanted the city to be "chocolate," that "New Orleans was a chocolate city before Katrina," and that, "you can't have New Orleans no other way."

Today he used a lot more thought and much better grammar in apologizing.

What a stupid thing to say. When you refer to race, you absolutely have to welcome all races, make all races welcome, especially in a city like New Orleans where there is such a rich mix of heritages.

I'm not going to bust his chops too much -- he seemed to sincerely realize what a dumb comment it was, but let's hope he's really learned his lesson and doesn't do it again.

1/12/2006:   Congradulations, Mr. Graham. I thought Joe Biden's use of Alito confirmation hearings to grandstand were a misuse of that forum, but your obvious CYA by tying Alito's association with CAP to the scandal in which Republicans received bribes from Jack Abramoff was just disgusting.

"Guilt by association" may be the crime Alito is guilty of, but it's not a punishable crime in the traditional sense in the way that accepting bribes is. His membership in an elitist and racist group is a measure of the man, but not an indication of corruption. Accepting bribes is a corruption of the government we all live under and are supposed to trust. There is no comparison, Mr. Graham.

Nice try, though. You got his wife all misted up over it. Well done. Was that choreographed?

1/12/2006:   Kennedy busted Alito's chops for conflicting answers for not recusing himself from the Vanguard case. Alito's promise in 1990: "I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies."

His statement sounds good, but it does in fact lay the groundwork for him to refute it later. Nice CYA. I'll recuse myself, although I don't really agree that it's necessary. So later he can make statements like, "Well, yeah, I did promise to do that, but that case didn't directly affect me, so it's okay."

You broke your promise to be ethical, Mr. Alito. That's not okay. Ok?

1/12/2006:   Biden has a way of sounding like he's going to ask a question, and then framing it in such a way that is so obtuse as to make everyone look at each other like, "Huh?" In this case, he used the existence of the FDA, FCC, and similar agencies, with their legislative-like powers to impose rules and exact penalties, and whether Alito thought they were Constitutional permissable. The answer boiled down to, "What would Scalia do?" Which, by and large, is not a good motto to live one's life by, but is ok if you're interested in respecting judicial precedent.

I wish Joe had used an example anyone cared about.

Joe, here's a suggestion: Ask him if he thinks the Supreme Court had the Constitutional power to order Florida to stop recounting the votes in 2000. Ask him if the president has the Constitutional right to invalidate election results, throw them out, and stay in power for any period of time at all? Ask him if Bush overstepped his bounds and trod on the powers of the judicial branch when he authorized warrantless wiretaps? Now *there* are some tests of the separation of powers.

1/12/2006:   Alito was questioned on wiretaps, and the following is a Reader's Digest version of that exchange.

Question: If the wiretaps the president authorized were found Constitutional, would that then extend to unwarranted searches of people's homes?

Answer: Dunno.

Question: Is there a Constitutional difference between electronic search and physical search?

Answer: Yes.

Question: If electronic searches can occur under the inherent power of the president, can physical searches then also be done under that same power?

Answer: There's a Fourth Amendment issue...

Question: -- In both cases --

Answer: ... In both cases, and the Fourth Amendment could play out very differently in those two contexts.

Translation: As a Supreme Court Justice, I will tell you when and where I decide to apply the Constitution, even if that means ruling that the president has powers expressly forbidden in the Constitution.

Well, that's good to know. Thanks.

1/12/2006:   It disturbs me that Alito can't find his way through a simple question like, "Does the Constitution allow for executing an innocent man?" He went on for two full minutes about the steps he would go through to wind through the judicial machinery to determine whether or not last minute evidence exonerating a man sentenced to die would be admissible or whether the evidence had been validated by blah blah blah and if the evidence wasn't heard in time, that would be, "the ultimate tragedy."

He's working so hard to dodge bean balls that when a soft ball is lobbed at him, he's still ducking and weaving, and he makes himself look just that much slimier.

"Does the Constitution allow for executing an innocent man." Intentionally, of course not, but it is the job of the judiciary to hear ALL evidence, to make up their minds about ALL evidence that pertains to a case. The example mentioned by the senator was one in which DNA existed that could exonerate a man scheduled to die. Alito hemmed and hawed, but couldn't give a straight answer. Mine would be simple: Yes, the evidence must be heard. If that evidence will take time to be examined, then the execution must be delayed until such time as due diligence can be exercised in examining and validating that evidence. Easy. What good is law that isn't just, and what justice is there in killing a man because we're impatient to see a death in response to a crime?

