All of the commentary and site
information that was in this area has been
FOR PICTURES RELATED TO THE CURRENT PAGE
DAILY NEWS OF
"'Almost Daily' Notes on News
As of Nov. 8th
you may have noticed the site has changed quite a bit. I have been
consolidating the information being hosted on my server into tighter
groups and have eliminated some of the pages altogether. For
example the Student's page and the IQ page are now one, the Wallpaper
page now contains links to almost all of the photographic content on the
JAR2 server, and so on and so forth, if you have any suggestions please
send them. I hope that some of you are actually reading my stories in
the window above and that you enjoy them. That is all for now, enjoy!
next? You tell me...
The intrepid young man, naïve in his unawareness of the ramifications of
his actions, boldly proceeded with his as of yet unsuccessful forays
into the black arts. Machiavellian manifestations stemming from
previously attempted spells only served to obfuscate the true source of
the evil permeating his life
in myriad ways. Were he to have believed in ancient Egyptian
curses, the source would have been clear, but as with the other victims
of the curse of the boy pharaoh enlightenment only came at the moment of
Into the darkness he drove, through the mists and the fog which played
tricks on his eyes. He had been driving for six hours through the forest
and was becoming increasingly nervous as he drove deeper and deeper into
what was becoming pure wilderness. The trees had become stranger and
stranger as he drove on, at first he had dismissed the moss and the
weird limbs as nothing to get excited about but now he was becoming
afraid. The trees were twisted and knarled and were beginning to choke
in on the road which had become a narrow one lane path through the
thickets. The forest here was so dense that he could not see into it at
all now and the trees, whose limbs now met above the road were getting
closer and lower. In effect making a tunnel through which he tried to
maintain a healthy rate of speed, something telling him not to dare to
slow down. It had become so narrow that he could not have turned
around had he wanted to and want he did.
Copyright © 2005 by John Robles II
FOR PICTURES RELATED TO THE CURRENT PAGE
What happened to www.politirx.org?????
Politicians Start Wars Not Soldiers
Pogrom Continues in Iraq 74/
Top Ten Repukes/Alito
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (No. 230)
George W. Bush had taken it seriously when he was handed a daily
briefing on August 6th 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in
U.S.," the world would be a different place right now. But he didn't.
Still, Bush started to take bin Laden seriously after September 11th,
right? For example, here's what he had to say on March 13, 2002:
Q: But don't you believe that the
threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found
either dead or alive?
THE RESIDENT: Well, as I say, we
haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the
center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I
- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
Pogrom Continues in Iraq 73/
Yesterday, Senator Ted Kennedy and I told our colleagues that we supported
a filibuster of Judge Alito's nomination for the Supreme Court. And we
weren't alone. But the bottom line is that it takes more than two or
three people to filibuster successfully. It's not "Mr. Smith Goes to
Washington." If you want to stop Judge Alito from becoming Justice
Alito, use your own email list and organize. We can't just preach to our
own choir. We need to prove to everyone - from our friends and neighbors
to our fellow Senators - that the American people know Judge Alito will
take our country in the wrong direction, and they expect something to be
done about it.
So I'm asking you to join Senator Kennedy, me, and concerned citizens
across America who are signing this petition to support a filibuster. If
there was ever a time to forward an email on to friends and family, this
is it. One way or another, we're going to find out in the next few days
if Judge Alito is going to become Justice Alito. You know where I stand.
The time to make your voice heard is now. So please sign this filibuster
petition and get as many friends as you can to do the same.
Sign the filibuster petition
If Judge Alito gets on the Supreme Court, it will be an incredible mistake
for America. And remember, this is one mistake that we can never take
I voted against Justice Roberts, but I feel even more strongly about Judge
Alito. Why? Rather than live up to the promise of "equal justice under
the law," he has consistently made it harder for the most disadvantaged
Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to excessive
government power no matter how much government abuses that power. And,
to this date, his only statement on record regarding a woman's right to
privacy is that she doesn't have one.
There isn't a shred of doubt in my opposition to Judge Alito's nomination.
I spent a lot of time over the last few years thinking about what kind
of person deserves to sit on the highest court in the land, so I don't
hesitate a minute in saying that Judge Alito is not that person. His
entire legal career shows that, if confirmed, he will take America
backward. People can say all they want that "elections have
consequences." Trust me, I understand. But that doesn't mean we have to
stay silent about Judge Alito's nomination.
Sign the filibuster petition
President Bush had the opportunity to nominate someone who would unite the
country in a time of extreme division. He chose not to do this, and that
is his right. But we have every right -- in fact, we have a
responsibility -- to fight against a radical ideological shift on the
Supreme Court. This nomination was a sellout to the demands of the
extreme right wing of the Republican Party. The president gave no
thought to what the American people really wanted - or needed. So now
that the president and Judge Alito have proven they won't stand up for
the majority of Americans, we have to stand up. We have to speak out.
That's the true meaning of "advice and consent."
Genocide Continues in Iraq 72/
Bush the Dictator-Fear
Why Does Bin Laden
Show Up Everytime
Bush is in Trouble
????? Any Takers ?
