Basham Radio

Breaking News: Bush announces intent to "clarify" Holy Bible

2006-09-15T13:04:00.000-07:00

In what they deemed their continuing efforts to protect Americans from terror, terrorists, and terrorism, the Bush administration announced today their intent to clarify and redefine the Holy Bible, beginning with the 10 Commandments.

George W. Bush said today that a certain section of the Bible, namely, common Commandment articles numbers 1 thru’ 10 - especially those that deal with the humane treatment of all human beings - is just too vague. He also said the commandments as they are written now place the America people in danger. He went on to say that secret adherence to his rewritten Bible has already thwarted 8 significant terrorist plots, including, projected victories by the Democratic Party in both the 2002 mid term election; and the 2004 general election. Bush said intelligence sources have already uncovered the beginnings of a similar plot in this year’s 2006 mid term election.

Former secretary of state, 4 star general Colin Powell said the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for our fight against terrorism. "To change common commandment articles numbers 1 thru’ 10 would only add to those doubts, as well as put our troops at risk," Powell said.

But Bush fought back saying, “Today, the JAG - that’s the Jesus Advocate General - supported my proposal.” The JAG in question could not be reached for comment. His personal assistant told us he had gone searching for three relatively smooth tablets of stone; two for Bush to write his new common Commandment articles on; the third for the assistant to sculpt a replica of Bush’s commandment articles to place in his JAG's court room.

The resident in chief presented a draft of his proposed changes…

The first common Commandment article will now read; Thou shalt have no other Gods before GWB and any high priest in the GOP.

Common Commandment article #2 will now read; "There will be no further insults directed towards George W. Bush. Thou shalt not take his name, his incompetence, his ignorance, his arrogance or his criminality in vain."

The third common Commandment article will now read "Keep holy any day on which George W. Bush is president."

Common Commandment article #4 will now read "Honor thy father and they mother; unless of course, they give you advice that doesn’t suit your political agenda. In those cases, refer to a "higher parent."

Common Commandment article #5 will read "Thou shalt now kill with impunity and with regularity." (Don’t worry, if you attach it to terrorism, God will understand. And so will the old guy up in heaven.)

Common Commandment article #6 will read "Thou shalt not commit adultery unless of course you are a republican lawmaker and A) you are a former action film star and your wife is a Democrat; and B) if your wife is in the hospital with cancer and your intern has bigger boobs."

Common Commandment article #7 will now read "Thou shalt not steal, unless of course it is from the middle class and the poor and you turn said contraband over to some CEO who has no need for it at all."

Common Commandment article #8 will read "Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor, unless of course A) the truth will not garner the neighbor's support for such policies as the invasion and occupation of one of the richest oil countries in the Middle East; and B) if you are a republican and you wish to be elected.

Common Commandment article #9 will read "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife unless of course A) you are a former action film star and your wife is a Democrat; and B) if your wife is in the hospital with cancer and your intern has bigger boobs."

And finally, common Commandment article #10 will read "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s Goods, unless of course your neighbor is A) a member of either the middle or lower class, B) a Democrat, or C) anyone who realizes how insane, lawless and criminal we are to want to clarify or redefine the law whenever political expediency and convenience demands we break it."

When George W. Bush was asked if he had consulted with his father on his proposed changes to the Holy Bible's premiere Commandments, he replied, “Who do you think told me to change them?" After pausing for a moment, he added "Oh… you meant my DAD? I thought you were talking about my "higher Father." Laff laff laff laff laff."

Advice to "weak on terror" Democrats

2006-08-13T21:19:00.000-07:00

I am absolutely amazed at how the Bush administration, their supporters and the media are trying to use this alleged foiled airplane plot in Great Britain to somehow validate the Bush administration's failures in a) Afghanistan, b) Iraq, and c) the war on terror. First of all, one of their stock buzz phrases to justify their multiple failures is that “We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.” Hello. This alleged foiled plot was over here.

Secondly, in yet another attempt to validate their failures, the Bush administration said yesterday that this foiled airplane plot has “an al-Qaeda foot print.” Please. These ass-clowns in the Bush administration have proven repeatedly that they absolutely have no clue (or just don’t care) when it comes to anything involving al-Qaeda and its history, motivations or grievances. The Bushites have also shown a deplorable inability to properly identify and define such things as terrorism, terror and terrorists. Quick example - Bush loves to remind us that “We’re at war!” And yet, when our soldiers go out on a mission in Iraq, and Iraqis fight back (which I do believe is standard and accepted behavior in a war, yes?) all of a sudden, they’re “terrorists?!” And we're now expected to tremble in fear and bow to the Bush administration’s wisdom and insight because they say this alleged foiled airplane plot has an al-Qaeda “foot print?” If we are that gullible, we deserve to be lied to.

And of course we know why they said that - because of the connotation and stigma attached to al-Qaeda. When most Americans hear the word al-Qaeda, they think of 9-11. They think of terror. They think of the war on terror. All three of which, the Bush administration is still desperate to link to the Iraq disaster, to reverse their unpopularity, and stop their free fall into political oblivion and hopefully, jail.

