As
the nation focuses on Sen. John McCain’s choice of running mate,
President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential
power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

“But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some
of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the
wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress,”
he adds.

San Diego, CA) Radio talk show host Michael Reagan is calling for the murder of political activist, Mark Dice, after hearing that Dice is mailing letters and DVDs to troops in Iraq. Reagan wants to pay for the bullets.

Audio link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJO-kUINMs

Transcript of Reagan’s statements:

“Excuse me folks, I’m going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that’s what they are, and you shoot them dead. I’ll pay for the bullets.”

Reagan adds, “How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don’t blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice.”

Dice is demanding that Reagan be fired immediately. “Calling for the murder of someone because you disagree with their political stance is absolutely unacceptable, un American, and possibly illegal,” says Dice.

Dice has filed a report with the FBI and is considering legal action against Reagan.

Dice’s organization, The Resistance, has launched a campaign to send documentary films and declassified documents to U.S. troops who are stationed in Iraq to inform them that the 9/11 attacks were aided by elements within the U.S. government.

# # #

Contact:

Mark(at)TheResistanceManifesto.com

Contact Michael Reagan’s Boss

703-302-1000

His death threats were aired Tuesday, June 10th during the second hour.

Email the FCC and let them know.

fccinfo@fcc.gov

The news that Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush sparked a spirited debate here yesterday. It’s pretty clear that history will judge George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents ever—if not the worst. But how will history remember Kucinich?

The full impeachment articles and their supporting documentation can be read here:

Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio
In the United States House of Representatives
Monday, June 9th, 2008
A Resolution

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War.

Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX
Imprisoning Children

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

by campskunk, Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:33:26 PM EST

Over at Calitics, Brian Leubitz is not happy.

Obama Slashes and Burns through the Delegate List

Today, I learned that I have been pruned out of my delegate race. I will say that I didn’t really expect to win. There were people in my district that were better organized and better known (Chris Daly). And they both made the cut. However, I didn’t figure the campaign to whom I donated money, and to whom I traveled to two different states for, would decide that I wasn’t loyal enough. Heck, I spent March 4 working for Buffy Wicks (the CA field director) in Texas at the Election Hotline… this is a function of the Obama campaign, and if they expect to get any more time or money from me, I need to hear some sort of reasonable answer from the campaign.

And we get the so-called "rationale" for eliminating "certain types" of people…

I understand that the Obama campaign is wary of the Clinton campaign picking off some of their pledged delegates…

More ruckus over on HuffPo:

Obama’s "Big Tent" Campaign Cuts Out The Little People In California

After completing the application process and finding my name on the official list of registered candidates, I received an email from the California Democratic Party today (Wednesday) at 4:48 p.m. informing me that the final approved lists of delegate candidates had been posted and that I should check the website. (I assume the same email went out to all the delegate candidates.) I clicked over to the website and found that, lo and behold, what had been a list of 90 candidates had been eviscerated down to only 17, and that my name was gone. I immediately checked the Obama candidate list for the 33rd District, where a friend and fellow Obama die-hard was also running for a delegate spot. His name was gone, too, and a list that formerly contained 83 names was down to a mere 20.

The ostensible rationale for the cutting of delegate candidates is to prevent "Trojan horse" delegates from making their way to the Convention floor and then switching allegiances. The vetting and removal of delegate candidates is expressly allowed by party rules. But could the 30th District really have had 73 such turncoats, and was I really one of them? I was a Precinct Captain for the Obama campaign for the California primary; I’ve donated several hundred dollars to Senator Obama’s campaign (the first politician I’ve ever supported financially); and I’ve boosted the campaign in numerous posts on this website…

It’s hard not to be cynical. Remaining on the list of approved candidates is the slate of candidates (longtime campaign volunteers) that the Obama campaign has officially endorsed, as well as several names recognizable from local politics. These delegate candidates aren’t to be faulted for being longtime political activists, but the cynic in me wonders why those names remained while the "nobodies" on the list disappeared. The Obama campaign owes those of us who were cut a fuller explanation of the decision process.

This is where the real progressives are being asked to get off the bus.  Ideologically motivated people, the progressives who have been in Bush’s face and raising a stink about the Bush Administration long before it became fashionable, are being seen as not trustworthy.

What Obama’s campaign wants is "mules" – people who will go to the convention and vote for Obama, no matter what. It’s not about the issues, it’s about the candidate. If these delegates have strong dedication to particular causes they might be persuadable, so none of those types are allowed.

Why does this surprise anyone? All along, Obama’s campaign has been about getting elected, Chicago style – that’s it. Causes come and go, but the pursuit of political power goes on.  

"Thanks for the help, liberal blogosphere and grassroots activists, but we’ll take it from here".  Heh.

Oh, by the way, it’s all Hillary’s fault – as usual. She MADE them do this.

