Nancy Pelosi...

Nancy is telling me we passed the Surveil America bill (FISA), so that we can be sure we can investigate what Bush's administration did. That was the trade for immunity.

Believe that?

There's more...

Note to self

U.S. Constitution

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

No longer operative.

There's more...

Rematch

The Farm Bill is going to be voted on again... And then vetoed again probably, and then we will fight for an override again.

This is not deja vu. In some sort of freak clerical error, the version that was voted on was missing 32 pages in the copies sent to congress. So the vote is invalid. The bill needs to be printed and circulated again and then voted again etc. and so forth.

The Republicans of course took this opportunity to grandstand and complain about the mistake and the bad leadership of the Democratic Congress, and the Democrats of course had to defend their tired staffers for being human. (As if this whole last 7 years had not been fraught with Republican mistakes, blunders and tragic disasters.)

So we are not done with the 2007 Farm Bill yet. Please stand by.

There's more...

Override

Congressional Quarterly reports:

The House is likely to make an effort to override President Bush's veto of the farm bill. If the House musters the two-thirds majority required for an override, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said his chamber will vote before it recesses for the break.

The legislation took a year-and-a-half to write and reauthorizes crop subsidies and includes conservation programs, funding for food stamps, expands land-conservation programs and offers alternative energy incentives.

There's more...

No More Money

The House of Representatives just voted 149 to 141 to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. This was followed by votes to put significant restrictions on President Bush's war policy, including a timeline for withdrawal, and creating a new GI Bill to help returning veterans.

100 republican congress-critters voted "present" rather than yes or no on funding. The fear of job loss in the GOP reaching a pretty fevered pitch. (from Open Left)

Find out how your rep. voted, and say thanks-- or give 'em what for!

There's more...

Georgia on my mind.

It is Wed. and that means it is time for the wonderful Wednesday Wire; coming out every week. From this week's edition;

ELECTION UPDATE GEORGIA. Five military veterans are running as Democrats against five entrenched Republican members of the House. They are Bill Jones, former Air Force officer against Tom Price in GA – 06; Doug Heckman, former Army Colonel against John Linder in GA-07; Bill Gillespie, retired Army Lt. Col against Jack Kingston in GA – 01; Bobby Saxon, National Guard major against Paul Broun in GA – 10 and Bud Gammon, Air Force Academy grad against Phil Gingrey in GA –11. With the Republicans having a hard time finding top drawer candidates to take on our perennial vulnerables Jim Marshall (GA – 08) and John Barrow (GA -12) (both very conservative Dems)

This expansion of the playing field could make serious trouble for the Georgia GOP. Don’t expect any of the five to win, but in a wave election year, surprises do happen.

My favorite quote from the homepages of the Georgia Fighting 5 is this jem from Bobby Saxon;

I'm as sick of politics as most of you are and this is exactly why I'm running for Congress. I believe our political leaders should serve the best interests of this country. They should work for the good of all people and they should act like adults and find a way to work together for the common good of all Americans. (emphasis, mine)

Hear.Hear!

Read more news, views and state by state analysis from John McQueen at http://www.wednesdaywire.com/ every week. He is a pragmatic progressive and mentor-extraordinaire. Do you know more vets running? More exciting House and Senate races we should be paying attention to? Share in the thread. And here's an old sweet song in honor of the Georgia Fighting 5! Don't hesitate to send them some bloggy-love in the form of contributions. Every little bit can make a big difference in the house races.

There's more...

The President is a Liar

I know it's no surprise to anyone who doesn't live in the beltway, but.

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush stepped up his attack on House Democrats who support terrorism surveillance legislation that would deny immunity from lawsuits to telephone companies. The Democratic plan poses a threat to the safety of the U.S., the president said.

The President is a liar and everyone knows it, and Nancy Pelosi just called him one.

QUESTION: Don't you think the president is lying?
PELOSI: Am I saying the president is lying?

QUESTION: Yes.

PELOSI: That's the same question I got in 2001 when they asked me -- when I said the intelligence on Iraq does not support the threat of -- an imminent threat to our country that the administration is contending.

That's what they said to me then. They said, "Are you saying the president is lying?" I said then and I say now, "I am stating a fact."

The president is wrong and he knows it. -- TalkingPointsMemo.com

Question is, will the White House respond? I mean, the Speaker of the House has just called the President a liar. Everyone knows it's true, he is a liar. Will the media report it? Of course the answer is no. I just thought I would point out, this is where we are at. Just a reflection.

There's more...

Rejecting the Rule of Law: Part 1

Michael Mukasey. Official photo.

