The Darth Cheney resource diary [again from dKos]

Since I will be gone from cyber world for a few days I will leave this excellent Diary from dkos for your perusal and ACTION! - the editor And be sure to catch the good news just below on Gore!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cheney Impeachment Surge: ACTION

by buhdydharma

Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:44:03 PM PDT

Close your eyes for a minute and picture yourself in Iraq. Picture yourself in Fallujah or Ramadi, with bodies in the street after the latest battle. Picture your self In a destroyed section of Sadr City or in a blown up mosque. Close your eyes and picture yourself in Abu Ghraib. Smell the death in an execution room, feel the fear in a rape room or torture cell, see the blood of innocents in Hadditha.

Now open them and say it with me.

Dick Cheney did this.

.

We don't get to pretend anymore, any of us. Dick Cheney invaded Iraq... for its oil.

• buhdydharma's diary :: ::
• 
  

Dick "Fourth Branch" Cheney scared the shit out of the American people and BLATANTLY lied to them....and then despite the fact that they were no threat to us, invaded a sovereign nation. Along with George Bush, he is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Human Beings....men, women and children just like you and your spouse and your kids....and they did all of this for one REAL reason.

Oil..........and the money to be made from it by him and his oil company buddies back there in that secret energy meeting. 3500 American Soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars of YOUR money, so he and his cronies could make a buck and control the Iraqi oil reserves. Your tax money has been spent to enrich Dick Cheney.

If you have not read the Washington Post Series on Dick Cheney, go read it. (I, II,III,IV) If you have not read the Rolling Stone expose of Cheney go read it. If you have not read dday's diaryon Cheney's slush fund, go read it. If you have not read Greg306's diary on Cheney's OTHER slush fund, please do so! Your blood will boil...and if you have any remaining doubts regarding impeaching Cheney, they will vanish, just as he would like our freedom and our democracy to vanish.....especially if he can profit from it.

Dick Cheney does not just deserve to be impeached.....he desperately needs to be impeached. If you have concerns about an attack on Iran....guess who would be the motive force behind that horrible act?

As I'm sure most of you know, haha, I have been working to build support for impeachment for quite some time. We know the facts are there, we know through extensive debate here that none of the objections or arguments impeachment are sufficient to override the obvious need for it. Now I hope and pray, the support is there, the will is there and the level of outrage needed to create massive ACTION is there. Because it IS time to act

And what is that ACTION?

.

.

.

A RESOLUTION TO IMPEACH DICK CHENEYHAS ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED. By Representative Kucinich. There are eight co-sponsors. Among them are some of the brightest lights and most serious and dedicated people in the Progressive Caucus.

Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jan Schakowsky.

.

.

.

A couple of days ago, Chumley posted an article with a comprehensive impeachment poll. In that poll, over 4800 people voted to impeach Cheney.

Only Cheney. Now.
2% 160 votes

Gonzales & Cheney. Now.
13% 716 votes

Gonzales, Cheney & Bush. Now.
37% 2026 votes
Gonzales now, Bush and Cheney later.
6% 356 votes
Gonzales and Cheney now, Bush later.
28% 1553 votes

.

.

4800!

If each one of those 4800 people sent just two quick and easy e-mails, one to their personal representative (even if they ARE a Republican!) and one to Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi....

That is around 10,000 e-mails!

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-0100
FAX 202-225-8259

E-mail and comments

Contact your Congressmember

You don't have to write a long detailed and well reasoned argument, though of course you are welcome to! We are going for volume here! We are attempting to send a clear and unignorable message to Congress, to show them that the public support for impeachment is there. To lend them our spine. To spur them to action through our action.

10,000 e-mails!

Here is all you need to say....

Dear Speaker Pelosi (Or your Congressmember)

I urge you to support House Resolution 333. The Resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Thank You

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/...

10,000 e-mails!

Feel free to copy and paste! Feel MORE than free to add any supporting arguments you wish. PLEASE BE POLITE.

PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL TO BOTH SPEAKER PELOSI AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE!

We CAN make an impact! YOU can make an impact! Between the easy contact links and C&Ping this simple message each e-mail should take far less than five minutes. If each of us takes five minutes to do this.....it WILL effect our Congress!

10,000 e-mails!

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-0100
FAX 202-225-8259

E-mail and comments

Contact your Congressmember

10,000 e-mails!

BONUS! If you tell me you have sent your emails I will try my very best to give you a pony! Normally I hate giving out duplicates....but I sure hope I have to, thousands OF THEM! ....if you guys do this, you will also FORCE me to go find new fun pony pics to hand out ....because....

By the Power Vested In Me By.......well, me....I hereby declare Wednesdays.....IMPEACH DICK CHENEY DAY!

I am going to do my very best to post a call for Dick's demise every Wednesday! Anyone who can contribute, please do! Come up with your own idea. Write your own diary. Hopefully we will create a MOVEMENT!

Of course all impeachment activity is welcome! Please don't let this stop you from pursuing your own activism, and, hahaha, DO NOT confine your activities to Wednesdays!

BUT LETS PUSH FOR DICK!!!

I'm going to be concentrating on him for a while, and ANY help you can give me is much appreciated!

ANYTHING, you can do to help is desperately needed, and a great way to move forward on impeaching all of America's Top Crimnals! I thank you, the ponies thank you, the Constitution thanks you and the WORLD thanks you!

The more we can focus on GROUP ACTION and work in concert and in our unique and wondeful semi- organized fashion, the more effect it will have, so PLEASE join in!

IMPEACH DICK CHENEY!!!

Also, please go and sign the petition to Impeach Dick Cheney.

Check these fine diaries!

WH and Cheney Hit With Subpoenas by mayan

WAPO's Sally Says GOP Looking to Oust Cheney by Lying eyes

.

Impeach. Support Increases for Censure of Cheney and Bush by Bcgntn

Gore ahead in New Hampshire!!!!! And he has not even announced!

Even better news is that he has cleared his schedule of speaking engagments for the next 6 months!!!!

I hate to use alot of exclamation points, but this is worth it.

From NY populists diary at Daily Kos [links and all]:
[n.b. the comments link in the article goes to dKos, the one after the article goes here;-) - course you need to sign up on google...]

