Arrest Bush, before he takes everything we own.

This "Presidential Executive Order" is Grounds for Arrest by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s) http://www.opednews.com

The time has actually come. If the reports of Bush’s new Executive Order to seize the assets of anyone that interferes with his Iraq policy is true, then we are now under attack by our own government. If he implements this policy, then he has declared war on 75% of the US population. If this becomes reality, the State Governors have the option to put the National Guards of their States under State control and refuse to let them be federalized by the Administration to enforce martial law. The President cannot impose his will on a nation that refuses to bend to it. The Governors of the States have the power to use their National Guards to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(WRONG! Bush has already put the national guard under his command, not that of the Govs.)

For all of the Americans that say the time is right to leave this Country, don’t let the door hit you on the ass when you go. If that’s the way you feel, you can’t do any good here except to “knuckle under”. If someone tries to take my assets for standing against this administration, then they had better come armed. I really don’t have much to take, what I have they could fit inside a small U-Haul and probably would have to sell for scrap, but its mine and it stays with me.

For everyone that thought this war in Iraq was akin to a big international football game, you are now seeing how imperialistic governments work. There were reasons that they talked about civics in High School and College, they were trying to prepare us for a day like today. Apparently many of you skipped that class or were asleep. I know that many of you have been against the War from the beginning like me and I salute you, but this so called Presidential Directive is no reason to make you still. The time to get louder is now. The time for a massive march on Washington is now. The time for a General Strike across America is now. The time for all of the Generals in all the Services, The Army, The Navy, The Air Force and the Marines to refuse to follow orders from an illegitimate government that has overstepped its authority is now.

If Bush puts this Presidential Directive in play it is time for Congress to arrest this administration and demand all of the cabinet members to either take an oath to Congress or step down and if that doesn’t happen, then to follow the administration to jail. Nancy Pelosi will be the De Facto President once Bush puts this Presidential Directive into play. She should then appoint a Vice-President and Congress must, according to established law, bring this administration to a fair and just trial, something that this administration has failed to do for thousands of other people that have been charges under terrorism laws.

This is our only recourse to a Directive such as this. The President has no power to tell the American people what they can and cannot support. If we were in a state of declared war with Iraq, he could conceivably charge those that give aid and comfort to the enemy. We are not in a declared war. Iraq is not our enemy any longer as if they ever were. The President has no legal right to implement such a Presidential Directive. This smacks of dictatorship and is unlawful. People MUST choose what they will do. They must either choose to stand up to dictatorship and tyranny, or give into a dictatorship of the right. It is your choice. It has come to this. Tell your elected officials that they must act, that it is their Constitutional duty to act. Maybe we will all meet each other in some detention camp, or celebrate the demise of a threat to our democracy. Time will tell. It always does.

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Dems Drop Plans For Voting Reform

Maybe they know chances are good there will be no election in 2008; what with a new, new 9/ii, war in Iran and martial law giving us a brand new police state to deal with, who has time for silly things like voting, especially when we have machines that do it for us

Accessibility Isn't Only Hurdle in Voting System Overhaul
By Christopher Drew
The New York Times

Saturday 21 July 2007

Democrats in Congress who are trying to redesign the nation's voting system generally share the same goals: an affordable, easy-to-use system with durable paper ballots that can be used by the disabled without help from poll workers.

But yesterday, as House leaders failed for a second day to reach agreement on the outlines of a new system, the tension reflected in those competing needs was clear. The desire to make every voting machine accountable is running head-on into other needs, from the desires of the disabled to the budgets of states and localities.

Given the tensions, voting analysts say, the decision disclosed Thursday by Democratic leaders to put off the most sweeping changes until 2012 - four years later than planned - was easy. Congressional leaders are reluctant to tell states to junk hundreds of millions of dollars of relatively new voting equipment until it is clear when better technology will emerge.

But questions also arose yesterday about other aspects of a proposed compromise now being negotiated. Voting experts criticized a stopgap proposal to add spool-like printers to thousands of computerized touch-screen machines for 2008 and 2010, saying it would not be feasible in some states.