U.S. Attorney General Refuses Congressional Contempt Citations

U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to refer two contempt citations from the United States House of Representatives to a Grand Jury for their consideration of criminal charges, saying a current and former aide to President Bush had done nothing illegal.

Associated Press

Mukasey said White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet Miers were right in refusing to provide Congress White House documents or testify about the firings of federal prosecutors.

"The department will not bring the congressional contempt citations before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Mr. Bolten or Ms. Miers," Mukasey wrote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The House voted two weeks ago to cite Bolten and Mukasey for contempt of Congress and seek a grand jury investigation. Most Republicans boycotted the vote.

Pelosi requested the grand jury investigation on Thursday and gave Mukasey a week to reply. She said the House would file a civil suit seeking seeking enforcment of the contempt citations if federal prosecutors declined to seek misdemeanor charges against Bolten and Miers.

Mukassey took only a day to get back to her. But he had earlier joined his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, in telling lawmakers they would refuse to refer any contempt citations to prosecutors because Bolten and Miers were acting at Bush's instruction.

Let's review.

Here is Speaker Pelosi's letter to Mukassey.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi Letter to Attorney General Mukasey on Contempt Citations of Miers and Bolten

Washington, D.C. – Today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent the following letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, informing him of the enclosed referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney of the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor on contempt citations of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Taylor is required by law to bring the matter before a grand jury. However, Mukasey has indicated that the Justice Department intends to prevent Taylor from complying with the law.

“There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury,” she wrote…”I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim.”

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 979, which holds Miers and Bolten in contempt of their subpoenas.

Below is a text of the letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey and the referral letter sent to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor:

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Michael B. Mukasey
The Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

In accordance with 2 U.S.C. § 194 and the attached House Resolution 979 (adopted on February 14, 2008), I have today sent a certification to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, advising him of the failure of former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, to appear, testify and produce documents in compliance with a duly issued subpoena of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and of the failure of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff and custodian of White House documents, to produce documents in his custody as required by a duly issued subpoena of the House Judiciary Committee.

Under section 194, Mr. Taylor is now required “to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” The appropriate grand jury action is a criminal charge for violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which provides: “Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers . . . willfully makes default . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” and shall be subject to a fine and “imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”

According to the testimony of your predecessor, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and your recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department intends to prevent Mr. Taylor from complying with the statute and enforcing the contempt citations against Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten. You claimed that “enforcement by way of contempt of a congressional subpoena is not permitted when the President directs a direct adviser of his… not to appear or when he directs any member of the executive not to produce documents.” Hearing on Oversight of the Dep’t of Justice Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 87-88 (Feb. 7, 2008). You purported to base your view on a “long line of authority,” but cited no court decision that supports this proposition.

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will “act promptly” to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

Thank your for your prompt consideration and attention to this matter.

best regards,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

Enclosure

February 28, 2008

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Taylor
United States Attorney
District of Columbia

The undersigned, The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, pursuant to the attached House Resolution 979, One Hundred Tenth Congress, hereby certifies to you the failure and refusal of Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, to appear, testify, and furnish certain documents in compliance with a subpoena before a duly constituted subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. The undersigned further certifies to you the failure and refusal of Joshua Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, to furnish certain documents in the custody of the White House in compliance with a subpoena before said committee. These failures and refusals are fully shown by the certified copy of the House Report 110-423 of said committee which is also hereto attached.

Witness my hand and seal of the House of Representatives of the United States, at the City of Washington, District of Columbia, this twenty-eighth day of February, 2008.

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House of Representatives

Attest:
LORRAINE C. MILLER
Clerk of the House of Representatives

The Attorney General didn't take a week to get back to the Speaker.

This is the same Attorney General, whom when he went before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, swore on penalty of perjury he was a good honest law-respecting man, NOT the evil sniveling suck-up ass-kissing torture-loving Constitution-shredding weak man for whom authority matters more than physical truth in the holy tradition of Reverend Father Fra Vincenzo Maculano, O.P., Commissary General of the Holy Office.

The AG's office was a national disgrace. Something, anything, desperately needed to be done.

A nation operates by rule of law or by force, fraud, and resort to power. With all accountability of the Article II Executive being blocked by the Republicans in the Article I Congress, it truly was a national emergency that our federal law enforcement be placed in proper order. The house need to be cleaned.

Michael Mukasey was nominated to replace Alberto Gonzales, whom it was clear to everyone with his "I don't remember," "I can't recall," "I don't recollect," "Huh," "Duh," & “¡No habla ingles! ¡No habla ingles!” had to fucking go.