Gore LEADING in New Hampshire

by NYPopulist

Wed Jun 27, 2007 at 01:30:06 PM PDT

Yup, that's right. He hasn't spent a single dollar of his own money, he hasn't made a single campaign stop in the state, and he doesn't have as much as a intern knocking on doors. Yet despite all that, Al Gore is in first place in the latest poll for the Democratic nomination in the Granite State.

• NYPopulist's diary :: ::
• 
  

If there was ever a question as to who stands the best chance to stop Hillary from becoming the nominee, this poll should put those doubts to rest.

Without Gore in the race, Hillary wins by a comfortable 37-19-9-9 margin with Obama, Edwards, and Richardson coming in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th respectively. Enter the former Vice President and twenty-nine percent of Clinton supporters switch to Al's corner, putting him ahead of Hillary by a 32%-26% margin.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Former Vice President Al Gore is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's worst nightmare in the nation"s first primary, a new poll shows.

If Mr. Gore got into the 2008 presidential nomination contest, he would edge out Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire 32 percent to 26 percent and defeat the rest of the Democratic contenders, says a 7NEWS-Suffolk University poll of likely voters.

"Gore is the only Democrat, including Hillary, who can instantly melt the field," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, which conducted the survey.

Absent a Gore entry, Mrs. Clinton is the clear front-runner among declared Democratic candidates, with 37 percent, up from 28 percent in the same poll taken in March.

With more news today that Al is considering a bid - by canceling all of his speaking engagements for the next six months - it's incredibly important that everyone who wants to see him in the race get involved.

"I heard you - and I will not forget." Show him that you too haven't forgotten:

Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203

Bloggers for Gore

Tags: Al Gore, 2008 elections, president, primaries, New Hampshire, Recommended (all tags)

View Comments

Cheney above the Law and the Executive Branch

Well even Cheney it seems lets his true feelings be known sometimes. With this latest bit we find out he is not only above the Law as VP, but his position is even outside of the Executive Branch of Government! Pehaps he is letting slip that as 'Chief Liason for the World Dominating Corporations', no one should waste their time obstructing the obstructionism and wealth transfer business Cheney has mastered for his Masters. The Democrats in Congress are expected to eventually issue subpoenas which will be ignored and then wring their hands and let up mournful wailing, while the barking of the Blue Dogs is expected to be evenly split and interpreted as an equal mix of dismay, incomprehension and encouragement.

From The Voice of America:

A Democratic Party lawmaker is criticizing U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney for refusing to cooperate with a government agency that safeguards secret national security information.

California Representative Henry Waxman released documents Thursday that revealed Cheney's office has not filed annual reports with a unit of the National Archives, the Information Security Oversight Office, since 2003. The unit is required to monitor how the executive branch of the government handles classified documents, under an order first signed in 1995 by then President Bill Clinton.

Cheney's advisors say his office is not covered under the order, arguing that the vice president's office is not strictly an executive agency.

Waxman calls Cheney's assertions "absurd."

The documents show Cheney's office blocked the unit from conducting an onsite inspection of his office in 2004. Agency officials filed a formal request with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in January to resolve the matter.

But the vice president's office has proposed abolishing the office. A spokeswoman for Cheney says the office is "confident" it is properly operating under the law.

An Email back from my congressman - and my interspersed reply

Dear David Ryan CMT, C.Ac.

I appreciate your passion for this issue. However, I agree with my
colleagues in Congress that efforts to pursue impeachment would - at
this time - seriously detract from our ability to lead our country in a new
and positive direction.

You can't lead if the President is a criminal bent on obstructing everything you do!

Tell me other than the war money for Min. Wage, what leadership has there been????

Fortunately, last November, Americans voted for change. Democrats
have control of both the House and the Senate and we are taking large
steps toward improving our nation. Our agenda to make healthcare more
affordable, expand educational opportunities, promote job growth, tackle
global warming and increase our nation's energy independence would all
be put on hold to investigate possible impeachable offenses.

Put them on hold! Because they won't pass anyway!

There
would be no chance for Congress to enact the legislation that addresses
the urgent needs of the American public because our time would be
focused on a lengthy and difficult impeachment process.

It will only be as lengthy as you make it. Downing Street makes it 100% clear we were treasonously led into war. And there of course another easy dozen issues.

Rest assured, however, that Congress remains committed to conducting
aggressive oversight hearings of the Bush administration's failed
policies, especially the Iraq War and violations of civil liberties.

So 'Aggressive', they are sure to never lead to impeachment?
Lor Have Mercy Mike. This is called doublespeak for a very good reason.

Already, Congress has conducted over 100 hearings on these issues. I
fully support these efforts and look forward to working with my
colleagues to provide much-needed oversight, accountability, and
transparency to this administration's policies.

And then what, tell them to pretty please stop using the Constitution as toilet paper? Stop the signing statements that turn congress into a rubber stamp?

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. Though we may
disagree on this issue, I hope that you will continue to contact me on all
issues of importance to you and to our district.

I will, and the less result it has, tha harder I will work for a real Rep. in O8.

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress
http://www.mikethompson.house.gov

--
sign every email you send: " Dear Congressman Impeach Bush and Cheney in 07, or be removed in 08." Friends the time for half-measures is way past over. Email your congressfolk everyday.

Clevelandchick at HuffPo wrote a brilliant reply to this tepid, if witty analysis.

Not all Democrats belong in your movie analogy. Dennis Kucinich has been screaming from the rooftops to not even send a war funding bill to the floor, no bill no funding...done. John Edwards advocated sending the bill that Bush threatened to veto back to him over and over again forcing Bush to be the one that 'de-funded' the troops by vetoing.

But Ridley, please remember...the Dems only have a one vote majority in the Senate and #50 hasn't recovered from his brain aneurysm yet. Lieberman has basically sold his old party out for the Neocons, especially on the war AND he's trying to get us to bomb Iran!

So even with Senator Brain aneurysm in reality we have an evenly split Senate. Just thought I'd give you a 70's style School House Rock refresher on how our government works.

There is no veto-proof voting available AND even if there were Bush would just add one of his precious signing statements allowing him to ignore the law and continue the war.