Some critics also said that efforts to guarantee equal access to disabled voters could slow a broad shift from touch-screen machines to optical-scan systems, which use sturdier paper ballots filled out by the voters themselves. Prompted by growing concerns about the reliability and security of the touch screens, about half of the nation's counties now use the scanners, and most analysts had thought that any federal legislation would fuel this trend.

But aides to Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and the original sponsor of the bill, said yesterday that language inserted by House leaders seemed to expand the guarantees to disabled voters in a way that could discourage other states and localities from buying the scanners.

Mr. Holt has described these provisions as a major sticking point. House officials said that he discussed possible changes yesterday with Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland. The leaders want to iron out the differences before bringing the bill to the floor.

Under current practice, disabled people, including the blind, can use special devices, equipped with audio files listing the candidates in each race, to mark optical-scan ballots without assistance. Many, however, need to have poll workers drop the ballots into the scanners.

Federal law requires that polling places provide disabled voters with enough accommodations to enable them to vote independently. Counties in up to 35 states have generally viewed the ballot-marking devices as meeting that requirement.

Jim Dickson, a lobbyist for the American Association of People with Disabilities, said his and other disability-rights groups believe that voting systems should include a means for the ballots to be sent to the scanner automatically. Mr. Dickson, whose group prefers the touch-screens, said the lobbyists asked Mr. Hoyer's staff to add language to the bill that would help do that.

But other voting activists said if that wording survives, it could force some jurisdictions to back away from the optical-scan systems.

"Since this device has been vetted in so many states, and a lot of disabled voters have been fine with it, it doesn't make sense for federal legislation to come along that could reverse the trend toward optical-scan ballots," said Warren Stewart, senior project director for VerifiedVoting .org, a group that favors use of the scanners.

Under the Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002, the federal government has spent more than $3 billion to help states and counties modernize their voting systems, installing tens of thousands of touch screens and scanners.

But since then, growing concerns about possible tampering and computer malfunctions, particularly with the touch screens, have led to calls for another overhaul, and a number of states, including Florida, have either shifted to the optical scanners or announced plans to do so by next year's elections.

All told, 28 states have passed laws requiring some kind of paper records through which voters can verify that their ballots were properly recorded and that can be used for recounts. Other states have bought small, cash-register-style printers to provide a backup record for their touch-screen votes.

Under the proposed House compromise, hundreds of counties, in 20 states, that do not use any kind of paper records would have to add the capability for the 2008 and 2010 elections.

House officials said this week that most of those counties could simply add the small, spool-like printers to their voting machines, while waiting for manufacturers to develop better technology by 2012.

But voting experts said yesterday that the voting machines in several of the states, like Delaware and some counties in Kentucky and Tennessee, probably could not be refitted with printers, and those states would have to make larger changes by next year. Maryland decided recently to try to shift from touch screens to optical scanners in 2010, so it would seem wasteful for the state to have to buy touch-screen printers for only the 2008 election, the experts said.

Voting industry officials said that they could supply enough printers as needed for next year. But the printers often cost more than $1,000 apiece, and they said some jurisdictions could decide to skip the temporary upgrades and make larger changes immediately.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

House Ready For Battle, Against Bush

House to Defy Bush With Defense Bill
By Anne Flaherty
The Associated Press

Friday 20 July 2007

Washington - House Democrats next week will introduce a $460 billion military spending bill they will use to challenge the war in Iraq, try to close Guantanamo Bay prison and increase oversight of defense contractors.

The annual legislation is considered a must-pass bill to fund the military's fleet of vehicles and aircraft, research efforts and servicemember payrolls. It covers the 2008 budget year that begins Oct. 1.

Overall, the bill is on track to give President Bush much of what he wants. The measure includes nearly $100 billion in procurement spending and would fund several of the Pentagon's big-ticket items, including $3.2 billion to buy 20 F-22 Raptor aircraft.