1/12/2006:   So to go along with his elitist views of protecting corporate interests over private ones and expanding the president's powers over and above those outlined Constitutionally, Alito has now been exposed as a member of an anti-minority, elitist group, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton." When I say "elitist", I mean it as in, they claim in their newsletters to be elitist and are proud of it. And when I say "bigoted", I mean it as in, they have written long, publicly circulated diatribes against minorities.

But as with his failure to recuse himself, as promised, from cases that represented a distinct and unethical conflict of interest, his excuse is, "I don't recall."

Yeah, right.

1/12/2006:   It's always been my understanding that to be Christian is to be a student of Jesus Christ, a studier of Jesus Christ, with the goal being to be like Jesus Christ. With that in mind, it occurs to me that real Christians shouldn't be following the Religious Right, the Christian Coalition, Pat Roberts, and anyone at all that's a Republican.

Democrats are seen as the party of the middle and lower class, although the truth is their policies lean towards an equalization of rights and protections for all classes of society. Republicans are seen as the party of the rich, the privileged, and the elite, and that view is borne out by the actions of the current administration and Congress majority.

Having talked to dozens of Republicans in the last year about everything from the 2004 election fiasco to government program reform and the Iraq War, I've come away with the firm belief that Republicans put themselves first over anyone and everyone else. Screw the little guy. They believe that they are winners and people who need assistance or don't make at least as much as they do are losers. It's a dog-eat-dog world and the biggest dog deserves to eat all the other dogs.

I don't think it's a bleeding heart liberal view to think that the rights we set aside for ourselves must be protected. Nor do I think that restricting the president's powers to those allowed in the Constitution should consigned to the column labelled "liberal." If that's liberal, then the founding fathers were a bunch of hippies. Look what they did in standing up to the executive powers of England.

But to get back to the point, there are those that feel they are Christian, but they support preemptive war, hatred of gays and minorities, elitist attitudes towards the bulk of society, and varying levels of intolerance of anything outside their own skin.

Is that what Jesus taught?

Let me help you with that: No.

1/11/2006:   Y'know, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. I need facts, not just pie-in-the-sky, and I don't believe people can pull off secret operations in the open. Someone finds out, someone blabs, that sort of thing, consistently.

But someone mentioned this theory, and it scared me spitless because it makes sense.

Suppose Gee Dub is having a hard time finding a really good Supreme Court candidate -- hence the really stupid fiascos with dingbat Harriet Myers and uber-elitest Samuel Alito -- because he's trying to load the bench. Not to overturn Roe v. Wade, not to validate anti-gay-marriage laws, not to protect corporate interests over worker protections and rights, not to expand executive branch powers. No, none of that. There would have to be dozens of perfectly qualified and marketable candidates out there that would support all of that. No, there's a more sinister reason, perhaps, that we're enduring the confirmation hearings of a wimpy, weird, elitest, bigot like Alito.

Someone opined the other day, and I haven't heard a rebuttal to this yet, that perhaps Bush is planning to throw out the election results in 2008 and stay in power. He would only need for the Supreme Court to back him on it, and Alito fits the description of just such a Supreme Court justice right out of the box.

And man, if that doesn't scare you, you don't deserve to live in this country, period, end of story.

1/11/2006:   I was ruminating on my drive home tonight, and I remembered when I used to tell my oldest daughter, now 11, how war was always about power. The people that started it needed power, and the power they got was obtained through the people they egged on to war. Hitler rallied a beaten, broken, and angry German people by making Jews and the other European nations the bad guys. Stalin did it by making the rich, the Europeans and Americans the bad guys. Bin Laden did it by making America the bad guy.

So why are we in Iraq again? Because we couldn't get Bin Laden? Because Hussein was standing still? Because the NeoCons had an global reconstruction agenda and how often do you find the entire U.S. military amassed in the Middle East? Because George was running out of political currency?

It wasn't because Hussein was a tyrant. There are worse tyrants and greater genocides occurring unchecked, then and now.

It wasn't for cheap oil for cars -- although at one point Hussein tried to make oil the new gold standard, which would have destabilized the dollar.