The only way to end this war before 2009 is to impeach Bush and Cheney prior. That's it.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
Cleveland Chick is right on. The Dems are so spineless currently they can not even see they risj losing all 2006 gains by not doing shit. Pelosi and her 'peoples business' is merely aiding and abetting the gutting of the Constitution and the Democracy of America.

Please everyone talk to your friends and get any of them that are 1/2 awake to write their congressman everyday threatening in soft dulcet tones to not only vote for their replacement in o8 if they do not impeach in 07, but to help draft a real member of a real opposition party.

Cleveland Chick, thanks for the straight talk.

The Real Reason the US Attorney's were fired?

From Greg Palast, the reporter so honest and serious no corporate media will touch him, until the news can no longer have an impact that is [see his story on the Voter fraud of 2000 that WAPO only took after the Supreme Court decision].

Raging Caging

What the heck is vote caging, and why should we care?""> What the heck is vote caging, and why should we care?

Published May 31st, 2007 in Articles

By Dahlia Lithwick | Slate
Posted Thursday, May 31, 2007, at 6:24 PM ET

Last week, in her testimony before the House judiciary committee, Monica Goodling referred several times to “vote caging” possibly done by Arkansas’ soon to be ex-interim, never-confirmed U.S. Attorney Tim Griffin. Yet Goodling was questioned about this almost not at all, nor did the media do much more than report the words of the former liaison between the White House and Alberto Gonzales (why a “liaison” is required between two institutions with no boundaries between them is incomprehensible, but perhaps another story). Meanwhile, liberal talk radio, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and the blogosphere went nuts. So, which is it: Is vote caging the most underreported part of this U.S. attorneys scandal or the most over-hyped?

One of the reasons the mainstream news reports (including mine) barley touched the vote-caging story was that nobody had any idea what Goodling was talking about. “Vote caging, what’s that?” we e-mailed each other at Slate. The confusion seemed to extend to Goodling herself. The subject came up in her testimony about former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. In saying he had not been forthright with the House judiciary committee in his testimony on the firing of the U.S. attorneys, she cited three areas, one of which was McNulty’s failure “to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in ‘vote caging’ in the president’s 2004 campaign,” when he spoke to Congress.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., asked Goodling to “explain what caging is,” clarifying that she was unfamiliar with the term. Goodling fumbled around, muttered something about, “it’s a direct-mail term, that people who do direct mail, when, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad,” then made sure to end with, “I don’t … I believe that Mr. Griffin doesn’t believe that he, that he did anything wrong there and there, there actually is a very good reason for it, for a very good explanation.” Which explanation Goodling did not then provide.

To recap, Goodling told the judiciary committee that: 1) Griffin was possibly involved in caging; 2) he doesn’t believe he did anything wrong (she is less certain, it seems); and 3) McNulty lied under oath when he downplayed his knowledge of these allegations to the committee.

That would suggest that vote caging is a big deal. Is it?

Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren’t living at (because they are, say, at college or at war). The Republican National Committee reportedly stopped the practice following a consent decree in a 1986 case. Google the term and you’ll quickly arrive at the Wizard of Oz of caging, Greg Palast, investigative reporter and author of the wickedly funny Armed Madhouse: From Baghdad to New Orleans—Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. Palast started reporting allegations of Republican vote caging for the BBC’s Newsnight in 2004. He’s been almost alone on the story since then. Palast contends, both in Armed Madhouse and widely through the liberal blogosphere, that vote caging, an illegal voter-suppression scheme, happened in Florida in 2004 this way:

The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked “Do not forward” to voters’ homes. Letters returned (”caged”) were used as evidence to block these voters’ right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and—you got to love this—American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

Why weren’t these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation—and the soldiers were overseas.

Palast supplies evidence linking Tim Griffin, then-research director for the RNC, to this caging plot; specifically, a series of confidential e-mails to Republican Party muckety-mucks with the suggestive heading “RE: caging.” The e-mails were accidentally sent to a George Bush parody site. They also contained suggestively named spreadsheets, headed “caging” as well. The names on the lists are what Palast’s researchers deemed to be homeless men and soldiers deployed in Iraq. Here are the e-mails.

As Palast points out—and Griffin himself has observed—the American media barely touched this story, and Griffin has yet to explain the e-mails or the lists. He did tell The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer last March that “caging is not a derogatory term. … [I]t’s a direct-mail term. It derives from caging categories of mail in steel shelves and files.” Still, that hardly explains why he was allegedly caging only transient African-American voters in those shelves or files, which would likely violate the Voting Rights Act.

Palast is surely not above overstatement. He is one of many who have repeated the claim that, “In an Aug. 24 e-mail, the Justice Department’s Monica Goodling wrote to Sampson, that Griffin’s nomination would face opposition in Congress because he was involved ‘in massive Republican projects in Florida and elsewhere by which Republicans challenged tens of thousand of absentee votes. Coincidentally, many of those challenged votes were in black precincts.’ ” Goodling wrote no such thing. That quote is from an article circulated by Goodling on Aug. 24. It’s an unfair smear of both Griffin and Goodling (both of whom have proven amply capable of smearing themselves).

Still, Palast’s vote-caging claims are hardly unbelievable. Republicans have been systematically trying to suppress minority votes for decades, most recently calling it pushback for rampant liberal voter fraud. Our own former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was alleged to have mastered the art. And while bouncing voters from the rolls on the basis of their race violates federal law, it’s not beyond imagining that eager young “loyal Bushies” aren’t all that bothered by federal laws, especially if there’s a way to bend rather than overtly break them.

From the point of view of the ongoing DoJ scandal, perhaps what’s most urgent about the vote-caging claims is that they go a long, long way toward explaining why Karl Rove and Harriet Miers were so determined to get Griffin seated in the Arkansas U.S. Attorney’s office, and to do so without a confirmation hearing. If, as the Justice Department has continued to insist, Griffin was eminently qualified for the position, why did he need to be spared the hearing at all costs? And once it became clear that he would undergo a hearing, why did Griffin sideline himself with the colorful observation that undergoing Senate confirmation would be “like volunteering to stand in front of a firing squad in the middle of a three-ring circus?” Griffin—who is now in job talks with the Fred Thompson campaign—sure looks like a guy hiding something, and if vote caging is that something, it becomes even more interesting that the White House was pushing him forward.