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

Britain powerless in face of Saudi threats, court told

· Judges sceptical about efforts to resist pressure
· BAE review told ministers entitled to ignore treaty

• David Leigh and Rob Evans
• The Guardian,
• Saturday February 16 2008

Prince Bandar, head of Saudi Arabia’s national security council, leaving Downing Street last October. Photograph: Martin Argles

The British government was powerless to resist the Saudi threats that forced it to close down the BAE corruption investigation, its lawyers insisted in the high court yesterday.

The claim met with scepticism from Lord Justice Moses, who is trying the case along with Mr Justice Sullivan. He pointed out that the government had apparently made no attempt to resist such "unlawful" Saudi threats or to deter their behaviour.

Philip Sales, QC for the crown, said the government could not "magic away" the threats from the Saudi ruling clan.

But the judge said: "Every time a hostage is taken or a ransom demanded, the answer by the government is: ‘We do not yield to threats’."

The high court has heard unchallenged allegations that it was Prince Bandar, the alleged beneficiary of £1bn in secret payments from the arms giant BAE, who threatened to cut off intelligence on terrorists if the investigation into him and his family was not stopped.

Investigators said they were given to understand there would be "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they carried on delving into the payments.

The government argued yesterday that these threats were so "grave" and put Britain’s security in such "imminent" threat that the head of the Serious Fraud Office had no option but to shut down his investigation immediately.

On the second day and final day of the judicial review into the decision, which is being brought by anti-corruption campaigners, the judges repeatedly questioned these assertions.

Moses said: "What you are saying is that the law is powerless to protect our own sovereignty – the law cannot be deployed as a weapon to protect the sovereignty of this country."

The judge said: "Your answer is, yes, it is powerless. No lawyer or court can protect one of the essential features of sovereignty, which is control over one’s own domestic criminal law system."

Asked if that meant nothing could be done to resist this kind of threat "from a powerful foreign state", Sales replied: "Correct – we cannot compel Saudi Arabia to adopt a different stance."

Moses said it was "curious" that ministers were not allowed constitutionally to interfere in criminal investigations, but "there was nothing that could be done" when it was Saudi Arabia.

This meant, he said, that the decision to terminate the inquiry was "out of the control" of the British government.

Sales said the government was entitled to ignore an OECD anti-corruption treaty when Britain’s security was in jeopardy. Moses responded : "It is no good just waving the flag of national security. If (its use) is so wide, it undermines the treaty." Any government could stop bribery prosecutions on the grounds of national security, Sullivan added. He asked if that "drove a coach and horses through the treaty."

The investigation was stopped after Tony Blair, then prime minister, intervened following sustained lobbying by the Saudis and BAE, who wanted to preserve a lucrative arms contract. In a long, "exceptional" letter to his attorney-general Lord Goldsmith, Blair said he was concerned, among other things, about this contract to sell Typhoon warplanes.

Governments signed up to the OECD treaty are forbidden from stopping investigations for commercial reasons.

Sullivan intervened to say that Whitehall documents released to the court showed that issues other than purely national security had been considered. He told Sales that the government was making "bland statements" and refusing to admit the reality.

Moses expressed concern about ministers apparently abandoning the Shawcross convention, which is supposed to prevent politicians interfering in criminal cases.

Under it, the law officers are allowed to consult ministers about the public interest implications of a prosecution decision. But ministers are not allowed to lobby for a particular decision.

Campaigners allege that Blair over-stepped the mark when he put "irresistible pressure" on the SFO.

The government argued it was permissible for the prime minister to express a forceful view that there was "a very clear case" for ending the investigation.

The judges said they would give their ruling as soon as possible.

Powered by ScribeFire.

It’s so time to vote out all of these bums – every last one of them.  How much more will you take?

February 12, 2008

Republicans: 48 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent (Graham of South Carolina) (Including Lieberman as a Democrat.
Democrats: 20 yea, 29 nay, 2 absent (Obama and Clinton)

And how interesting that of the Democrats, only the presidential candidates missed the final vote. The vote occurred between 5:30 p.m. and 6 p.m., hardly an inconvenient time.

UPDATE (10:50 p.m.): A statement from President Bush.

The House of Representatives now has an opportunity to put aside narrow partisan concerns and come together to pass this bipartisan bill and send it to my desk without delay. Our intelligence professionals and private sector partners need the certainty of long-term legislation that will allow us to keep programs in place to protect the Nation, so that the flow of critical intelligence information is not interrupted.

Pre-emtive Nuclear Strike a Key Option, NATO Told

Ian Traynor in Brussels
Tuesday January 22, 2008
The Guardian

A British Trident missile. Photograph: AP

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists.

Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato’s secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The authors – General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato’s ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato’s military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK – paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

The five commanders argue that the west’s values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

In the wake of the latest row over military performance in Afghanistan, touched off when the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said some allies could not conduct counter-insurgency, the five senior figures at the heart of the western military establishment also declare that Nato’s future is on the line in Helmand province.