It also would provide $1.6 billion more than Bush wanted for shipbuilding to buy five new Navy ships; $1.1 billion extra for an eighth Army brigade of Stryker vehicles; and $705 million more than requested for development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The House Appropriations Committee planned to review the bill Wednesday, with floor debate the following week. Details of the proposal were obtained in advance by The Associated Press.

The measure does not include Bush's 2008 funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Democrats said they wanted to consider that money in separate legislation this September - a tactic that leaves open the possibility of refusing to fund the war or attaching strings to the money if progress in Iraq is not made by then.

But Democratic leaders say the annual spending measure is likely to become a magnet for amendments intended to end the Iraq war, including a proposal ordering troop withdrawals.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., also was expected to propose cutting Bush's budget for Guantanamo Bay prison in half, beating the administration to the punch in shutting the facility for terror detainees. The prison's annual operating budget is $125 million.

The White House says Bush has already decided to close the U.S. prison in Cuba and transfer more than 370 terrorism suspects elsewhere, possibly including the maximum-security military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Halving the prison's budget would keep it afloat for part of the year, giving the administration time to transfer the detainees, Democrats say.

While Iraq and Guantanamo Bay will likely be addressed in coming weeks, the bill is already set to boost substantially the money spent to oversee military contractors, including $24 million for the inspector general. The proposal also directs the defense secretary to develop a clear set of "rules-of-engagement" for all contracted security personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Contractor abuse and lack of effective oversight "has cast a pall over the service contractor community writ large," a report on the bill states. "This must be reversed."

The bill also would fund $2.2 billion to cover a 3.5 percent pay raise for service members; $8.5 for missile defense; and eliminate the $468 million requested in procurement funding for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Executive Order 51

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Bush Can Take Everything You Own, If You Disagree With Him About Iraq

Seriously!

30 DAYS TO ABSOLUTE TYRANNY! - Bush's latest Executive Order Removes Last Barrier to Dictatorship by Alex Wallenwein http://www.opednews.com

In an as yet un-numbered Executive Order (at least the number isn't published), president bush has decreed that your property - all of it - can be taken away at the sole discretion of the Secretary of State - who of course has to obey his orders. You can view and read this latest atrocity at your own leisure at the White House's own website here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unconstitutional? You bet!

But you can’t complain about it.

Why is that?

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

In a state of emergency, the president has the power to do whatever he wants, and you can’t complain - or else.

This is the clear, logical consequence of Americans’ acquiescing to their government claiming the right to pursue the anti-Christian doctrine of preemptive war.

If the president can launch a war against another country in order to prevent a potential, as yet unrealized, future attack, then he can also prosecute a potential criminal at home - or confiscate ALL of his property - for acts that he (or his Secretary) simply “determine” he might commit in the future.

We are talking about the imposition, by executive order, of absolute, unrestricted tyranny and despotism in the name of “national security.”

1 | 2 | 3

www.ronpaul.meetup.com/24

Alex Wallenwein, J.D., is a former attorney in Houston, Texas, and a grass-roots activist for the rule of law and American liberty. He organizes both the Houston 4 Ron Paul 2008 Meetup and the World-Wide Ron Paul Organizers' Meetup.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

King George: Many a king has lost his head....

Perhaps this one should remember that.

Maybe he never knew it in the first place, given that he doesn't like to read.

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post

Friday 20 July 2007

White House Says Hill can't pursue contempt cases.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, "whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action."

But administration officials argued yesterday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: "It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys."

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

The administration's statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided yesterday that it was time to highlight it.

Yesterday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet E. Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view. A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the Judiciary Committee's chairman, declined to comment . But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) said the administration is "hastening a constitutional crisis," and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) said the position "makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law."

Waxman added: "I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department."

Under long-established procedures and laws, the House and Senate can each pursue two kinds of criminal contempt proceedings, and the Senate also has a civil contempt option. The first, called statutory contempt, has been the avenue most frequently pursued in modern times, and is the one that requires a referral to the U.S. attorney in the District.

Both chambers also have an "inherent contempt" power, allowing either body to hold its own trials and even jail those found in defiance of Congress. Although widely used during the 19th century, the power has not been invoked since 1934 and Democratic lawmakers have not displayed an appetite for reviving the practice.