Why did Goodling choose to shine a beacon on the vote-caging allegations in her perfectly rehearsed, highly coached testimony last week? Having slaved to secure Griffin’s U.S. attorney post, why raise the allegations against him and then subtly distance herself from him, if there is nothing to see here? Professor Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School, who wrote earlier this month about voter fraud, is my personal voting-law guru. (Everyone needs one.) When I asked him whether the mainstream media were making a mistake in blowing off the vote-caging story, he said Goodling’s mention of it “makes me suspect that there’s something there worth investigating by the MSM, even if you don’t buy into the grand conspiracy theories.”

If the media have fallen down on this story, how much more so has Congress? Nobody tried to press Goodling about what McNulty allegedly knew and withheld from Congress in regard to Griffin’s alleged vote-caging schemes. I’d be interested in the answer. I’d also like to hear what Griffin himself has to say about those lists the BBC has. If the RNC was paying good money to send registered mail to homeless black men in Florida, there must have been a reason for it. Griffin, after all, has left his Arkansas post and is looking for work. (Tim, if Sen. Thompson is a no-go, I need a babysitter next Saturday!) I bet he’d like nothing better than to clear his name and remove the taint of voter suppression from his résumé.

I’d also like to hear from Karl and Harriet about why Griffin’s elevation to the Arkansas job was so important, yet his confirmation so fraught. If Palast is right, Griffin and vote caging open the door to explaining the White House involvement in the U.S. attorneys purge. And the White House—not the Justice Department—has always been the least-understood part of this story. So, let’s bake up some of those warm, crusty subpoenas. Last week was the first time most of us heard about vote caging. It shouldn’t be the last.

Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/

My most recent letter to my Congressman, Mike Thompson

Cong. Mike

Thank You for voting against the recent 'fund the war' measure.

However we need to go much farther. The War is only one horrendous symptom of the cancer that is the Bush Cheney [dis]Administration.

They must be stopped. I have come to the conclusion that all 1/2 measures are hopeless. Speaker Pelosi's fantasy about ignoring impeachment and 'doing the peoples business' is an abbrogation of the responsibility of Congress.

I am left with no recourse but to insist on impeachment or promise to work hard for the removal of every congressman who does not do so.

www.dailyglobereview.blogspot.com has the details of my campaign.

I regret to have to use such crude political threats, but it is clear to everyone awake that nothing less than Democracy in America is at stake.

below is the signature I attach to all my emails and most of my internet posts.

Sick of this Administration? Sign every email you send: " Dear Congressman Impeach Bush and Cheney in 07, or be removed in 08." Friends the time for half-measures is way past over. Email your congressfolk everyday.

I urge you to get ahead of the curve here, be a leader! Whatever you may think about your fellow congressman Kucinich [and I am not voting for him in the primaries, it will be Gore, or if he does not run, Ron Paul - though I have never voted for a republican in my life] regardless, Kucinich's attempt to Impeach Cheney IS the first place to start.

Do you wish to wait till we bomb Iran with tactical nukes? Till more elections are seemingly stolen? The amanount of damage Bushco can [and will] do in 2 more years is unacceptable.

Please, I would rather supprt your campaign in 08 than ardently oppose it.

There is no greater 'business of the people' than removing our criminal-in-chief.

Also, get ahead of the curve and propose Impeaching Gonzales if the White House fights the subpeonas! They are running out the clock and laughing at you [and thus us!].

The argument that to impeach when there are not enough votes in the Senate is erroneous on 2 major points:

1- Your oath was to uphold the constitution and there was no 'if the senate has the votes to back us up clause'. You undoubtedly know this, no matter how unpopular it is.

2- The media/political energy it would generate [not too mention more crimes uncovered] might just tip the senate as the election gets closer and the Republicans are faced with massive looses on top of their already weakening position. They will throw Bush under the Bus if they have to. Right now they think they can get away with this. DO not enable them!

I hope you actually read this and respond in person. I would, along with others here, love to meet with you [I am friends with many other progressives and real conservatives in Lake Co.] and we would love to get together and hear any reasonable response or alternatives.

Sincerely,

David Ryan

ps I am posting my letter to the various message boards I am apart of in addition to my blog. And will also post any real [not canned auto generated] response you may happen to send.


-DR



Sick of this Administration? Sign every email you send: " Dear Congressman Impeach Bush and Cheney in 07, or be removed in 08." Friends the time for half-measures is way past over. Email your congressfolk everyday.

More 'Compassionate' Conservatism

There is seemingly no level of corruption beneath the White House's level. There is not really much to add here, except once again, we see who this administration is for. And it ain't anyone who is not a multi-millionaire. - the angry indy

Bush Shafts Enron Victims
By Robert L. Borosage
TomPaine.com

Thursday 14 June 2007

Wall Street's investment banks just got another one step closer to making defrauding investors an accepted line of business. And Enron's employees who lost their pensions and the small investors who got fleeced in the Enron frauds just got shafted again - this time at the urging of President George W. Bush.

Wall Street's most powerful investment banks and their friends in high places lobbied the U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement to reject the recommendation of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the Justice Department support defrauded investors in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case before the Supreme Court is called Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta, but the Court decision will directly impact the millions of victims of Enron's collapse - and say much about the honesty of U.S. markets.

Briefs in support of the defrauded investors were filed by dozens of state attorneys general, by the Council of Institutional Investors and some of the nation's largest pension funds whose investments are at risk if Wall Street banks can concoct fraudulent schemes with impunity. Yet, in an unprecedented failure to meet his responsibilities to the public, Solicitor General Clement, who represents the United States before the Court, decided to punt.

Clement is not exactly a neutral party. He's a star of the right-wing bar. He clerked for Laurence Silberman and Antonin Scalia, among the most partisan and reactionary judges of our time. He served as an aide to Sen. John Ashcroft. He is an activist in the right-wing Federalist Society that seeks a return to 19th century jurisprudence.

And this spear carrier for the right got his marching orders from the top. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson called directly and arranged for President Bush to weigh in personally.