Plus the ultimate cock-block: License to Lie.

Gonzales was not only done, toast, dangerous, damaged goods, and a goddamn danger to the integrity of the nation, but worse... He was a lousy liar and making everyone look bad.

Gonzales was obviously actively running interference for the lawless Bush administration, helping them commit crimes, failing to order criminal investigations into felonies and patterns of criminal acts. RICO shit if done by anyone other than the Bushes plus their tame prosecutors. Hell, RICO shit anyway, but if the AG's office refuses to do anything you're pretty well hosed, not to mention the possibility of three-letter agencies saying “Howdy.”

Worse, Gonzales appeared to be committing crimes himself: tampering with elections through political influence on Attorneys General, bringing political hit jobs for Karl Rove on sitting Democratic Governors (paging prisoner Siegelman, prisoner Don Siegelman), and felonies for authorizing torture.

Worst of all, Gonzales was a shitty liar and thus liable to bring the whole damn White House down on the Big Enchilada plus Shotgun Guy, if the little fat Tex-Mex fuck wasn't hustled out of town pronto before he could be hauled in front of a Grand Jury, or worse, Congress again. Jesus. His own staff had prepped him but his Congressional testimony was the most unconvincing performance since Barry Bonds denying steroids. Worse.

Gonzales either had to go or find a sidewinder in his mailbox. Which would be a mite conspicuous in D.C. But could be arranged from some folks out of Colorado Springs as a last resort, praise Jesus.

Mukasey was vouched for as a man of the law, a man whom, although partisan, would, he swore before God himself, put the law before the Bush administration.

Yeah.

Right.

Except that during the nomination hearings, Mukasey refused to say water boarding was torture. Refused to say water boarding, torture under Geneva to which the United States is a signatory, water boarding, a crime under several Federal laws and the law of every State in the United States, the prospective Attorney General of the United States, under oath, refused to call water boarding torture.

The U.S. Senate confirmed him anyway.

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”. (Hosea 8:7)

Today, the hope for fixing the catastrophe which has been federal law enforcement made his position clear. U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused to pass along Congressional contempt citations for two senior Bush aides to a Grand Jury.

Mukasey sent the Speaker a letter explaining his acts. I'll translate:

“Fuck the rule of law. IOIYAR”
(It's Okay If You're A Republican.)

Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Conyers are furious:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

“By ordering the U.S. Attorney to take no action in response to congressional subpoenas, the Bush Administration is continuing to politicize law enforcement, which undermines public confidence in our criminal justice system.

“Anticipating this response from the Administration, the House has already provided authority for the Judiciary Committee to file a civil enforcement action in federal district court and the House shall do so promptly. The American people demand that we uphold the law. As public officials, we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our system of checks and balances and our civil lawsuit seeks to do just that.”

House Judiciary Committee (Chairman John Conyers, Jr.)

(Washington, DC)- Today, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) reacted to the Justice Department's decision not to present contempt citations against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to a grand jury, despite a statutory obligation to do so:

"Our investigation into the firing of United States Attorneys revealed an administration and a Justice Department that seemed to put politics first, and today’s decision to shelve the contempt process, in violation of a federal statute, shows that the White House will go to any lengths to keep its role in the US Attorney firings hidden. In the face of such extraordinary actions, we have no choice but to proceed with a lawsuit to enforce the committee's subpoenas.”

There's more, but churn this around, get your stomach bile flowing.

An Attorney General who swore as a nominee to clean house, refusing.

A Senate who shouldn't have confirmed; water boarding is torture.

And a Speaker of the House with a problem.

What next?

More in our next installment -- Rejecting the Rule of Law: Part 2

There's more...

Passings...

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), Actor Roy Scheider, Dead.

Congressman Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, died Monday at Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland of cancer of the esophagus.

Actor Roy Scheider died at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences hospital in Little Rock of multiple myeloma.

Associated Press

Tom Lantos

Lantos, who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was serving his 14th term in Congress. He had said he would not seek re-election in his Northern California district, which takes in the southwest portion of San Francisco and suburbs to the south.

Lantos assumed his committee chairmanship when Democrats retook control of Congress. He said at the time that in a sense his whole life had been a preparation for the job — and it was.

Lantos, who called himself "an American by choice," was born to Jewish parents in Budapest, Hungary, and was 16 when Adolf Hitler occupied Hungary in 1944. He survived by escaping twice from a forced labor camp and coming under the protection of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who used his official status to save thousands of Hungarian Jews.