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders, that is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
George the Stupid. This article sums things up so well that I decided to
publish it in its entirity rather than just a snippet. For those nearby.
The Power-Madness of King
Is Bush turning America into an elective dictatorship?
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2006, at 3:44 PM ET
It's tempting to dismiss the debate about the National Security Agency
spying on Americans as a technical conflict about procedural rights.
President Bush believes he has the legal authority to order electronic
snooping without asking anyone's permission. Civil libertarians and
privacy-fretters think Bush needs a warrant from the special court
created to authorize wiretapping in cases of national security. But in
practice, the so-called FISA court that issues such warrants functions
as a virtual rubber stamp for the executive branch anyhow, so what's the
great difference in the end?
Would that so little were at stake. In fact, the Senate hearings on NSA
domestic espionage set to begin next month will confront fundamental
questions about the balance of power within our system. Even if one
assumes that every unknown instance of warrant-less spying by the NSA
were justified on security grounds, the arguments issuing from the White
House threaten the concept of checks and balances as it has been
understood in America for the last 218 years. Simply put, Bush and his
lawyers contend that the president's national security powers are
unlimited. And since the war on terror is currently scheduled to run
indefinitely, the executive supremacy they're asserting won't be a
This extremity of Bush's position emerges most clearly in a 42-page
document issued by the Department of Justice last week. As Andrew Cohen,
a CBS legal analyst, wrote in an online commentary, "The first time you
read the 'White Paper,' you feel like it is describing a foreign country
guided by an unfamiliar constitution." To develop this observation a bit
further, the nation implied by the document would be an elective
dictatorship, governed not by three counterpoised branches of government
but by a secretive, possibly benign, awesomely powerful king.
According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the putative author of the
white paper, the president's powers as commander in chief make him the
"sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs." This status, which
derives from Article II of the Constitution, brings with it the
authority to conduct warrant-less surveillance for the purpose of
disrupting possible terrorist attacks on the United States.
That power already sounds boundless, but according to Gonzales, this sole
organ has garnered even more authority under the congressional
authorization for the use of military force, passed in the wake of the
Sept. 11 attacks. This resolution is invariably referred to by the
ungainly acronym AUMF—the sound, perhaps, of civil liberties being
exhaled by a democracy. In the language of the white paper, the potent
formula of Article II plus AUMF "places the president at the zenith of
his powers," giving him "all that he possesses in his own right plus all
that Congress can delegate."
This somewhat daffy monarchical undertone accompanies legal reasoning that
recalls Alice's conversation with the March Hare. "AUMF" is understood
by the Justice Department to expressly authorize warrant-less
surveillance even though the resolution that Congress passed neither
envisioned nor implied anything of the kind. The president's insistence
that he alone can divine the hidden meaning of legislation is of a piece
with his recently noticed practice of appending "signing statements" to
bills—as in, "by signing this anti-torture bill into law, I pronounce it
to signify that it has no power over me." Similarly, in his white paper,
Bush as much as declares: "I determine what my words mean and I alone
determine what yours mean, too."
Twisting vague statements into specific authorization is a stretch. But it
is in inverting specific prohibitions into blanket permission that
Gonzales reaches for the genuinely Orwellian. The Federal Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 not only does not authorize Bush's warrant-less
snooping but clearly and specifically prohibits it by prescribing the
FISA court system as the "exclusive" method for authorizing electronic
surveillance for intelligence purposes. With a little help from the
white paper, however, that protection goes aumf as well; Gonzales
proposes that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must either be
read as consistent with the position that King Zenith can wiretap
whomever he wants (thus becoming meaningless) or, alternatively, be
dismissed as an unconstitutional irrelevancy.
Bush's message to the courts, like his message to Congress, is: Make way,
subjects. His quiet detour around the federal judges who sit on the FISA
court is entirely consistent with the White House position in the big
terrorism civil liberties cases that federal judges lack jurisdiction to
meddle with presidential decisions about whom to lock up and how to
treat them. In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1,
curtailed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's ability to detain
"enemy combatants" indefinitely without a hearing. In a plurality
opinion, O'Connor wrote "a state of war is not a blank check for the
President." The Justice Department memo, however, cites Hamdi as ballast
for its stance that when it comes to spying domestically, Bush has not
only a blank check but a wallet full of no-limit platinum cards.
The final problem with Gonzales' theories of unfettered executive
authority is that they, as the lawyers say, prove too much. The Article
II plus AUMF justification for warrant-less spying is essentially the
same one the administration has advanced to excuse torture; ignore the
Geneva Conventions; and indefinitely hold even U.S. citizens without a
hearing, charges, or trial. Torture and detention without due process
are bad enough. But why does this all-purpose rationale not also extend
to press censorship or arresting political opponents, were the president
to deem such measures vital to the nation's security?
I don't suggest that Bush intends anything of the kind—or that even a
Congress as supine as the current one would remain passive if he went so
far. But the president's latest assertion that he alone can safeguard
our civil liberties isn't just disturbing and wrong. It's downright
Genocide Continues in Iraq 71/
British Spies Screw Up
Could it be you really are a hero????? Seems the Governor has the guts
to go against the fascists. A muted bravo... Could be damage control.(
hiring of Kennedy, Schroeder said, conservatives dislike the governor's
call for an increase in the minimum wage and bipartisan approach to
the Queen's best have messed up again and gotten caught red handed.