The intervention of the treasury secretary and the president is hardly business as usual - particularly since neither Paulson nor President Bush are neutral observers either. Paulson is the former chairman of Goldman Sachs, a named defendant on the Enron case. And Enron and CEO "Kenny Boy" Lay were George Bush's leading supporters, contributing cash, the corporate plane and fundraising energy to Bush's rise.

The president, according to his chief economic advisor, Al Hubbard, ''believes that it's important to make certain that we reduce the unnecessary lawsuits because that's a very big burden to the economy, which adversely impacts investors."

But it is investors who have brought the Enron lawsuit, and it is the defrauded investors who the solicitor general and Bush just shafted. The poster child for the unchecked greed of the 1990s, Enron's executives, accountants and Wall Street banks created the ultimate Ponzi scheme. When it came unglued, the public lost billions, lives were ruined and pensions were lost. For five long years, the victims of the Enron fraud have pressed ahead, seeking justice against the banks who orchestrated the fraud. The trial was finally set to begin when two conservative Fifth Circuit appellate judges swooped in and hijacked the case. They bought the banks' tortured logic that although unquestionably in cahoots with Enron, they could not be held liable.

Why? Because Merrill Lynch and the other defendant banks stayed behind the curtain - merely directing the crime, participating in the crime, and collecting their share of the loot - but never themselves actually communicated directly to the market. The fraudulent schemes, of course, were public and misled investors (including Merrill Lynch's own investment advisors who promoted Enron's stock).

The Enron judges acknowledged "our ruling on legal merit may not coincide …with notions of justice and fair-play." (To say nothing of common sense or a sensible concern for the reputation of U.S. markets.) But forced to choose between the banks that committed the fraud and the investors who got screwed, the judges, the treasury secretary and the president chose the thieves over the victims.

No matter the banks enthusiastically worked hand in glove with Enron executives. No matter that they created "structured transactions" with the sole purpose of allowing Enron to hide enormous losses and claim fictitious profits - while actually never making a dime. No matter that the Enron trial judge, a conservative Bush I appointment, found "a long shadow over Merrill Lynch's ongoing participation . . . in the unified scheme to defraud." No matter that Merrill Lynch was fined millions of dollars by the SEC for its part in this sordid affair. No matter that several Merrill executives were reduced to taking the Fifth Amendment before Congress. And no matter that countless ordinary people, those that rely on their bank and the market to be honest, robust and fair, lost billions. There would be no day of reckoning. Fraud is just business as usual for Wall Street banks.

The Supreme Court justices will now decide, in the words of the old protest song, "whose side are you on," Main Street or Wall Street? How this drama turns out will say a lot about our justice system - and a lot about our economy. If Wall Street banks have no liability for fraudulent schemes they concoct, the scandals of the last decade will look like choir boy pranks compared to what is to come.

----------

Robert L. Borosage is co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. This article first appeared in The Huffington Post.

Cheney's latest round of treason

From the May 24, 2007 online journal Washington Note
[DGM ed.: I had hear roumours to this effect, but here is the source article, belatedly]. Nothing Cheney does anymore shocks, but it is clear he is not pleased that the puppet is trying to cut it's own strings. "How dare W!!!" The treason just keeps on rolling....

Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush

["Yes, it is true, I am evil, can't you tell"DGR caption]

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has previously suggested -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.

It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

-- Steve Clemons

Project: "The only way out", and I mean the only...

I heartily encourage all readers to make it to the end of this article, and then act.

I encourage everyone to sign every email you send, every thread you post on:



" Dear Congressman Impeach Bush and Cheney in 07, or be removed in 08." Friends the time for 1/2 measures is way past over. If you care about America and Democracy then write/call/email your congressfolk everyday. Congress has proven they will only do the right thing if forced. There is no other way out of this absolute destruction of America.

from truthout.org

Print This Story E-mail This Story

Go to Original

Bush Scandals: It's the Politics, Stupid
By Bernard Weiner
The Crisis Papers

Tuesday 05 June 2007

Act 1: Survival of the Unfittest

When trying to figure out the motives of the Bush Administration on nearly any issue you can think of, the first place to look should always be Karl Rove's "politics" workshop. By "politics," I mainly mean how an action affects the survival of the CheneyBush Administration, and only incidentally with how it affects the Republican Party.

This solipsistic concern for their own political/economic welfare is as true today with regard to the various impeachable scandals - lying to Congress to foment wars, the outing of a covert CIA agent, the domestic spying program, U.S. Attorney firings, etc. - as it was in the first years of the CheneyBush Administration.

We were told in those early years, by a White House insider, of the predominance of Rove's political operation in deciding which policies the Administration would advocate and support. Whoops! Strike that word "predominance," since there was virtually no policy-making apparatus in the White House; politics was effectively the ONLY thing in play.

"Kids on Big Wheels

That insider was John DiIulio, who was the first chief of Bush's faith-based-funding operation - another politics-based scheme, this one designed to pay off the fundamentalist base with grants of public funds to religious groups. DiIulio in 2002 put his finger right on the button of why the CheneyBush Administration has been such a train-wreck. Here's his money-quote in Ron Suskind's January 2003 article in Esquire:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything - and I mean everything - being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis. ... When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you'll get a lot of ooops."

Suskind writes:

"An unnamed 'current senior White House official' [said] pretty much the same thing: 'Many of us feel it's our duty - our obligation as Americans - to get the word out that, certainly in domestic policy, there has been almost no meaningful consideration of any real issues. It's just kids on Big Wheels, who talk politics and know nothing. It's depressing. DPC (Domestic Policy Council) meetings are a farce'."

Iraq in "06, Iraq in '08

It must be obvious to everyone by now that the CheneyBush Administration has no intention of getting out of Iraq, and recent events have served as confirmation. Bush and his Press Secretary Tony Snow blathered on the other day about the U.S. staying on in Iraq as it has in South Korea for 54 years. Defense Secretary Gates confirmed that policy a few days ago that America might well stay in its hardened military bases in Iraq for many decades.