In defending its argument, administration officials point to a 1984 opinion by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, headed at the time by Theodore B. Olson, a prominent conservative lawyer who was solicitor general from 2001 to 2004. The opinion centered on a contempt citation issued by the House for Anne Gorsuch Burford, then administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It concluded: "The President, through a United States Attorney, need not, indeed may not, prosecute criminally a subordinate for asserting on his behalf a claim of executive privilege. Nor could the Legislative Branch or the courts require or implement the prosecution of such an individual."

In the Burford case, which involved spending on the Superfund program, the White House filed a federal lawsuit to block Congress's contempt action. The conflict subsided when Burford turned over documents to Congress.

The Bush administration has not previously signaled it would forbid a U.S. attorney from pursuing a contempt case in relation to the prosecutor firings. But officials at Justice and elsewhere say it has long held that Congress cannot force such action.

David B. Rifkin, who worked in the Justice Department and White House counsel's office under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will." And in constitutional terms, he said, "the president has decided, by virtue of invoking executive privilege, that is the correct policy for the entire executive branch."

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence - without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

----------

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Be Advised: Bushites Will Do ANYTHING To Manitain Power

That's why it is important to get the word out, about everything in this article and the latest executive order 51, which essentially completes Bush's dictatorial surge at home.

How The White House Will Manipulate Events and Emotions to Maintain GOP Executive Branch Control in 2008

Submitted by mark karlin on Sat, 07/21/2007 - 9:53am. Editorials

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Okay, let’s look at some Bushevik assaults on democracy this last week:

Bush and Cheney Make the Novel and Totalitarian Assertion that the Department of Justice is Prohibited from Investigating a Congressional Contempt Citation Over Anyone (Even if They are No Longer Working for the Government) Asserting Executive Privilege

Bush’s PR Operation Claims to Issue a New Document Forbidding Torture, When the Details Actually Just Reconfirm the Right of the CIA to Continue Renditions and Torture

A Bushevik Partisan Hack Judge Throws Out the Plame Civil Suit Against the Bush Administration, Just as the Same Bush-Appointed Judge Has Made Partisan Decisions Before that Favor Bush

A Pentagon Official Who is a Former Cheney Aide Accuses a Sitting U.S. Senator (Hillary Clinton) of Being a Traitor for Exercising Her Rights to Receive Military Readiness Information

Bush Accuses the Dems of Holding Up Funds and Safety Equipment for Our Troops When the White House Told the GOP to Sink a Bill Last Week That Would Have Mandated Proper Preparedness, Proper Training, Adequate Rest, and Adequate Protective Gear. The Republicans, Under White House Orders, Defeated the Bill to Support Our Troops.

That’s a lot to swallow in just week, and those are just some egregious examples of the slow creep into fascism that never seems to halt no matter how badly Cheney and Bush fare in the polls, and no matter how strongly Americans oppose the Iraq War.

The Democrats MUST remember this most important axiom about Bush, Cheney and Rove: There interest is not necessarily to stay in Iraq forever; it is to ensure that the Republicans can hold onto power indefinitely.

The quagmire in the battle against terror, in which the Busheviks have prima facie failed by being unable to beat back a relatively small hardcore Al-Qaeda movement, is really only a strategy from which they see opportunities to maintain power, not defeat. (Even if the NIE this past week stated another offense for which Bush and Cheney should be removed from office: After years of lies, hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraqis and Americans lost, hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. What Bush and Cheney have done, through their failure, is make Al Qaeda into some sort of "Superman" Force. In short, the perception of Al Qaeda is strengthened by the Bush Administration’s ineptness in dealing with them.)

But the failure of the Bush Administration’s "war on terror," which was mounted to achieve goals having nothing to do with halting terror, is not causing the Bush Administration – as the partial list of last week’s actions indicate – to back off from their assault on the American Constitution?

Why?