СОТРУДНИКИ РОССИЙСКИХ СПЕЦСЛУЖБ ВЫЯВИЛИ ФАКТЫ ФИНАНСИРОВАНИЯ БРИТАНСКИМИ
РАЗВЕДЧИКАМИ НЕКОТОРЫХ НЕПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВЕННЫХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЙ В РФ
Москва. 22 января. ИНТЕРФАКС
Special Services Personnel Report Discovery of British Secret Service's
Financing of Several Non-Governmental Foreign Entities in the Russian
January 22 INTERFAX
Сотрудники российских спецслужб выявили факты разведдеятельности против
России, осуществляющейся рядом сотрудников посольства Великобритании в
Москве. Телеканал "Россия" 22 января в программе "Специальный
корреспондент" показал кадры оперативной съемки, а также комментарий
сотрудников ФСБ, которые доказывают факт разведдеятельности против
special services personnel have uncovered espionage activities against
Russia involving personnel from the British Embassy in Moscow. The TV
station "Russia", on January 22 on the program "Special Reports",
broadcast operational images as well as commentary by FSB personnel
which prove the espionage activities against Russia.
Всего интерес у российских спецслужб вызвали четыре британских дипломата -
помощник официального представителя британской разведки в России Пол
Кромптон, второй секретарь посольства Марк Доу, координировавший
деятельность "Фонда глобальных возможностей" при МИД Великобритании и
курировавший некоторые российские НПО, секретарь-архивист посольства
Кристофер Пирс, который работает в России с 2002 года, и
секретарь-архивист Эндрю Флемминг, который работает в России с 2004
interest to Russian Special Services are four British diplomats;
assistant to the official representative of the British secret
service(s) in Russia, (Third Secretary for Political Affairs) Paul
Crompton, Second Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Doe who were
responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the "Global Possibilties
Fund under the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and worked as
couriers for several Russian NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations).
As well; Christopher Pirt, who has worked in Russia since 2002 and Andre
Fleming, who has been working in Russia since 2004.
В программе утверждалось, что через М.Доу поступали деньги для некоторых
НПО, в частности, для Московской Хельсинкской группы и фонда "Евразия".
В эфире были показаны копии платежных документов с подписями М.Доу,
согласно которым крупные суммы денег переводились данным НПО.
The program backed up claims that through Doe money was transferred to
several NGOs, most frequently to The Moscow Helsinki Group and the
Eurasia Fund. Copies of financial transfer documents signed by M Doe
were broadcast on the program which point to large money transfers to
the NGOs in question.
Как заявила в эфире пресс-секретарь ФСБ России Диана Шемякина, большинство
НПО в России созданы, финансируются и существуют под патронажем
правительств и общественных организаций США и их союзников по НАТО.
As was reported on the broadcast, FSB Press Secretary Diana Shemyakina
stated that most NGOs in Russia were created, are financed, and exist
under the patronage of governmental and public organizations in the US
and by its NATO allies.
телевизионной передаче также было отмечено, что контрразведчики
обнаружили необычные технические средства, примененные британцами
впервые в истории спецслужб. Осенью 2005 года К.Пирс привез в один из
скверов на окраине Москвы камень со встроенным устройством, способным
получать и передавать информацию. Оперативный сотрудник ФСБ России
сообщил в телеэфире, что в определенное время в сквере появлялся
российский гражданин, завербованный британской разведкой, который
пересылал данные с переносного компьютера на аппаратуру, находящуюся в
камне. Через некоторое время британский разведчик, проходя мимо камня,
считывал информацию с помощью карманного компьютера. Российским
контрразведчикам удалось задержать российского гражданина, который уже
дал признательные показания.
During the program it was also noted that counter espionage agents
discovered an unusual device used by the British for the first time. In
the fall of 2005, Mr. Pirt placed a "rock", which housed electronic
equipment capable of receiving and sending data, in one of the squares
on the outskirts of Moscow. FSB operational personnel reported on the
program that at pre-arranged times a Russian citizen recruited by
British espionage, showed up on the square and transmitted data from a
portable computer to the receiver in the "rock". A short while later his
British controller would pass by the "rock" and upload the information
onto a pocket PC. Russian counter-espionage agents were able to
apprehend the Russian citizen, who has already provided incriminating
Translation by JARII
The insides of the wonder rock.
Осенью 2005 года К.Пирс привез в один из скверов на окраине Москвы камень
со встроенным устройством, способным получать и передавать информацию
In the fall of 2005 Mr. Pirt placed the "rock", capable of receiving and
transmitting data, in one of the squares on the outskirts of Moscow
По внешнему виду - обыкновенный булыжник
On the outside an ordinary
Но ренген говорит, что внутри сложная начинка
X-rays show a
Посольство Великобритании и сотрудники посольства
British Embassy and Embassy Personnel
Флеминг, но не тот
Fleming, "not that one!"(sic)
moscow helsinki group
Tragic Losses Continue in Iraq 70/
Bin Laden Releases a
sHit Tape; Blah-Blah-Blah...Hey George!!