Lantos' mother and much of his family perished in the Holocaust.

That background gave Lantos a unique moral authority that he used to speak out on foreign policy issues, sometimes courting controversy. He advocated for human rights in Sudan, Myanmar and elsewhere, and in 2006 was one of five members of Congress arrested outside the Sudanese Embassy protesting what the Bush administration describes as genocide in Darfur.

Flags at the White House and Capitol were lowered to half-staff in Lantos' honor. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., both delivered remembrances on the Senate floor.

Lantos was elected to the House in 1980. He founded the Congressional Human Rights Caucus in 1983. In early 2004 he led the first congressional delegation to Libya in more than 30 years, met personally with Moammar Gadhafi and urged the administration to show "good faith" to the North African leader in his pledge to abandon his nuclear weapons programs. Later that year, Bush lifted sanctions against Libya.

In October 2007, as Foreign Affairs chairman, Lantos defied administration opposition by moving through his committee a measure that would have recognized the World War I-era killings of Armenians as a genocide, something strongly opposed by Turkey. The bill has not passed the House.

"(Lantos) saw his survival from the camps in Europe as a reason to devote his life to help victims of discrimination, oppression and persecution everywhere," said Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, a close friend. "He was outspoken in whatever he did."

"It is only in the United States that a penniless survivor of the Holocaust and a fighter in the anti-Nazi underground could have received an education, raised a family and had the privilege of serving the last three decades of his life as a member of Congress," Lantos said upon announcing his retirement last month.

The Huffington Post

Roy Scheider

He was nominated for a best-supporting actor Oscar in 1971's "The French Connection" in which he played the police partner of Oscar winner Gene Hackman and for best-actor for 1979's "All That Jazz," the autobiographical Bob Fosse film.

However, he was best known for his role in Steven Spielberg's 1975 film, "Jaws," the enduring classic about a killer shark terrorizing beachgoers and well as millions of moviegoers.

Widely hailed as the film that launched the era of the Hollywood blockbuster, it was also the first movie to earn $100 million at the box office. Scheider starred with Richard Dreyfuss, who played an oceanographer.

"He was a wonderful guy. He was what I call 'a knockaround actor,'" Dreyfuss told The Associated Press on Sunday.

"A 'knockaround actor' to me is a compliment that means a professional that lives the life of a professional actor and doesn't' yell and scream at the fates and does his job and does it as well as he can," he said.

In 2005, one of Scheider's most famous lines in the movie _ "You're gonna need a bigger boat" _ was voted No. 35 on the American Film Institute's list of best quotes from U.S. movies.

[Dreyfuss] added that Scheider "was a pretty civilized human being _ you can't ask for much more than that."

Rest in peace guys.

Thanks for all your work.

There's more...

Toxic Holidays

Fisher Price flip track crane: not safe for play

David Goldstein brings us this dispatch from the holiday shopping trenches, where GNB's favorite Congressional hopeful from Seattle, Darcy Burner, has been making a point that should give every parent pause:

Darcy Burner held a series of local events over the weekend where families could bring toys and other children’s products for free lead testing. Well, the results are in, and of the 479 items tested, 56 tested positive for lead, 47 above the 40 parts per million maximum recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Nine additional items tested positive for cadmium, another toxic element.

Surprised? Well you shouldn’t be. Ten percent of items tested positive for excessive lead levels, pretty much exactly what Burner and Essco Safety Check expected heading into the tests. And chances are, about ten percent of the toys and household items your children handle every day would test positive as well. Lax standards, loosened regulation, nearly nonexistent testing and a mad rush toward globalization have put all our children at unnecessary risk.

In a press release announcing the disturbing results (and apparently ignored by our local media,) Burner lays the blame squarely where it belongs:

“This administration needs to get its priorities straight. Recent news reports have revealed that the Consumer Products Safety Commission currently has only one staffer in the entire country tasked with testing toys, while the current director and her predecessor have traveled on nearly 30 junkets paid for by toy companies and other consumer products manufacturers,” Burner said. “This is truly a scandal. Children are being put at risk while our leading regulators are hobnobbing in resort locales with industry lobbyists and so far nothing is being done about it.”

So, how dangerous are these toys? Many of the items tested contained lead far above safe levels:

A red plastic roof piece from a Lincoln Logs set tested at 1488 parts per million for lead (or 37 times the AAP standard). A small plastic Fisher Price Sesame Street Bert figure tested at 5346 ppm (or 133 times the standard). A Tinkerbell pink rolling backpack tested at 533 ppm for lead, while a Cinderella princess backpack tested at 474 ppm. A Winnie the Pooh placemat contained 985 ppm.