"Nato’s credibility is at stake in Afghanistan," said Van den Breemen.

"Nato is at a juncture and runs the risk of failure," according to the blueprint.

Naumann delivered a blistering attack on his own country’s performance in Afghanistan. "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato".

Ron Asmus, head of the German Marshall Fund thinktank in Brussels and a former senior US state department official, described the manifesto as "a wake-up call". "This report means that the core of the Nato establishment is saying we’re in trouble, that the west is adrift and not facing up to the challenges."

Naumann conceded that the plan’s retention of the nuclear first strike option was "controversial" even among the five authors. Inge argued that "to tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence".

Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the west’s cold war strategy in defeating the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was a productive instrument to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.

Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels, said he was "puzzled".

"Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I’d be wary of saying it out loud."

Another senior EU official said Nato needed to "rethink its nuclear posture because the nuclear non-proliferation regime is under enormous pressure".

Naumann suggested the threat of nuclear attack was a counsel of desperation. "Proliferation is spreading and we have not too many options to stop it. We don’t know how to deal with this."

Nato needed to show "there is a big stick that we might have to use if there is no other option", he said.

The Authors:

John Shalikashvili

The US’s top soldier under Bill Clinton and former Nato commander in Europe, Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw of Georgian parents and emigrated to the US at the height of Stalinism in 1952. He became the first immigrant to the US to rise to become a four-star general. He commanded Operation Provide Comfort in northern Iraq at the end of the first Gulf war, then became Saceur, Nato’s supreme allied commander in Europe, before Clinton appointed him chairman of the joint chiefs in 1993, a position he held until his retirement in 1997.

Klaus Naumann

Viewed as one of Germany’s and Nato’s top military strategists in the 90s, Naumann served as his country’s armed forces commander from 1991 to 1996 when he became chairman of Nato’s military committee. On his watch, Germany overcame its post-WWII taboo about combat operations, with the Luftwaffe taking to the skies for the first time since 1945 in the Nato air campaign against Serbia.

Lord Inge

Field Marshal Peter Inge is one of Britain’s top officers, serving as chief of the general staff in 1992-94, then chief of the defence staff in 1994-97. He also served on the Butler inquiry into Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and British intelligence.

Henk van den Breemen

An accomplished organist who has played at Westminster Abbey, Van den Breemen is the former Dutch chief of staff.

Jacques Lanxade

A French admiral and former navy chief who was also chief of the French defence staff.

“The inconsistencies, errors and multiple changes in the rules reek of playing politics with the what should be a neutral process,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign manager Lew Moore.  “The people of Nevada deserve to know exactly what the rules are and to know that those rules are being fairly enforced.  This has not happened up to this point, and the caucus appears to be in chaos.”

The problem of multiple rule changes is being compounded by other inconsistencies and errors in the process.  Many Nevada Republicans have received postcards with incorrect information about their caucus location, and the Nevada GOP website had incorrect caucus locations listed as late as Wednesday, January 16.

Additionally, one or more county chairs have expressed concerns over an insufficient number of ballots, and the Ron Paul campaign has heard reports that rural counties are short of ballots, while Clark County precincts were given what is regarded as far too many ballots.

The Ron Paul campaign has learned that the Nevada Republican Party has changed the rules for eligibility requirements for caucusing three times since January 9.  Last summer when the January 19 caucus was set, the Nevada GOP announced that caucus would be closed and only for Republicans who had registered by December 19.

On January 10, 2008, a caucus director for the Nevada Republican Party reversed the earlier policy  and anounced a new standard by stating that any person who asserts that they are a registered Republican in the precinct but cannot be found in the voter rolls that the Republican party has, would be able to participate if they signed an affidavit attesting to the fact that they were a registered Republican.  Then, on January 15 the Ron Paul campaign received communication from the state party that the affidavits would not be used.

However, on January 17 the policy was changed for a third time, as the state party announced that affidavits would be in use throughout the state, subject to the discretion of county central committees and chairs.

The Nevada Republican Party is changing the rules from week to week, and currently the rules will not even be uniform across the state, as eligibility rules may differ from county to county.

Given the caucus location confusion – with potential caucus participants not knowing where to go – and the new rule effectively allowing anyone to get a ballot, the Ron Paul campaign is concerned that the confusion surrounding the caucus will both disenfranchise voters and make the election particularly susceptible to vote fraud.

Technorati Tags: Ron Paul, Nevada Caucus, campaign reform, corruption, election 2008

Iowa Republicans gave Mike Huckabee an improbable caucus victory Thursday night, propelling the former Arkansas governor over a series of better-funded opponents. With 86 percent of precincts reporting, Huckabee had 34 percent of votes cast, topping former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who had 25 percent.