I'm Still Heeeeeeere...Nya-Nya...
But Wait...Is He
Really Offering Peace???!
Long time Bush family friend, ex-CIA agent Tim Ossman, AKA Ossaaaama
Bin-Ladle makes an appearance, promises to kill more innocents, gloats,
proves he is still delusional, states crap we already know, and spews
more crap diguised as Islam, defiling Islam once more and proving to the
world at large that George Bush is a disaster and he (Bin-Boy) has
gotten what he wants....I don't know who is worse anymore...I think they
deserve each other... If his offer of peace is genuine then he, for one,
has learned something... But hey, peace sells but the Bush
administration will surely not buy it... I mean what would happen to all
those Halliburton bucks? Wish he'd choke.
Still freezing here.((( Good night.
By The Associated Press
Thu Jan 19, 9:23 PM ET
The following is the full text of a new audiotape from al-Qaida leader
Osama bin Laden. Parts of the tape were aired on Al-Jazeera television,
which published the entire version on its Web site. The text was
translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press.
Bin Laden appears to be addressing the American people:
My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end
them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has
already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank
God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the
opposite of that.
But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has
committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an
overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from
Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing
troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight
them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us
(Americans) on our land.
I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no
let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank
God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is
increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction
of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among
them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that
afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after
they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation
the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to
leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless
punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets
destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear
and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on).
The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong
message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be
saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about
them (the soldiers).
The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what
the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media
report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens
the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets
the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared
lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world
(Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar
after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.
On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the
oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to
a point where there is no difference between this criminality and
Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and
taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.
As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on
their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they
sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you
will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.
And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the
fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing
in number and strength — so much so that reports point to the ultimate
failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending
partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy.
The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his
alleged victory in Iraq come true.
And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced
the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the
aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were
killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I
say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or
the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.
And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those
who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The
reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been
limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of
attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the
mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to
penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries.
The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the
European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in
similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure
to break through your security measures. The operations are under
preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are
through (with preparations), with God's permission.
Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement —
the one that slipped from him — which is at the heart of polls calling
for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight
Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.
We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we
adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So
both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can
build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There
is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of
dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in
America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of
dollars — which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang
to carry on with war.
If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we
have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and
oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue
State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would
stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to
all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would
announce that American interference in the nations of the world has
ended once and for all."
Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the
former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in
this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not
stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights
and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God
permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As
for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear
the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity
and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and
played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.
You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will
not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out
jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to
us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern
arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and
steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet
Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now
they are nothing.
In that there is a lesson for you.
Maru puts it
all into the proper perspective once again. Thank God....
My Favorite Blogger
"It is no accident that we
haven't been hit in more than four years." - VP Dick Cheney, yesterday.
It is no accident that this planet has not been hit by a giant meteor in
the past four years.
It is no accident that sabretooth tigers have not rampaged through our
towns and cities devouring our children.
It is no accident that black holes have not formed in our atmosphere,
sucking out our oxygen or our precious bodily fluids.
It is no accident that the Martian fleet has not attacked to kidnap our
women these past four years.
It is no accident that in his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
It is no accident that ... gak! ack! :: thud ::.
Morford) says it like no one else can...
My Favorite Columnist
===== Mark Morford's Notes &
SFGate.com - Friday, January 20, 2006
Sam Alito On Brokeback Mountain
What do the bitter neocon nominee and the amazing Oscar-bound film have in
By Mark Morford
There is this theory, more of a truism really, tossed about like a fuzzy
beach ball by the gurus and the masters and the mystics since Jesus was
but a lint ball of possibility in the Great Belly Button of Time.
It goes like this: When human consciousness expands, for whatever reason
and with whatever stimulation and even if you can only measure it in
hairsbreadth, when our nasty habit of harsh judgment falls away and
people begin to get a little bit, you know, lighter, there is always, as
sure as there's someone who hates the sunrise, a clampdown, a recoil, a
desperate need by the terrified and ever-paranoid conservative sect to,
you know, put a quick stop to this so-called awakening crapola
As soon as people begin realizing there's more to this brief little slice
of existence than hate and war and the constant drumbeat of fear,
there's always resistance, a reactive sneer at the idea that people
might be waking up, even a little, and it's all in the name of
protecting the status quo and defending the power base and not upsetting
any of those carefully wrought prejudices, about making sure everyone
stays quiet and doesn't ask any difficult questions of the Authority.
Religious groups make phone calls and complain. Big chunks of money get
thrown into the pockets of sanctimonious politicians. Quasi-religious
bonk-job leaders declare sex and music and gay people the source of all
woes and vices and diseases. Ugly new laws get passed. And yes, bitter,
convulsive justices get appointed to the Supreme Court. ...