The highest lead level was found was in a Fisher Price Flip Track crane from a plastic train set that was owned by Burner’s own 5 year-old son, which tested at 10,600 ppm, or 265 times the AAP standard.

Cooler-style lunchboxes and soft coolers tended to have high levels of lead or cadmium, as did all of the children’s character placemats tested, including Dora, Spiderman and Winnie the Pooh. Chinese manufacturers tend to add lead and cadmium to vinyl (PVC) to increase durability, and while the CPSC argues such products are safe because the vinyl tends not to deteriorate during normal use, any parent who sees the wear and tear their own child puts on their lunchbox knows otherwise.

So what can you do about it? I suppose you could write to the CPSC and ask them to adopt tougher standards. Or you could help enact real change, and elect better Democrats like Darcy Burner to Congress.

You can send Darcy holiday greetings and money love here. We need people in Washington who won't look the other way when there turns out to be poison in the globaloney.

And, in the meantime, we've got six shopping days left to find something other than plastic toys to give the kids we love for Christmas. My niece is getting books (I've topped off her Berke Breathed and Dr. Seuss collections), stuffed animals, and a pair of hand-knit slippers. If you've got other suggestions for creating a joyful plastic-free non-toxic Christmas for the under-10 set, share 'em with the rest of us in the comments.

There's more...

Every Damn Thing You Need To Know About Republicans

Darcy for Congress: Part 4

Earlier this week I was listening to Aaron Sorkin and Tommie Schlamme give the commentary on the Pilot episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.

In speaking of casting Steven Weber to play the network executive, they said the one thing you can never act is smart. You have to be smart already. From the moment they saw Steven audition, the part was his. He was so smart, so powerful, so obviously right for the part, no one else had a shot.

All week long I've been coming back to how with Republicans, acting smart, acting patriotic, acting moral, acting as if they give a damn for people -- being seen to appear as if this or that were true, that is what truly matters to Republicans... Appearances.

Real intelligence, authentic patriotism, genuine morality, and above all, truly taking care of people such that at the end of the day or the week, at the end of the month or the year, people are left saying reflexively, "Yeah. I've been taken care of. These people really took care of me."... it's not them. They can't even fake it. Like an actor can't act smart.

Republicans not only aren't interested in the genuine article, they're actively opposed.

Why?

Because the genuine article shows the Republicans up as no different than either the thieves, or the two who passed by the man who lay dying by the side of the road in the parable so long ago:

The Bible

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
ST LUKE

CHAPTER 10

Jesus calls, empowers, and instructs the seventy—They preach and heal—Those who receive his disciples receive Christ—The Father is revealed by the Son—Jesus gives the parable of the good Samaritan.

25 ¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit ^aeternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy ^aheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt ^alive.

29 But he, willing to ^ajustify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my ^bneighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and ^awounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain ^aSamaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had ^bcompassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took ^acare of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the ^ahost, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

Remember as you read the Parable of the Good Samaritan it is also about race and class, not just helping those in need. The guy who helped was of a race and class which was despised and hated and lower working class to poor. None the less, he helped anyway, even though he could have had the crap beaten out of him just for daring to help anyone. From our perspective, the risk he took is as if a disabled black vet in his thirties at 59th St and Columbus Circle just outside the entrance to the subway -- that's the south-west corner of Central Park, for those of you who don't know the city -- dared after dark to help a rich white twenty-something lying half-naked on the ground just inside the park boundary. The odds of New York's finest accusing him of making the assault (or worse), rather than doing what he could to help her...

Now ask yourself if Dave Reichert -- absent a camera trained on him -- would stop and take care of someone at risk to his own reputation. Question answers itself.

Darcy Burner is the real deal.

She is thoughtful, careful, considerate, and takes care of people.

All you have to do is watch the video and compare how she answers the question, with how Dave Reichert is rude and arrogant.

Beyond the issue of Congressman Reichert's believing it's fine for a pharmacist to not sell birth control pills -- not emergency contraception; birth control -- to a woman, simply because the pharmacist opposes birth control, just watch how rude Dave Reichert is. From interrupting, to forgetting the question (demonstrating he either isn't listening or that he's trying to dominate), and then instead of explaining himself and his answer to the people who elected him, he just says "No."

Reichert's answer belongs to someone who simply doesn't think, isn't smart, whose morality is all about looking good to a particular base group so that they'll vote for him, un-grounded in any genuine religious or moral conviction of his own. He is a man who clearly doesn't give a damn who he leaves dying by the side of the road, just so long as he gets his.