It would be a mistake to think that Bush’s ongoing chipperness and indifference to public opinion can be attributed to his sociopathology alone. It would also be an error to think that Dick "Dr. Evil" Cheney is simply becoming more hunkered down in his delusions that he is the power behind the throne, the rabble in the Congress be damned.

So why are the Busheviks continuing to proceed full steam ahead in seizing absolute powers and barreling ahead in Iraq?

BuzzFlash speculates that one of the reasons relates to their confidence in their ability to continue to manipulate events and emotions. Although the mainstream media has started to expose more of the reality of the utter debacle of the Iraq War, it still is more likely than not to give a White House spin to headlines and stories, as it did in Bush’s completely hypocritical and mendacious attack on Democrats for allegedly not legislatively "supporting our troops."

In a crisis, moreover, the mainstream media, which surfs the news cycles without a nano-second of historical context, is likely to completely hop aboard the White House propaganda express again, as it did post-9/11 – and is it did for nearly four years of a record of failed declarations and promises in the Iraq War.

Rove knows that one big event that is perceived as a military challenge to America can erase all the accumulated negative perceptions of Bush for enough time to ride the next Republican presidential candidate through an election cycle (or according to the worst fears of some, suspend the elections based on Executive Branch emergency powers that Bush has been incrementally accumulating through executive orders and with the consent of Congress.)

So what might these precipitated "rally round the president" crisis events be?

Here are three options – and they are not the only possible ones – that we are sure that Rove and Cheney and others are mulling over:

1) A short-term military assault on the Pakistani "tribal lands," bordering Afghanistan, where the Saudi dominated Al-Qaeda has allegedly been living openly and freely --- and where Osama bin Laden has possibly been ensconced for several years. If Bush were able to score a real or propaganda hit on Al Qaeda, the Democrats would have little alternative but to congratulate him for doing what they have been advocating all along. The mainstream media would applaud Bush for finally accepting a need for recalibrating the "War on Terror."

Potential risks of this action: Rove would be worrying that it could backfire if they don’t come up with significant Al-Qaeda members. There is also the very real risk that a U.S. incursion into Pakistan (remember the impact of Kissinger’s secret bombing of Cambodia leading to the emergence of the Khmer Rouge) could result in an Islamic fundamentalist overthrow of the Musharraf regime. Finally, because of the strain on forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, there might not be a sufficient special force capability to launch such an attack.

2) An air attack, likely employing nuclear weapons, on Iranian nuclear facilities. Cheney and his Neo-Con cheerleaders are just dying to pull this one off. It would precipitate a right wing echo chorus of the need to rally behind the president in a time of war and that only traitors wouldn’t support our troops in combat. It would further bolster the "U.S.A. # 1" empire contingent and play to the wounded egos of Americans who don’t like to lose wars, as is the case in Iraq. Also, the Iranian Prime Minister has made himself especially unlikable, so the Busheviks have another bogeyman to demonize.

Potential risks of this action: All Hell would break loose in the Middle East. Hezbollah and Hamas would probably launch a full-scale assault on Israel, backed by Iran. The Iranians would start to directly engage U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Syria would probably be drawn into a full-scale Middle Easter war. The strong pro-democracy movement within Iran would be suppressed almost immediately, as Iranians patriotically rally around their leadership, however, distasteful, just as Americans would rally around Bush. Iranians would probably launch surrogate terrorist attacks against American interests.

3) A 9/11 repeat attack on U.S. soil. Despite the fact that such an attack would make a mockery of the often stated Bush mantra that "we are fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here," the Republicans would – in their usual disciplined message point fashion – quickly blame the Democrats for not supporting the Iraq War. The mainstream media would disseminate the Republican message points pretty much intact. Bush would be positioned as having been right "all along" about the ongoing terrorist threat and seen as a seer and leader, who was wrongfully scorned. In fact, more than one Republican leader has implied that they would welcome a terrorist attack on the U.S., because – as their twisted and destructive desire to hold power dictates – it would "validate" the Bush/Cheney war strategy.