Plus, the U.S. is constructing the world's largest embassy, which CheneyBushRove envision will be the locus for U.S. political and military adventures in the greater Middle East for decades to come. Bush is quoted in a Dallas newspaper telling Texas friends that he is setting up Iraq so his successor can not get out of "our country's destiny."

But the prospect of the U.S. troops being bled to death by a thousand "insurgent" cuts over that time frame is not something the American citizenry might look on with favor, so there's always a countervailing political spin going on to create confusion and try to take the sting out. And, surprise!, that spin gets spun as a new election cycle in America comes into play.

Iraw Withdrawal - Talk Then

Do you remember what happened in Iraq prior to the all-important 2006 midterm election? Here's how arch-conservative Pat Buchanan ( www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6812 reported it in July of 2005:

"Standing beside our defense secretary in Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari called for the speedy withdrawal of U.S. forces. The top U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, also standing beside Rumsfeld, said 'fairly substantial' withdrawals of the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq could begin by spring...

"Casey's comment lends credence to a secret British defense memo that described U.S. officials as favoring a 'relatively bold reduction in force numbers.' The memo pointed to a drawdown of Allied forces from 170,000 today to 66,000 by next summer, a cut of over 60 percent.

"Previously, the administration had denounced war critics who spoke of timetables, arguing that they signal the enemy to go to earth, build its strength, and strike weakened U.S. forces during the pullout. Now, America's top general is talking timetables."

But, of course, major withdrawals of American troops never happened and any ideas about timetables were scrapped. It was all spin designed for the 2006 midterm election, to help the Republicans maintain their majorities in the House and Senate. (The Roveian ploy didn't work, as the American public, tired of being bamboozled yet again, threw the GOP bums out and installed Democratic majorities.)

Iraw Withdrawal - Talk Now

These days, even amidst the talk of America remaining in Iraq for decades, the Administration is engaging in feints and spin about the possibility of the U.S. withdrawing tens of thousands of troops prior to the 2008 election - the election, it just so happens, that will decide which party controls the Executive Branch (and presidential pardons) for the next four years.

Just a few weeks ago, anonymous "senior administration officials" leaked to the New York Times that the Iraq plan being considered calls "for a reduction in forces that could lower troop levels [in] the midst of the 2008 presidential election to roughly 100,000, from about 146,000..."

Do they think we're that stupid not to see through their unbelievable, pre-election B.S.? Wait, don't answer that question.

Clearly, the Congressional Republicans have got to figure out a way to seem to be supporting Bush's war while not being associated with it in any way. They know that support for the war is poison at the polls and that they'll lose their jobs in a crushing defeat in 2008 unless the Iraq War news starts turning positive and quickly. So spinning the possibility of troop withdrawals is to their partisan benefit.

But those withdrawals ain't gonna happen. The Bush Administration, led by Cheney and Rumsfeld, launched an unnecessary war, botched its implementation and occupation, and helped foment a sectarian civil war. There is no way, at least not at this stage, that Humpty Dumpty can be put back together again, no way that the U.S. comes out looking good.

All the options at this stage are awful, but some, such as withdrawal ASAP, are less onerous than the others. Staying in-country, presumably hunkered down in hardened military bases on Iraqi soil, is no solution at all, good, bad or otherwise. It turns American troops into stationary targets for mortar and rocket attacks on the bases and moving targets and potential political hostages once they drive off them. CheneyBush simply refuse to acknowledge that most Iraqis do not want foreigners permanently occupying their country.

Act 2: 2008 is All That Matters

Am I making this up, that all policy is filtered through a Rovian political prism - even, or especially, U.S. strategy in Iraq? Don't take my word for it. Check out what the Washington Post's former Baghdad Bureau Chief, Rajiv Chandrasekeran, reported in his book, " Imperial Life in the Emerald City."

As Chandrasekeran reports, the Coalition Provisional Authority overseeing the U.S. occupation in the first few years was an ongoing disaster, run by incompetent bunglers who could not talk or think straight. Supposedly the CPA was preparing the ground for a functioning democracy in Iraq - based on setting up a privatized, free-market "libertarian paradise," heedless of cultural/historical realities - but since the CPA had FUBAR-ed the situation so totally, Chandrasekeran wrote:

"What was best for Iraq [in 2004] was no longer the standard. What was best for Washington was the new calculus. ... The only election that mattered was the one in November - in the United States."

And that's where we are today both with regard to policy in and about Iraq, and domestic policy as well. Unless it helps Rove lay the groundwork for a GOP presidential victory in 2008 - achieved by hook or by crook - forget about it.

The US Attorneys Scandal

We now know, based on the evidence that has surfaced in the past several months, that the presidential vote in November of 2008 is what lies at the heart of the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Rove has a long history of winning elections by any means necessary; one of his main ways of doing this is to encourage the removal of hundreds of thousands of likely Democratic voters from the precinct rolls in key states, by illegal or unethical means. Usually, these voters are simply bumped from the rolls; most of them live in vulnerable minority areas.

In addition, many of the fired U.S. attorneys in those key states were leaned on by Rove and his minions to file criminal charges against individuals or groups registering new Democratic voters and to do so before the elections. It didn't matter if the charges were unsubstantiated or ridiculous - file the charges, smear the Dems and their supporters prior to the balloting, make them spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the indictments, scare away wavering voters who might vote Democratic, etc. For example, New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David Iglesias says he was fired because he wouldn't file what he called "bogus" charges of "voter fraud" before the election.

As the U.S. attorneys scandal unravels, the situation inside Alberto Gonzales' Department of Justice has been revealed to be even more outrageous: The DOJ, it turns out, is basically run as an arm of the White House's political operation: inquiring about ideology and party affiliation (which is illegal) before appointing applicants to judicial jobs, staffing the Civil Rights Division with those antagonistic to civil rights and thus not following the law, etc. And other government agencies are similarly infected as well, holding workplace seminars on ways to aid "our candidates," which is also illegal, etc.

It's abundantly clear that Gonzales will not resign and will not be fired; he's the consiglieri in the White House mob, knowing too much about the various illegalities to be cut loose. The House should initiate impeachment hearings of Gonzales ASAP.