In short, he is a George Bush Republican.

I was privileged to interview Darcy a few months ago:

Darcy Burner

There are five basic principles that form the basis for every political decision I'll make:

1. Government should treat everyone fairly.
2. Hard work should be rewarded.
3. Government should stay out of people's private lives.
4. We should keep our promises.
5. We should take care of our children, and leave them a better world than the one we found.

That's not the only way to slice it, of course, but it's one way, and that's how I slice it.

At some basic level, though, I think it comes down to what my father told me over and over again when I was growing up: "You're no better than them, and they're no better than you." The founding principle of our democracy is the idea that all persons are created equal*. And the fight at the moment comes down to whether that's actually true.

The other side believes, deep down, that a wealthy CEO is a *better person* than the woman who cleans my office at night.

I do not.

* I know, I know, women still don't have a guarantee of equality under our Constitution, and it was initially only white male landowners. But while we have lagged in execution, that principle has been our guide, and we make progress when we move closer to that ideal.

*smiles*

This is what I'm talking about.

We have to elect better, smarter Democrats.

She's one.

Please join with me this Holiday season by spreading a little cheer Darcy's way. She's really that good.

Thank you.

Previous Darcy posts:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
  

How to Reach Darcy:

• Darcy Burner for Congress
• Help elect Darcy Burner to Congress by contributing. (Please add $0.13.)
• Feel free to send me an email letting me know.

Thanks again.

And if you missed it in our last Darcy post (Part 3), make sure you watch her campaign video with music by the Squirrel Nut Zippers & Rickie Lee Jones.

Note: Edited at noon to fix my not paying attention to the bible verse when I modernized who was who. Thanks to the readers who pointed this out.

There's more...

Kucinich Moves for Cheney Impeachment

Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

I have listened and read many speeches in my life.

From John F. Kennedy to Malcolm X, to Ronald Reagan in his prime (who for all his incompetence could give one hell of a speech.) Bobby Kennedy on a roll, the writings of Jefferson, and Lincoln at Gettysburg*. Finally, my two personal favorites, the stunning vision of FDR's Second Inaugural and the unsurpassed beauty of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King with The American Dream, delivered at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on the 4th of July, 1965.

Hold on to your hats. There's a new speech in town.

Set aside at least ten minutes, maybe even twenty-seven minutes, would you please?

I promise you the ninth to the the tenth minute mark of the above speech, as Congressman Kucinich finishes reading Article I of the Articles of Impeachment, will be some of the most amazing oratory you've ever heard. (I'll tell you why, later.)

After Congressman Kucinich finished reading The Articles of Impeachment onto the floor of the House, they were then sent by the Democrats to the Judiciary Committee, where they will languish till this Congress expires.

Total time on the House Floor after the Congressman finished reading them -- about one hour.

The following Democrats voted to send the articles to Judiciary, rather than to debate impeachment.

Is your Congressman or Congresswoman a sell-out?

Downing Street

135 traitors now confirmed!