(click here to read the rest)
Mindless Slaughter Continues in Iraq 69/
It's Coooooooold Out
Well it's 04:15 and I just got back in from warming up the car, it's so
cold that if I don't do it every for hours the poor old thing will not
start. I just checked the thermometer hanging outside the kitchen window
and it's -32°C, that's -25.6°F without the wind-chill factor. Northern
wind blowing in at about 10 mph which makes it even colder. since that
is the coldest I have ever seen since I started living here I thought
that would be something worth mentioning. Almost everyone I know who
drives has had car trouble and I tell everyone, "Warm the car up at
least every three hours. I am running an almost 90% antifreeze to water
ratio and the stuff in the over-flow reservoir looks like a green
My most reliable weather source, an Aeroflot pilot, told me that it would
get to minus 40 tonight. Minus 40 Celsius is minus 40 Fahrenheit in case
you were wondering. Even here the schools are closed and life has slowed
01-18 ISP is up
01-18 ISP is down
Oil-Exploration Continues in Iraq 68/
Let's Not Let Them
Pull the Wool Over Our Eyes Again !!!
Impeach #ucking everybody
"Americans of almost every stripe don’t want a President wiretapping their
phones or snooping on their e-mails without warrants. Americans of
almost every stripe don’t want a President who puts a crown on his
The Dwarf Judas: You know, if the president did break the law or
circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?
Repug Arlen Specter: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A
president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but
you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a
remedy. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but
the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political
Pogrom Continues in Iraq 67/
U.S. Trying to Build
Case for Iran Invasion/
come to the conclusion after analyzing all of my open-source information
that the Bush Administration is once again testing the waters for
implementing scenarios that will build up to an invasion of Iran.
long been the goal of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Unfortunately for them
earlier attempts to get their plan under-way have been hampered by the
fiasco they have created in Iraq.
and the American people, already suspicious and untrusting, will not
allow the administration the carte-blanche they had after 9-11 when
dealing with Iran, so it would be hard at this point to bolster support
for an Iranian invasion on the grounds that Iran is trying to develop
nuclear weapons and possesses WMDs. It would take an act of open
agression or a declaration of war by the Iranians to allow the Bush
Administration to put forth their planned invasion.
decided to provide cryptome.org a mirror on my server. I may not agree
with everything John Young does but I support him in what he has been
doing to try to keep our out-of-control government accountable for
its actions. His dedication to the men and women dying in Iraq is also
laudable. Check it out, you might be surprised.
spies mess up and get caught. Or another trampling of civil rights?
According to the federal
indictment, Alvarez had allegedly spied for Cuba since 1977, and his
wife since 1982.
"I'm flabbergasted," said Herbert C. Kelman, emeritus professor of social
ethics at Harvard University, who mentored Alvarez in conflict
resolution and traveled with him to Cuba. "I considered him an honorary
student of mine. I have the highest regard for him as a fine and
knowledgeable colleague with the best of intentions.
Pogrom Continues in Iraq 66/
The weekly update from
Media Matters for America
Alito hearings double standard, part one
Alito hearings double standard, part two
Chris Matthews: Presidential law-breaking just "part of the job"
Media continues to spin Bush domestic spying operation
Alito hearings double standard, part one
A frequent theme of media coverage of Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel
A. Alito Jr.'s nomination hearing has been that Democrats -- but not
Republicans -- entered the hearing with closed minds, having already
decided how they were going to vote.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been one of the most prominent proponents of this
storyline. As Media Matters for America noted, Blitzer asked Sen. Edward
M. Kennedy (D-MA) during a January 9 interview: "It sounded, based on
your opening statement, as if you have already made up your mind. You
are going to oppose this nominee. Is that right?" Yet, during a
subsequent interview, Blitzer chose not to ask Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-TN) whether he had made up his mind, despite Frist's
effusive praise of Alito.
Blitzer was back at it two days later, declaring: "Some Democrats are
delivering an early verdict on Alito's performance." Blitzer did not
mention the "early verdict" issued by Republican senators, including
Lindsey Graham [R-SC], who used his opening statement to tell Alito:
"It's possible you could talk me out of voting for you, but I doubt it.
So I won't even try to challenge you along those lines. I feel very
comfortable with you being on the Supreme Court based on what I know."
Blitzer wasn't the only one in the media to suggest that Democrats entered
the hearings with a closed mind -- and he did at least ask one
Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA], whether he had made up his mind
about the nominee before the hearing began. The Associated Press, for
example, reported on January 11 that "Republicans complained that
Democrats have already made up their minds about Alito." True,
Republicans have made that complaint -- but the AP should have told
readers that several Republicans have made up their minds, making the
Republican complaint more than a little hypocritical.
In repeatedly suggesting that Democrats had made up their minds about
Alito before the hearing began -- and less frequently suggesting it of
Republicans -- news outlets reinforced a claim often made by
Republicans: Democrats would oppose anybody Bush nominated. And by
focusing on the Democrats, the media let Republicans off the hook. In
fact, the Republicans' job is no more to grease the wheels for Bush's
nominee than the Democrats' is to decide in advance to oppose.
And left unexamined amid all this talk of who made up their mind when is
the question of when it would make sense for a senator to make up his or
her mind. Which is more defensible, a senator quickly deciding to oppose
Alito, or to support him? Since it is conservatives who are pushing the
"closed-minded" talking point, it might be assumed that a quick decision
to oppose Alito is less defensible than a quick decision to support him.