Epilogue: CheneyBush Must Go Soonest

Likewise, Bush and Cheney will not resign. They are prepared to sacrifice thousands of more troops in Iraq - and perhaps put them in danger over Iran as well - in order to further their imperial policies in the greater Middle East. During the next year and a half of their scheduled tenure, the damage CheneyBush can do is immense: further destruction of constitutional protections, fomenting more terrorist anger, ruining America's reputation even more through aggressive wars and through other policies as well; even on global warming, for example, Bush is unwilling to do anything meaningful, other than to delay and delay until he leaves office.

The only way out of this reckless nightmare endangering America's national security is to initiate impeachment hearings at once against Cheney and Bush. Once their "high crimes and misdemeanors" are laid out as evidence for all the public to see, it's conceivable that many Republicans will join the effort to convict, if for no other reason than to hang on to their Congressional positions in the 2008 election. It's won't be done maliciously - it's just politics.

---------

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government & international relations at universities in California and Washington, worked as a writer-editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers. To comment: crisispapers@comcast.net.

Operation Iraqi Liberation [O.I.L.]

Just in case you have not been watching the MSM closely these last few months, when America began trying to shove the 'Oil Law' down the throats of the Iraqi's, here is an update.

From DailyKos today:

Getting "Tough" on Maliki

by mcjoan

Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 08:33:51 AM PDT

Adm. William J. Fallon, lead military commander for the Middle East, took Maliki to the woodshed Sunday in a closed door session that NYT report Michael Gordon was allowed to observe. The emerging story expels any doubt about the real the agenda of the Bush administration:

The top American military commander for the Middle East has warned Iraq’s prime minister in a closed-door conversation that the Iraqi government needs to make tangible political progress by next month to counter the growing tide of opposition to the war in Congress.

In a Sunday afternoon discussion that mixed gentle coaxing with a sober appraisal of politics in Baghdad and Washington, the commander, Adm. William J. Fallon, told Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the Iraqi government should aim to complete a law on the division of oil proceeds by next month.

That would be this oil law:

Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon Mobile and Chevron, the British BP Amoco and Royal Dutch Shell -- that dominate the world oil market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there's a universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will win the lion's share of contracts. "The feeling is that the new government is going to be influenced by the United States," he said.

Note to BushCo: the American people, and the vast majority of members of Congress who are opposed to this war, are not using the oil law as an indication of progress in Iraq. Our measurement of success has more to do with body counts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~end KOS excerpt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is the agenda. This has always been the agenda. Bushco does not care about the Iraqi people, their government, the region. None of it. Sign that damn OIL LAW, NOW.

We have been building bases not to protect the ever more displaced and distraught Iraqi people, no all along our troops have been babysitting, first a botched occupation, then the inevitable Civil War.

It does not take a grat leap of reason to see that this type of chaos is exactly the type of situation where the Iraqi's would feel they have no choice but to sign, or face a pull out. And make no mistake, that is the only reason Cheneyco would pull out.

Do not forget the original deignation for Op. Iraqi Freedom.
Operation Iraqi Liberation [O.I.L.]

Well, we gave then their freedom, freedom to give 70% of their oil to, not even the US, but to Big OIL.

And not a whisper to be detected from the Top Tier Dems.

Are you getting the picture now? The Plutocracy is operating, in the open, with the NYT covering and no one of political consequence blinks.


Goodnight America....

Ex-Servicemen Twice As Likely As Civilians To Commit Suicides

Reuters | June 11, 2007 08:44 PM

---

Read More:

• Read
• Email
• Print

The study tracked 320,890 U.S. men, about a third of whom served in the U.S. military between 1917 and 1994. The rest had no military background.

Those with military service committed suicide at a rate 2.13 times higher than the other men, but did not have a higher risk of dying from disease, accidental causes or murder, the study found.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oddly the report leaves out the GWOT, which undoubtedly will have even higher rates.

The main Point I want to emphasize here, is that mainstream medicine is essentially worse than useless for this kind of thing. One needs true healing not palliation.

Please if you know any vets [or anyone] suffering from PTSD, send them to a Homeopath, a practitioner of EFT and or Bowen Therapy.

Trauma can be healed, and in many cases simply, by natural medicines, trauma canNOT be healed by Psych meds which mask symptoms or simply manipulate the endocrine or other bodily systems.

You want to support the troops? Then be informed on this crucial and life saving issue and have the links handy to pass on. If anyone needs a hand finding a practitioner, feel free to contact me @ lindil6@gmail.com .