NY-5 Ackerman, Gary [D]
PA-4 Altmire, Jason [D]
NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]
NY-24 Arcuri, Michael [D]
WA-3 Baird, Brian [D]
GA-12 Barrow, John [D]
IL-8 Bean, Melissa [D]
CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]
NV-1 Berkley, Shelley [D]
CA-28 Berman, Howard [D]
AR-1 Berry, Robert [D]
GA-2 Bishop, Sanford [D]
NY-1 Bishop, Timothy [D]
OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]
OK-2 Boren, Dan [D]
IA-3 Boswell, Leonard [D]
VA-9 Boucher, Frederick [D]
FL-2 Boyd, F. [D]
KS-2 Boyda, Nancy [D]
FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]
CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis [D]
MO-3 Carnahan, Russ [D]
PA-10 Carney, Christopher [D]
FL-11 Castor, Kathy [D]
SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]
TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
CA-20 Costa, Jim [D]
IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D]
CT-2 Courtney, Joe [D]
AL-5 Cramer, Robert [D]
TX-28 Cuellar, Henry [D]
AL-7 Davis, Artur [D]
TN-4 Davis, Lincoln [D]
CA-53 Davis, Susan [D]
CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]
MA-10 Delahunt, William [D]
CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa [D]
MI-15 Dingell, John [D]
IN-2 Donnelly, Joe [D]
TX-17 Edwards, Thomas [D]
IN-8 Ellsworth, Brad [D]
IL-5 Emanuel, Rahm [D]
NY-17 Engel, Eliot [D]
CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]
NC-2 Etheridge, Bob [D]
PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]
MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]
AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]
TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles [D]
TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
NY-19 Hall, John [D]
CA-36 Harman, Jane [D]
FL-23 Hastings, Alcee [D]
SD-0 Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [D]
NY-27 Higgins, Brian [D]
IN-9 Hill, Baron [D]
TX-15 Hinojosa, Rubén [D]
PA-17 Holden, Tim [D]
MD-5 Hoyer, Steny [D]
NY-2 Israel, Steve [D]
LA-2 Jefferson, William [D]
TX-30 Johnson, Eddie [D]
WI-8 Kagen, Steve [D]
RI-1 Kennedy, Patrick [D]
MI-5 Kildee, Dale [D]
WI-3 Kind, Ronald [D]
FL-22 Klein, Ron [D]
TX-22 Lampson, Nicholas [D]
RI-2 Langevin, James [D]
CA-12 Lantos, Tom [D]
WA-2 Larsen, Rick [D]
CT-1 Larson, John [D]
MI-12 Levin, Sander [D]
IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel [D]
CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]
NY-18 Lowey, Nita [D]
MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]
FL-16 Mahoney, Tim [D]
MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]
GA-8 Marshall, James [D]
UT-2 Matheson, Jim [D]
CA-5 Matsui, Doris [D]
NY-4 McCarthy, Carolyn [D]
NC-7 McIntyre, Mike [D]
CA-11 McNerney, Jerry [D]
FL-17 Meek, Kendrick [D]
LA-3 Melancon, Charles [D]
CA-7 Miller, George [D]
AZ-5 Mitchell, Harry [D]
WV-1 Mollohan, Alan [D]
KS-3 Moore, Dennis [D]
CT-5 Murphy, Christopher [D]
PA-8 Murphy, Patrick [D]
PA-12 Murtha, John [D]
NY-8 Nadler, Jerrold [D]
MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]
WI-7 Obey, David [D]
MA-1 Olver, John [D]
MN-7 Peterson, Collin [D]
ND-0 Pomeroy, Earl [D]
WV-3 Rahall, Nick [D]
TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre [D]
TX-23 Rodriguez, Ciro [D]
AR-4 Ross, Mike [D]
NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]
MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]
OH-17 Ryan, Timothy [D]
CO-3 Salazar, John [D]
CA-39 Sanchez, Linda [D]
CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta [D]
MD-3 Sarbanes, John [D]
CA-29 Schiff, Adam [D]
PA-13 Schwartz, Allyson [D]
GA-13 Scott, David [D]
PA-7 Sestak, Joe [D]
NC-11 Shuler, Heath [D]
NJ-13 Sires, Albio [D]
MO-4 Skelton, Ike [D]
WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]
AR-2 Snyder, Victor [D]
OH-18 Space, Zackary [D]
SC-5 Spratt, John [D]
TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
CA-10 Tauscher, Ellen [D]
MS-4 Taylor, Gene [D]
MS-2 Thompson, Bennie [D]
MA-5 Tsongas, Niki [D]
CO-2 Udall, Mark [D]
NM-3 Udall, Tom [D]
MD-8 Van Hollen, Christopher [D]
IN-1 Visclosky, Peter [D]
MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D]
FL-20 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D]
CA-30 Waxman, Henry [D]
OH-6 Wilson, Charles [D]

I agree completely with Downing Street. These people are traitors to those of us who elected them to the Democratic Party.

Instead of investigating the Vice President for what everyone knows are genuinely impeachable crimes, the Democratic Party runs like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, afraid of what the Beltway Media and the White House will say.

Cowards. Cowards more afraid of holding on to their seat than doing what their Oath of Office calls for.

When will they learn Americans hate cowards and respect people who kick bullies in the balls.

*sighs* As for y'all, dear readers...

Listen to the first ten minutes -- through Article I at least.

Like any roller coaster ride, it goes up and down, but minute 9-10 is the most amazing minute of oratory I've heard from anyone since Dr. King.

Why? Because it's for real. It's not a media commentator making observations from the side. (Sorry Keith O.; I love you anyway.)

This is an elected official with full authority to act -- and wow is he acting. He's requesting of the rest of the House of Representatives to Impeach the Vice President, and declaring why --- in principle no different than the Declaration of Independence. -- Declaring what is wrong, saying this shall not stand, and asking everyone else with authority to bind the States they represent, to stand together and take action.

The difference? Back 231 years ago our representatives had fucking balls. Today our representatives -- *waves to Congressman Adam Smith* -- are cowards.