Indeed, it seems many in the media have reached this conclusion. But is
it rational? Is it correct?
Not if you consider that one single fact about a nominee could be enough
to justify opposing him or her -- but one fact isn't enough to justify
supporting a nominee. To take an extreme example, if a senator found out
that a nominee had murdered someone, nobody would expect that senator to
wait until finding out the nominee's view of Griswold v. Connecticut --
or that such a view would matter.
But if the senator knew the nominee's view of Griswold, we wouldn't expect
him or her to think that sufficient information on which to reach a
decision on their nomination: the senator, one hopes, would still want
to know the nominee's views on other legal issues, the nominee's ethical
suitability for office, and whether the nominee was a murderer.
Alito hearings double standard, part two
In the wake of the bungling of the Hurricane Katrina response by Michael
D. Brown, President Bush's former Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) director, several news reports questioned how thorough Senate
Democrats were during his nomination hearing when Brown was first
nominated to work at FEMA in 2002.
CNN focused on the Brown hearing during the September 14, 2005, edition of
Lou Dobbs Tonight. Dobbs introduced a segment by correspondent Ed Henry
by saying, "It turns out many of the very people publicly blasting
Brown's performance are the very same people who played a significant,
critical role in his winning the job in the first place." Henry began
HENRY: Democrats have acted surprised and outraged that the president's
FEMA director had next to no experience.
But Democrats were running the Senate when Brown was easily confirmed as
FEMA's deputy director in June 2002. The Democrat in charge of the
confirmation hearing, Joe Lieberman [D-CT], declared he would support
Brown because of his, quote, "extensive management experience."
Only four of 17 senators on the committee showed up for that hearing,
which lasted only 42 minutes, with no tough questions about Brown's nine
years running an Arabian horse association.
When pressed by CNN about whether he did a tough enough job scrutinizing
Brown, Lieberman put the onus on the president.
Likewise, USA Today reported on September 28, 2005:
For all the criticism of Brown as being unqualified, the Senate had a shot
at questioning his credentials in 2002, but it didn't. The confirmation
hearing on Brown's nomination as FEMA's second-in-command lasted 42
minutes. Only four members attended. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., then
the confirmation committee chairman, promised support. The Senate
confirmed Brown, who had been at the agency one year, by a voice vote.
No hearing or vote was required when Brown was promoted in 2003 to run
News organizations, in short, chided Democrats for not having conducted
extensive hearings examining Brown's nomination to be deputy director of
What does that have to do with Alito?
News organizations are now criticizing Democrats for being too aggressive
in examining Alito's record -- and for virtually ignoring the fact that
not only are Republicans not thoroughly examining Alito's background,
they are actively trying to stop the public from finding out anything
Fox News called Democrats "vicious"; CNN's Henry uncritically repeated
Republican spin that Democrats are "just really hitting below the belt";
CBS News' Gloria Borger suggested that Democrats may have gone "a step
too far" -- a statement echoed by NBC's Katie Couric.
CNN's Blitzer suggested that Democrats' efforts to examine documents
relating to an organization Alito belonged to was "simply a fishing
expedition designed to look for something that may or may not be there."
His CNN colleague, Bob Franken, declared that the Democrats'
"questioning could turn to the desperate side." Also on CNN, John King
told viewers: "The Democrats are looking ... either for some way to trip
him up on the way to nomination or for some -- perhaps a reason to
justify a filibuster." And Henry - who, just a few months earlier, had
chided Democrats for not being aggressive enough in conducting
confirmation hearings -- said: "Democrats signaled they were heading
into the attack mode yesterday in their opening statements."
To recap: News organizations chided Democrats for not spending much time
examining the background of a nominee for deputy director of FEMA. Now,
they accuse Democrats who ask a Supreme Court nominee -- a lifetime
appointment to the highest court in the land -- questions about his
background and his legal opinions of "demonization," conducting a
"fishing expedition," being in "attack mode," and being "vicious."
Meanwhile, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are actively trying to
prevent an examination of Alito's qualifications and suitability for the
court. They are not only failing to take their advice-and-consent role
seriously, they are actually trying to stop the American public from
learning about a nominee to the Supreme Court. They are working for the
nominee and the Bush administration, not on behalf of their constituents
or in accordance with their constitutional role.
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX] specifically told Alito he thought it was not
"fair" for other members of the Committee to ask Alito if there is a
constitutional right to abortion: "I think in all fairness the question
is not a fair one to ask you, whether the right to an abortion is
written in this document." But that was positively hard-hitting in
comparison to a "question" Cornyn asked Alito:
CORNYN: Well, I wonder if you're aware of one thing that he [Judge A. Leon
Higginbotham] was quoted as having said. This is out of the Los Angeles
Times, comments he made about you to Judge Timothy Lewis. Quoted in the
Los Angeles Times, quote, "Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on
the court. He's a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito
is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have
an agenda. He is not an ideologue."
Were you aware that Judge Higginbotham had said that about you?
And the following is an actual exchange between Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL]
SESSIONS: Judge Alito, you know the salary that a federal judge makes; is
ALITO: I do, all too well.
SESSIONS: Do you know what it would be on the Supreme Court?