I could work myself up, quite easily into a rage over the madness that passes for Psychiatric Medicine in this country, especially in Trauma, but instead, I'll give you some book titles and links and hope y'all will have sense enough to get a second opinion, one not bought and paid for by Big Pharm. but instead endorsed, used and practiced by empirical, progressive and usually very cool people all over the world.


~~~~~~~~~~~~And in Islam today [from the NYT]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Compass That Can Clash With Modern Life

Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times

Sheikh Abdel Hamid Tantawy speaks with a man at the Azhar Fatwa Committee inside of Al Azhar Mosque in Cairo, one of two authorized places in Egypt where Muslims can go to seek out Fatwas.

• Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
• Print
• Single Page
• Reprints
• Share
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Newsvine
  • Permalink

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

Published: June 12, 2007

CAIRO, June 11 — First came the breast-feeding fatwa. It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times, to establish family ties. Then came the urine fatwa. It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing.

For the past few weeks, the breast-feeding and urine fatwas have proved a source of national embarrassment in Egypt, not least because they were issued by representatives of the highest religious authorities in the land.

“We were very angered when we heard about the Danish cartoons concerning our prophet; however, these two fatwas are harming our Islamic religion and our prophet more than the cartoons,” Galal Amin, a professor of economics at the American University in Cairo, wrote in Al Masry Al Yom, a daily newspaper here.

For many Muslims, fatwas, or religious edicts, are the bridge between the principles of their faith and modern life. They are supposed to be issued by religious scholars who look to the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad for guidance. While the more sensational pronouncements grab attention, the bulk of the fatwas involve the routine of daily life. In Egypt alone, thousands are issued every month.

The controversy in Cairo has been more than just embarrassing. It comes at a time when religious and political leaders say that there is a crisis in Islam because too many fatwas are being issued, and that many of them rely on ideology more than learning.

The complaint has been the subject of recent conferences as government-appointed arbiters of Islamic standards say the fatwa free-for-all has led to the promotion of extremism and intolerance.

The conflict in Egypt served as a difficult reminder of a central challenge facing Islamic communities as they debate the true nature of the faith and how to accommodate modernity. The fatwa is the front line in the theological battle between often opposing worldviews. It is where interpretation meets daily life.

“It is a very critical issue for us,” said Abdullah Megawer, the former head of the Fatwa Committee at Al Azhar University, the centuries-old seat of Sunni Muslim learning in Egypt. “You are explaining God’s message in ways that really affect people’s lives.”

Technically, the fatwa is nonbinding and recipients are free to look elsewhere for a better ruling. In a faith with no central doctrinal authority, there has been an explosion of places offering fatwas, from Web sites that respond to written queries, to satellite television shows that take phone calls, to radical and terrorist organizations that set up their own fatwa committees.

“There is chaos now,” Mr. Megawer said. “The problem created is confusion in thought, confusion about what is right and what is wrong, religiously.”

Governments have tried to guide and control the process, but as they struggled with their own legitimacy, they have often undermined the perceived legitimacy of those they appoint as religious leaders. In Egypt, there are two official institutions responsible for religious interpretation: the House of Fatwa, or Dar Al-Ifta, which formally falls under the Ministry of Justice, and Al Azhar University. All court sentences of death must be approved by Dar Al-Ifta, for example.

“These people in fact are defined as agencies of the government,” said Muhammad Serag, a professor of Islamic Studies at the American University in Cairo. “They are not trusted anymore.”

While that view is disputed by officials from both institutions, everyone acknowledges that those who issue fatwas serve as mediators between faith and modernity and as arbiters of morality. They are supposed to consider not only religious teachings, but the circumstances of the time.

The position is without parallel in the West, and it combines the role of social worker, therapist, lawyer and religious adviser.

In fact, the relationship between the Koran and a fatwa is a matter of dispute. Some Muslim scholars view the Koran’s words and ideas as fixed, with little room for maneuvering. Others see their job as reconciling modern life with the text by gently bending the text to fit new circumstances.

• 1
• 2
• 3

Here is a link to an audio interview with Matt LePacek from Prison Planet and InfoWars.

Nice Cancer add, Ron Paul too.

Welcome to the Daily Globe Review

I am starting this Blog so as to catalog all my frustrations with the political, social, health and spiritual issues of the day, which the Corporate Media is paid to ignore, falsify and generally pervert.

A little about me and my POV is in order.

I am a 40 year old white male living in America's Premiere 3rd World City [TM pending], in Northern California. I am married [12 years in Nov.] and my wife and I have 2 daughters. They alone are enough reason to protest the American Gov't and Democracies [no longer slow] slide into everything the Founding fathers feared. A fake democracy. A government for the rich paid for by the people.

I am a socially unacceptable mix of Traditional Orthodox Christian [convert from Taoism & the Gurdjieff Work] and Progressive Socialist.

I come near to blowing a gasket everday surfing the net and watching our amazing Democracy turn more and more into a dinosaur Fascist [meaning 'the merging of corporate and state power'] Nation.

I have voted Green, Democrat, Independent and not at all.

I have signed Al Gore petiotions for him to run, though on the other hand I am considering registiring republican to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries. I post on Huffpo, as prolifeprogressive. But I can no longer vote based on a couple of issues no matter how essential they are [and never could vote republican though McCain 2000 seemed genuine enough].

I grew up in a privledged suburb south of DC next door to former Sec. State/Gen. Powell and used to play war with Michael. Left home at seventeen [after I graduated].

I propose on this blog to offer links to all the essential news stories each day [or at least a lot of them] that the MSM ignores or distorts along with my opine.

I am neither fully at home on the lefty blogs [daily kos for instance or huffpo] where prolife, and Traditional Christianity is neither welcomed or understood, or on even crazier Rightwing blogs, where the IQ seems to hover somewhere near or below Bush's.

My wife runs the enviromental department for a tribe of Pomo Indians [and is temorarily the Tribal Adminstrator] and has done local work trying to stop the introduction of Genetically Modified foods into our County.

I am a lay Naturopath of sorts who practices Bowen Technique [homeopathic bodywork], Acupressure and spends most of my freetime following the decline of America on the net, studying Matthew Wood's Traditional Western Herbalism, Homeopathy and more or less keeping up my Tai-Chi Chuan and ChiGung practices. I have also been a knife [and hair-shear sharpener] for most of 10 years now, mainly in San Francisco and the Bay Area.

I am still a moderator at the amazingly warm and intelligent Tolkien site the Barrow Downs
where I spearheaded a project for a couple of years to revise the Silmarillion.

So really there are alot of other things I would rather be doing than screaming on the net about how utterly corrupt our government is becoming, but hey, that is the price for being at least somewhat awake and still having a conscience.

This blog was prompted by this article which is getting virtually ZERO mainstream coverage:

Giuliani has reporter arrested for asking question

Published by Todd June 6th, 2007

Apparently, at a recent press conference, Rudy Giuliani was asked a question about his prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers - and the reporter was arrested at the orders of Giuliani’s press secretary. The reporter was taken to jail - in violation of the First Admendment - and is being charged with felony criminial trespass. Because the reporter was using a camera, state police are even considering charges of espionage. More details can be found here.

Wow, if you thought we were already veering close to a police state with Bush’s wiretapping antics and Gitmo tactics, just wait for this “liberal” GOP frontrunner to get ahold of your First Amendment rights.

If you’re interested in taking action:

CONTACT:

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE POLICE TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Director’s Office: (603) 271-2450
Field Operations Bureau: (603) 271-3793

For other inquiries: (603) 271-2575

*** EVERYONE CALL THE DIRECTOR’S OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHAT CHARGES MATT LEPACEK IS BEING HELD ON.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course I called and the NH police were not answering. But the whole thing shook me, and I thought, as I called, that is it, I am calling as a reporter, for the dailyglobereview.

So folks here is my effort to fight against the liars, crooks, and of course to their master 'below'.