It wasn't national security. Hussein couldn't get to us, didn't have WMDs, wasn't dealing directly with terrorists (and contributing money to Hamas doesn't count).

I think it was about power, Bush's power and the NeoCons' power. Pure and simple.

1/10/2006:   Y'know, I just don't understand the American people sometimes. Gallup released a poll today that said that, although the numbers have moved against Bush, 59% of the population thinks that Bush's restrictions (read "violations) on civil liberties in his "war on terrorism" are either about right or do not go far enough.

Now granted, Gallup has been repeatedly exposed for skewing poll results about 8 points in Bush's favor over the average of all other polls for his entire tenure as president, but this is just too much. How could someone call themselves an American and not be against the violation of the Constitution?

I don't get it.

What's wrong with you people?! This jackass is robbing you of the most precious rights we have, those of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, protection from unlawful search and seizure, and privacy, just to name a few, and you think he hasn't GONE FAR ENOUGH?!

Y'know, this is how he got reelected. He tells you over and over, "It's for your own good... 9/11.... 9/11.... terrorists... it's for your own good.... 9/11...." And you sops actually buy it!

Appalling.....

1/7/2006:   Bush was still reeling from the exposore of his classified executive order that violated the Constitution by authorizing warrantless spying on American citizens when it came to light that Jack Abramoff put money into Bushie's coffers in return for political favors.

Not that he's alone. Dozens of Republican legislators have been attempting to dump millions of dollars in bribe money into charities, claiming the whole time that they (gasp!) had no idea Jack was such a bad, bad man.

And since Tom Delay was one of those Republicans, the GOP has decided to go ahead and elect a new House leader. They were quoted as saying that they had come to this decision only now because they had no idea the bribery scandal would garner so much attention. Which is their way of saying, "We're doing this, not because it's the right thing to do in light of the fact that Delay is a multi-felony criminal, but because we got busted with our hands in the cookie jar and we want to make it look like we're doing something to correct it."

And of course the lies have begun. The spin doctors -- O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh -- have repeatedly claimed that the scandal affects other parties as well. Which is a flat out lie, and an easy one to debunk: Abramoff was a foaming at the mouth, rabid, ultra right wing conservative Republican who would NEVER have given a single dime to a Democrat for any reason. Period. End of story. They can't pretend to point to a Dem that received money from Abramoff.

But what got me writing about this was that so many Republicans are dumping the funds received from Abramoff. Think of it this way: If I steal money from my boss, then when I'm caught I put it back, should I lose my job? Should I not go to jail? If I receive money from someone to cut funding for your kids' school lunches, then gave it to the local church when I got caught, should I not be charged with taking bribes? If I, as the mayor, took money to designate your neighborhood as blighted, took it under emininent domain, then turned right around and sold it to a strip mall developer, would that be "bad?"

Think about it. Then vote the bastards that have co-opted the Republican Party for personal gain at any cost out of office.

1/6/2006:   Samuel Alito, while serving in the Reagan Justice Department, once sent a memo that expressed the view that the Attorney General should be immune from prosecution for authorizing illegal wiretaps.

And Bush nominated this guy for the Supreme Court bench not long after the New York Post was asked, by Bush himself, not to run a story about his classified executive order to allow NSA operatives to tap domestic communications without a warrant in violation of FISA and the Constitution itself.

Wonder why he'd do that?

1/6/2006:   Pat Robertson had the unChristian gall to opine that Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was God's way of saying that the Gaza Strip and West Bank are His land and no one else should be allowed to touch them. Not, on the other hand, the fault of too many fatty lamb and mayonnaise sandwiches and too little jogging around the Wailing Wall. No, this was God slapping Sharon down.

Pat, you're an ass.

Sharon is bigger around than he is tall and yet he's reached the ripe old age of 77. I'd say God has been pretty kind to this old gent. I mean, when was the last time someone lived forever? (Jeopardy music) (BUZZER!) That's right, Patty: NEVER! And let's face it: God owns the whole shebang anyway, right? I mean, he created bajillions of stars and megabajillions of planets, and he's going to commit murder over a few sandy acres? Really?

Has anyone else noticed that Pat is getting a little grim in his doddering years? He wants people assassinated, floods, disease, and strokes are God's punishment for iniquity, etc. What a moron....