Here is what Congressman Kucinich declared today in Congress assembled:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich Privileged Resolution

Washington, Nov 6-Below is a copy of the speech Congressman Dennis Kucinich gave on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives today.

Mr. Speaker:

Pursuant to 2.A.1. of Rule 9, I rise to give notice of my intent to raise a Question of the Privilege of the House, The form of the resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:

(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.' March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.

(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.' March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.

(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .' March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We know he's got chemicals and biological and we know he's working on nuclear.' May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.' August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.

(F) `Based on intelligence that's becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.' September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.

(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives accounts.

(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.

(3) The Vice President's actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President's actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.

(A) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it's nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.'.

(B) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.'.

(C) The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article II
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:

(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:

(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.' December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.

(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.' January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.

(C) `We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.' March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .' September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.

(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.' October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney '04 Fundraiser in Iowa.

(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.' October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.

(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.' January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.

(H) `I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.' January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.

(I) `First of all, on the question of--of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.' June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.

(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:

(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda'.

(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.'.

(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network'.

The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,800 United States service members; the loss of more than 1 million innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Article III
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:

(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:

(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.

(B) `But we've also made it clear that all options are on the table.' January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.

(C) `When we--as the President did, for example, recently--deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.' January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.

(D) `But I've also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.' February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.

(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:

(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.' Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council'. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.

(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.' Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.

(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:

(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.

(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.

(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.

(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.

(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.

(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution's adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.

(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.' Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.

(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.' The threat of force is illegal.

(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.' Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.

The Vice President's deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President's recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.

In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Mr. Speaker: This resolution is similar to a resolution which I introduced earlier this year and has the support of 22 of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives.

The Congressman's Declaration is obviously valid.

The Congress are obvious cowards.

*Abraham Lincoln, Draft of the Gettysburg Address: Nicolay Copy, November 1863; Series 3, General Correspondence, 1837-1897; The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division (Washington, D. C.: American Memory Project, [2000-02]). http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html.

There's more...

Sick And Tired Of Your Sor-rys

What Hubris said...and then some...

Some 30-odd years ago, the poet/playwright Ntozake Shange wrote and choreographed one of the legendary pieces in the “Black Arts Movement” canon of the late 60's/early 70's—the blazing “For Colored Girls Who have Considered Suicide When The Rainbow Is Enuf”. It was an amazing piece, dealing with the trials and tribulations of a variety of nameless women, identified only by the color dresses they wore onstage. Some of the most penetrating words in the performances came from the characters who suffered the most damage—for example, the “Lady in Red” and her recalling the terrible domestic abuse she absorbed. Many of the other characters would cite, breathlessly and in great detail how they coped with abuse they suffered—physical AND emotional.

The moment I recall best from it is a monologue by the “Lady In Blue” who fed-up with the constant enabling, and wallowing in the battered-wife syndrome that has cost her too much of her time, and waaaaaay too much of her dignity, says “enough is enough” and lays down the law for her suitors present—and in the future, that she is “sick and tired of their sorrys”.

“If you called to say you’re sorry,
Call somebody else.
I don’t use ‘em anymore.

---------------------------------------


One thing I don't need,
Is any more apologies.
I got sorry greetin me at my front door.
You can keep yours.
I don't know what to do wiht em.
They don't open doors,
Or bring the sun back.
They don't make me happy,
Or get a mornin paper.
Didn't nobody stop usin my tears to wash cars
'Cause of sorry.

-----------------------------------

I let sorry/didn't mean to/and how could I know about that
Take a walk down a dark & musty street in Brooklyn.
I'm gonna do exactly what I want to
And I won't be sorry for none of it.
Let a sorry soothe your soul...I'm gonna soothe mine."

Shange's words have rarely been far from me, as I've seen that play performed at least six times or so, and the hard declaration of “no more sorrys” always stuck out for me in particular. It especially sticks out with the spot-on noting of the “battered wife syndrome” evidenced by too many of the Left's so-called elected “leaders”, particularly after Rep. Pete Stark's comments:

“The Dainty Republican Fainting Couch and Circle Jerk Society is in full effect and the press is running with it as fast as their dimpled little legs can carry them. The context that would show what is really going on is right in the story, but you won't hear about it:

Republicans jumped on the tirade, issuing statement after statement calling on congressman Pete Stark to apologize.

Now why do you suppose they did this? Are these macho tough guys really offended that some congressman made these comments in a debate? Are their feelings hurt on behalf of the president? Does CNN rea