ALITO: I actually don't know exactly, no.
SESSIONS: A little more, I think. Not much. Do you think you can live on
ALITO: I can. I've lived on a federal judge's salary up to this point.
Well, good thing we cleared that up.
But while reporters have focused much attention on the supposed
impropriety of Democrats using confirmation hearings to actually
exercise some congressional oversight, very little media attention has
been paid to the Republicans' decision to make a mockery of the
Put it all together, and what do you have?
Democrats get criticized for lax oversight in conducting Brown's
Democrats get criticized for aggressive oversight in Alito's confirmation
Republicans make a mockery of the very notion of "congressional oversight"
in their conduct of the Alito hearings -- and their conduct escapes
Chris Matthews: Presidential law-breaking just "part of the job"
An old sports cliché holds that it is far more difficult to defend a
championship than to pursue one. That may be true, but 2005 Misinformer
of the Year Chris Matthews showed this week that he won't give up his
title without a fight.
On the January 12 edition of his MSNBC television show, Matthews declared
that breaking the law might be part of the president's job:
MATTHEWS: We're under attack on 9-11. A couple of days after that, if I
were president of the United States and somebody said we had the ability
to check on all the conversations going on between here and Hamburg,
Germany, where all the Al Qaeda people are, or somewhere in Saudi
[Arabia], where they came from and their parents are, and we could mine
some of that information by just looking for some key words like "World
Trade Center" or "Pentagon," I'd do it.
NSA WHISTLEBLOWER RUSSELL TICE: Well, you'd be breaking the law.
MATTHEWS: Yeah. Well, maybe that's part of the job. We'll talk about it.
We'll be right back with Russ Tice. You're watching Hardball on MSNBC.
Somehow, presidential law-breaking seems inconsistent with the
constitutional requirement that the president "shall take Care that the
Laws be faithfully executed" -- though it does seem to be addressed
directly by the provision stating that the "President ... shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Also this week, Matthews declared during a discussion of the Jack Abramoff
scandal that "you have to be a real ideologue, a real partisan to
believe that one party's more crooked than the other."
While it's safe to assume that there is little inherently corrupt about
being either a Republican or a Democrat, and that the overwhelming
majority of members of both parties are not corrupt, Matthews wasn't
discussing party membership in the abstract, or among rank-and-file
membership. He was discussing congressional leaders, in Washington, of
the two parties. And in that context, it's abundantly clear on which
side of the aisle crookedness -- or, to borrow a word National Review
editor Rich Lowry used, "perfidy" -- predominates.
Media continues to spin Bush domestic spying operation
While most media figures haven't been quite as brazen in downplaying the
Bush administration's apparently illegal domestic spying operation as
Matthews has, misinformation about the program continues to run rampant.
Several news organizations, for example, reported Bush's January 11
assertion that he acted legally in authorizing the program -- without
noting the program's legality is very much in dispute and, in fact, the
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and a former National
Security Agency general counsel have both questioned Bush's legal
defense of the wiretapping.
Others, like Rush Limbaugh, assert that "Americans were not spied on
without a warrant." But Limbaugh has no basis for that claim; the
wiretapping program is controversial precisely because evidence suggests
that Bush authorized the NSA to spy on people within the United States
without obtaining warrants. It's worth noting that Bush has not said,
"Americans were not spied on without a warrant."
01-12\13 ISP was down for 19
hours. That makes downtime about six days and 21 hours for the past 365
days, but who's counting. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Pogrom Continues in Iraq 65/
Sen. Kennedy Comments
The editorial Sen. Kennedy
wants Judge Alito to read.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:50 p.m. EST
(Editor's note: This editorial appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Jan.
17, 1985. This afternoon Sen. Ted Kennedy asked Judge Sam Alito if he
had read it.)
Princeton President William Bowen has a novel and refreshing answer to a
question that troubles a number of his peers today: How do you handle a
bunch of alumni and students who are actively criticizing what is going
on at the school? When a group called Concerned Alumni of Princeton
wrote to alumni to express its critical views, President Bowen wrote as
well, giving his side of the story.
Other schools facing dissident journals similar to CAP's Prospect have
dealt with the recrudescence of campus conservatism less cordially.
Yale, for example, continues to press its lawsuit against Yale Lit,
saying that the "Yale name" is in danger if the publication continues to
use it. All too often on American campuses, academics themselves are
willing to abridge academic freedom if the ideas being expressed are
contrary to what they regard as prevailing community standards.
The Princeton encounter started last fall when CAP chairman David Condit
wrote an appeal for alumni money to help Princeton, arguing that the
university could best be helped through a donation to CAP. In a letter
dated Dec. 5 sent to many alumni, President Bowen delivered his answer.
What emerges, in effect, is a tale of two Princetons: One is the
Princeton President Bowen is shaping, and the other is the Princeton Mr.
Condit and CAP would like to see instead.
Mr. Condit, for example, argues that Princeton's traditional eating clubs
ought to be preserved in their present, independent form. President
Bowen, by contrast, believes the clubs should be radically changed:
perhaps turned into de facto dormitories, or forced to become
Mr. Condit claims that last year 31 out of 33 pregnant students had
abortions after receiving counseling from Princeton's sex clinic.