Remember, it can be completely illogical, but the Republicans, under Rove in particular, know how to ride the power of emotional reactions to events as seen through the prism of a mainstream media that surfs the emotional tug of unfolding events. Of course, the debate on to what extent the Bush Administration is responsible for not preventing 9/11 rages on, with their being guilty of malfeasance – at a minimum – because Bush and Rice were warned in August of 2001 of impending terrorist hijackings and did not one thing to warn airports or intelligence agencies to take preventive actions.

But anyone who has been in politics knows that there are people in the White House secretly hoping for another 9/11 type of attack on the "Homeland." Remember, the goal of the Bush Administration is to hold onto Executive Branch power for the Republicans indefinitely. Sometimes, such Neo-Con fanatics believe that Americans have to die for the larger good of ensuring that the steering wheel of government isn’t handed over to the Democrats.

Potential risks of this action: It could be a large-scale attack so devastating that it could create a political upheaval in the United States. If the attackers are again primarily Saudi members of Al-Qaeda, the calls for clamping down hard on Saudi Arabia may rise to a frenzy. The U.S. military, already stretched to the breaking point, might not have the ability to retaliate successfully. There is the slight chance that rationality might emerge from the ashes and that Bush would be blamed for getting sidetracked in Iraq, but that is not how the media and demagoguery work. In all likelihood, this would be the most desirable option for the White House, because it would result in renewed calls for "getting even with someone," which helps Bush and Cheney string out the endless war.

In short, why we concentrate on ending the Iraq War, the White House is kicking the ball down the field trying to figure out which of the above three scenarios (and others) might be the best diversion from the Baghdad conflict, while boosting Bush’s ratings in one fell swoop – and recharging the hopes of a Republican candidate for president.

The bottom line is that the White House has its eyes on continuing the march toward consolidating Executive Branch and Federal Court Republican control over any efforts by Congress to assert their Constitutional powers.

Manipulating world events and renewing fear with a new "terrorist event" or "terrorist prevention attack" are what’s on the table right now.

They are just stalling for time to make a decision on the least risky alternative.

It is the White House that continues to be a dangerous threat to the national security of Americans, because their interest is the accumulation of power, not our well-being as a nation.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What Democracy?

by TED BOHNE http://www.opednews.com

For decades now I've listened to countless people including myself refer to the social control construct we live under as a "democracy." I've heard countless state unequivocally how this is the greatest most benevolent nation in the history of the world.

I've heard more recently how the US armed forces are the mightiest fielded also in the history of the world. This despite the fact that despite all this technoligical crap we're all paying trillions for the US is getting an assbeating in the Middle East.

The American people feel free to admonish the rest of the world on human rights which it also believes it is the best in the world in terms of keeping track of such rights here at home.

As I grew from a boy to an old man now, and thankfully destitute of any form of ideology; patriotic, religious, or any other sort of belief that doesn't require considerable thought to determine it's validity. I was a boy scout. Went to Catholic school, though I can say without any problem, I wish my sainted mother would have left my ass in a public school.

I went to church every Sunday, confession every Saturday scared shitless at the tender age of eight that I'd die before confessing my sins and go straight to hell. I probably wasn't the best student in the world. I did well in the subjects I liked, and not so well in those that didn't interest me.

Got me through a Master of Arts in Individual Studies though. I served my country during time of war. Even spent a year in the Active Reserves. All this time believing I lived in the single greatest country known to mankind.

The sort of country that stands forth on the mountain as a shining example of Democracy, and an example for the rest of the world to emulate.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that whole shtick was a load of crap. Imagine my surprise when I discovered there was no "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to kick off the Vietnam war.

James Stockdale, Admiral USN, Ret, was in an F-86 flying over the Gulf of Tonkin when this "incident" was allegedly happening, when he said there was nothing going on down there. So 58,000 Americans, and a couple million Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians died in an attempt to save French colonialism for good old America.

Not Communism. There was no threat to the US from the Vietnamese, and countless billions of dollars that could have been used for cancer research, to help strenghthen our educational system, or just put more food on people's tables, simply went up in smoke.

Further the US had their asses RUN OFF by the advancing NVA. That is, the US CUT AND RAN. Not the soldiers, but POTUS, and senior military and government officials. Sadly, information wasn't as readily available in those days as it is today. Remember the computer that took Apollo 11 to the moon and back wasn't much more powerful than a hand held calculator!

The US, besides enacting genocides against other people, has on many occasions stood by and WATCHED others commit them You know like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Idi Amin, the mess in Darfur, and others.

But my disappointment was far from over. The Korean "police action" technically goes on to this very day. The only thing the US was able to do to the DPRK was push them back beyond the 38th parallel despite MacArthur's attempt to annex North Korea. Made it to the Chinese Border and was shoved all the way back.

Imagine the world "landscape" if the US had involved itself in stopping the Nazis in, say, 1936 or 1937. Yes, it is well known the US was suckered by Winston Churchill in to the first world war using "Remember the Lusitania" as a war cry despite Maritime law, and rules of engagement, passenger ships were to carry no implements of war and certainly not J.P. Morgan's huge store of ammunition. See, the Brits had already broken the German code and knew exactly where the sub that sunk the Lusitania would be. Remember Churchill's "Room 40?" Ever even heard of it? I thought not.

People are still convinced that the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor was a "sneak attack." This, despite the fact that Roosevelt sent the Pacific Fleet from It's home in San Francisco to Bumfuck Egypt, I mean Pearl Harbor. The battleships were of WWI vintage, and the carriers put to sea, ALL OF THEM. There is now clear evidence that FDR well knew of December 7th 1941, before December 7th, 1941. There was at very least radar contact with the incoming Japanese aircraft in time to sound General Quarters. You might want to do some reading on this topic. Unless you NEED this crap to be true to hold your belief system together.

Same goes for the use of not one, but two nuclear weapons on an Island that had been virtually burned to the ground by US incendiary bombs. The death toll in Tokyo alone was twice that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most of the other large cities had been incinerated the same way.

Nagasaki was a secondary target. Clearly as long as these nuclear devices fell on the island of Japan, that was enough. The Japanese Air Force was completely destroyed, her navy was at the bottom of the Pacific, and the US had weeded the ground forces out as far north as Okinawa. Invasion? My ass! They could have continued their already brutal use of incendiary bombing and burned the remnants of Japan to the ocean floor.

But no, the myth of having to invade the Island of Japan persists to this day.

What about covert operations like, oh, say, the overthrow of the government of Mohammed Mossagdeh in the favor of the Pro US Mohammed Reza Pavlavi. Or Salvador Allende of Chile for General Augusto Pinochet.

Not many know that prior to Juan Batista, President of Cuba was overthrown by Fidel Castro, the US supplied weapons and logistics to Castro! Then you have the Bay of Pigs screw up, Not because JFK called it off, but because American Air Support didn't show up because their watches were not set to the correct time, and they arrived an hour late. Well, to late for the Cuban exiles who were captured or killed.

What about US support of brutal dictators such as Poppa and Baby Doc Duvalier of Haiti, and the latest installment of a thug to power in Haiti. There's the US backed overthrow of Augusto Sandino in Nicaragua for Anastasio Somoza, another murdering thug. Organized terrorists such as the "contras" who raped pillaged and plundered the Nicaraguan country side, and the Death Squads in Guatemala and El Salvador green lighted by John Negroponte. All in the name of "Freedom and Democracy." Actually it was to open markets for US corporations and empire building. But let's not cloud the issue with facts.

de·moc·ra·cy [ di mókrəssee ] (plural de·moc·ra·cies) noun 1. free and equal representation of people: the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the majority of the people 2. democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens 3. democratic system of government: a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making 4. control of organization by members: the control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes [Late 16th century. Directly or via French<> democratia<> dēmokratia "rule of the people"

Now, just for kicks, what part of this definition applies to the United States? Not just now when things are at their worst, but lets go all the way back to 1787. The Constitution of the United States, referred to by the non-president as “just a goddamned piece of paper,” was written by rich white men. None of these mopes could decide how to write such an instrument and please everybody.