President Bowen, on the other hand, argues that Princeton's program is
"thoroughly professional and humane" and says that Mr. Condit's comments
President Bowen has commented that "You could say it's a whole new
school." Mr. Condit and CAP, it appears, would like to see the social
mores, curriculum and institutions of Princeton maintained essentially
as they were when Bill Bradley or even F. Scott Fitzgerald went there.
Probably few people would agree entirely with either one side or the
But President Bowen displays a regard for the best in academic traditions
by being willing to compete openly and on the merits of his arguments
for the support of the university's alumni. Quite possibly F. Scott
Fitzgerald would have sided with Mr. Condit, but he would have admired
President Bowen for confronting the opposition straightforwardly.
It has always seemed to us that a university, above all else, should be a
place where conventional thought is challenged and minds are stretched
in free and open debate. President Bowen, in his willingness to engage
his critics, sets a good example for his peers.
Pogrom Continues in Iraq 64/
Focus Off Impeachment
more soldiers will they murder? WTF? Republican fiscal responsibility?
New York Times
A secret Pentagon study has
found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in
Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had
extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until
recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops
despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to
what we were talking about all along. Republican fiscal
BLITZER: Should Democrats
who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery
charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington,
should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity
or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one,
not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a
Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every
person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal.
There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any
money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a
bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There
is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes.
They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen
that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the
Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved
in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the
truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're
stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this
A letter to the Guardian
Mohamed Al Fayed
Monday January 9, 2006
My attention has been drawn to an article by your columnist, Alexander
Chancellor, that appeared in your edition of December 24 2005, under the
heading: "You pays your money ...."
Rarely have I seen such a vile example of deliberate poisonous malice,
thinly disguised as opinion. The Guardian has a fine reputation for
scrupulously sticking to the facts. For never allowing the boundaries to
blur between fact and comment.
Yet Alexander Chancellor deliberately disregarded the facts to write a
hateful and venomous attack on my store and me. Chancellor is an odious
creep who has become a disease on the face of the Guardian.
If he wished to make a fool of himself by demonstrating his lack of taste
in describing Harrods, the world's most celebrated department store, as
"tacky"and "depressing", then that was up to him. But when this
journalist jackal poured scorn and derision upon the Book of Condolence,
the real purpose of his disgraceful attack became all too clear.
The reason for the Book of Condolence is that, after Diana, Princess of
Wales, and my beloved son, Dodi Fayed, were murdered, people who came to
Harrods from all over the world asked me to create a place where they
could go to remember those two wonderful young people and to record
their tributes to them.
The book lies open at Harrods, every day. In it, visitors record their
thoughts and prayers for the loving couple who died together, so
tragically, eight years ago. So far, people of all races and creeds have
filled 50 books with messages of love and kindness.
And that is exactly what Alexander Chancellor's attack on Harrods, and
myself, was really all about. How dare this morally bankrupt swine sneer
at the memory of a loving young couple whose lives were so cruelly
snuffed out, and at ordinary decent people who feel so strongly about
The truth is that your columnist, Alexander Chancellor, is an
establishment toady who is using his position on the Guardian for his
own ends. He is a middle-class racist willing to sink to any depths to
please his establishment masters. And he cannot bear the thought of the
memory of the love of the Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed, being kept
Before worming his way into the employ of your newspaper, which came as
something of a surprise to most journalists, the poisonous Chancellor
was the cringing lackey of Conrad Black, the disgraced owner of the
As editor of the Guardian, I suspect that you will feel duty bound to
defend your columnist and tell me that he is free to write whatever he
wishes, so long as it is within the law. But I wonder if it has crossed
your mind that there was yet another, darker reason why Chancellor
abused the hospitality of your columns to attack me.
You will remember that I helped bring down the last Tory government. And
that the Guardian was alone in supporting me. I regarded it then as my
patriotic duty to help get rid of politicians that were rotten to the
core. And I did so at no small risk to myself. But I never wavered. And
neither did the Guardian. Can you imagine how angry Mr Chancellor, the
Tories' champion, must have been? With both me and the Guardian?
Perhaps you should privately remind your double-dealing, sleazy, columnist
that the Guardian is a newspaper, not a platform for his slimy
establishment propaganda. And that if Chancellor wishes to deliberately
grind his axe, by confusing fact with comment, he might be happier
working for another, less scrupulous newspaper.
Though, having failed at so many jobs, it is difficult to imagine upon
whom he might next inflict himself.
M Al Fayed, chairman
MERRY X-MAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR & MERRY
One can dream, can't one?
In Russia, Christmas is on the 7th of
January but people still give each other gifts on New Years eve...
This is an archive
participate in politics is
that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
"Those who would sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin
“I see in the near future
a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the
safety of my country… corporations have been enthroned and an era of
corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the
country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the
prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands
and the Republic is destroyed.” - Abraham Lincoln
“If a nation expects to be
ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”-
This site may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights,
economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish
to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that
go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner. But since the site's server is based in the FREE country of
RUSSIA this all may not apply and I can do and say whatever I like. Have
a nice day...