By the time they finished cobbling it together, it pleased NO ONE, and was so full of loopholes you could read a newspaper through it. Down through the history of the US, the wealthy have always controlled most of this country’s riches. Now, more than ever. It wasn’t until FDR arrived on scene that ANY form of social safety net existed in any form. Then listening to the dumbshit Americans whine about socialism and finally communism, as if these forms of social control EVER EXISTED IN FACT.

So, I wonder, what part of our “Democracy” do YOU want to recover? This country has NEVER BEEN A DEMOCRACY, THEN OR NOW. The system has been fraught with lies, fraud, murder, genocide, and other forms of mischief since day one. This country, that would be the United States of America is the chief terrorist nation on earth. Then you have the little monkey Israel, stolen from the indigenous people by the US, UK, and UN. The question now is, who is leading who around by the nose. Israel or the US. If you want to know, just do a little looking into how many of these right wing extremists are Jewish or Christian Fundamentalists or Zionists. Anti Semite?, me, who cares. The Truth is more important. Even many Jewish Rabbis state unequivocally that according to the Torah, Israel isn’t supposed to have attained “statehood” yet, and I guarantee there will be no peace in the middle east as long as Israel exists.

So, for all you people who want your democracy back, remember, you have to have had one to start with.

Mr. Bohne is a clockmaker and activist. He HATES the US Government, and without stretching the truth (reality) will do anything to dig up dirt on any of these bastards, as long as it's REAL dirt. "the first man to raise his fists, is the first man to run out of ideas."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

New CBS Poll: 61% Support Timetable/Withdrawal

Poll: Most Support Iraq Timetable
CBS

Wednesday 18 July 2007

While Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic bid to force a vote on U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq, a CBS News/New York Times poll finds a majority of Americans think Congress should not continue to fund the war unless a timetable for withdrawal is put in place.

Sixty-one percent of Americans surveyed think the war should be funded only if there's a timetable for withdrawal. Twenty-eight percent say funding should be continued without a timetable, while 8 percent think all funding for the war should be blocked, no matter what.

What Should Congress Do About Iraq War Funding?

Fund with timetable
61%
Allow all funding
28%
Block all funding
8%

There's a sharp political divide on the funding issue. Most Democrats (77 percent) and Independents (60 percent) think funding should be tied to a pullout timetable, while more than half of Republicans (53 percent) think funding for war should continue unfettered.

(The GOP should secede from the union)

Americans remain extremely dissatisfied with the course of the war. Seventy-four percent, about the same number as last month, say the war is going badly, including 45 percent who say it's going very badly.

Again, there's a strong political split, with large majorities of Democrats (91 percent) and Independents (76 percent) saying the war is going badly, while half of Republicans say it's going well.

(Why have the Goopers gone batshit crazy all at the same time? Are they on drugs? Cheney slipping something into their bottled water? WTF is going on with them?)

How is the War Going?

Total
Well
25%
Badly
74%

Republicans
Well
49%
Badly
50%

Democrats
Well
8%
Badly
91%

Independents
Well
22%
Badly
76%

More than half of Americans (51 percent) surveyed do not think President Bush's recent troop surge is having any impact on the situation in Iraq. Sixty-three percent think the number of U.S. troops should be decreased, including one in three that says all U.S. troops should be removed. Eighteen percent think the U.S. troop level should stay the same; 12 percent say it should be increased.

The poll also looked at views of the war by gender. While a majority of both men and women think the war is going badly, more women (67 percent) than men (54 percent) say funding for the war should be tied to a troop withdrawal timetable; more men (35 percent) than women (21 percent) think funding for the war should be allowed, no matter what.

(This is to be expected. It is the result of a life-time of testosterone poisoning in men. It does to the heart what a life-time of heavy drinking does to the liver; cirrhosis.)

----------

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,554 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone from July 9-17, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of women was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 1,068 interviews among this group, by selecting them with higher probability than men in households with both men and women. The weights of men and women in mixed-gender households were adjusted to compensate for their different probabilities of selection. The final weighted distribution of men and women in the sample is in proportion to the composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.