But here's the bottom line. Even if you ignore the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" canard; even if we concede that this plot didn't just have an alleged al-Qaeda foot print, but was actually a legitimate al-Qaeda plot – what the Hell does that have to do with who we're fighting “over there” in Iraq. We are not and have not been fighting Islamic Jihadists who want to blow airplanes out of the sky in Iraq. For over three years now - “over there” - we've been fighting a bunch of Iraqi citizens who don't like being occupied, raped, tortured and killed. That hardly makes them Islamic Jihadists.

Thirdly, doesn’t this foiled airplane plot prove very concisely what a failure George W. Bush’s war on terror has been? And not by just our definition, but by his as well? Consider the number of times Bush has told us that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. You and I know that’s not true, but that’s what he says. Can anyone explain to me what the Hell good having 150,000 troops in Iraq is going to do when you have 20 or so whack jobs in Britain supposedly planning on blowing up airplanes?

And for any wise-ass right wing nut who might ask, “Are you saying we should send 150,000 American troops into Great Britain?”, the response should be, “Of course not, because then, instead of having 20 or so whack jobs plotting to blow up airplanes, you’d then have 20 thousand whack jobs planning to blow up planes." Put another way - the idiotic war on terror does not eliminate terror, it gives birth to terrorists, especially when you invade and occupy a country that did not allow radical Islamism to flourish, but rather did everything in its power to crush it before it had a chance to ferment and develop into a threat to Saddam Hussein’s regime.

And can anyone also explain what “staying the course” in Iraq is going to do to prevent future whack jobs in Britain or in any other country from plotting to blow up airplanes? And has anyone considered… that maybe this airplane plot in Britain, if it is legitimate, is just the predictable result and just the price you have to pay when you do have 150,000 troops in Iraq that have been killing Muslims for 3 ½ years now?

Or maybe plots like this are just the predictable result, or just the price you have to pay, for brainwashing the general public into submission and dutiful obedience by spoon feeding them more than generous doses of terror, terrorist, terrorism, and war on terror rhetoric day after day after hour after minute. And quite often, for no other reason than to a) justify an unnecessary, impeachable war that has nothing to do with an already idiotic war on terror; and b) when you want to disparage your political opponent, as in, they're soft of the war on terror; they don't get the war on terror; trust us to fight the war on terror; up next - a war on terror update. Terror this, terror that - terror, terror - all the time, wall to wall terror!
Who knows - maybe the terror, terrorist, terrorism, war on terror brainwashing just worked in reverse this time, and instead of turning these British lads into fearful, subservient, mindless minions who see a terrorist behind every Bush, and think that every person who practices Islam is a terrorist; maybe this time, the brainwashing had the reverse effect and turned them into terrorists or at least, terrorist wannabees – could that be a possibility?

But the bottom line is this; the right wing massive, media, misinformation machine has already shifted into high gear to tie this alleged foiled airplane plot in Great Britain to Joe Lieberman’s loss in Connecticut and to the message they’d already planned on using in this year’s election, namely, that Democrats are weak on terror; weak on defense; cutters and runners; retreaters and defeaters; and have forgotten the lessons of 9-11.

You’ve already heard what the media’s been calling this alleged foiled plot ever since the story broke yesterday… 9-11 two, or a second 9-11. They are also now saying that if the Lamont/Lieberman primary had been scheduled for next week instead of this week, Lieberman would’ve won, because he “gets” the war on terror. And of course, you and I both know Connecticut’s main beef with Joe Lieberman was not Joe’s “getting” the war on terror - it was Lieberman’s “not getting” the war in Iraq. And yes, Virginia, there is a difference. There is a huge difference.

And this huge difference now becomes the key for Democrats. The only way the right can tie the airplane plot to Joe Lieberman to their war on terror to Democrats being weak on terror is by doing what they’ve been doing since the day they decided to make their long held plans to invade Iraq public. They must continue to dishonestly fuse their generally accepted as legitimate (not by me, but by America as a whole) war on terror with their illegitimate dishonest, impeachable invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And they will succeed in their goals unless Democrats mount a strong counter offensive that states very strongly that Iraq is not, and never has been part of the GOP’s war on terror. If Democrats are not yet willing to take my lead and expose the war on terror for the failed and doomed exercise it was from the beginning, they at least have to make a clear and strong distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They need to make a clear and strong distinction between Islamic terrorists and Iraqi insurgents and/or guerilla fighters.

When they’re accused of being weak on terror because of Iraq; they must respond with words to the effect of “We haven’t been fighting terrorists in Iraq. We’re fighting Iraqis who resent being invaded, occupied, raped, tortured and killed.”

And when they’re accused of being weak on defense, they must respond with words to the effect of “Excuse me? Weak on defense? How about being honest and facing reality after 3 ½ long, deadly years. The United States was never in need of defense from Iraq. In fact, the only Americans who do need defending from Iraq, are our poor soldiers in Iraq who have been caught in the middle of a civil war because of the short sightedness and ignorance of the man who sent (lied) them into the war in the first place – George W. Bush.”

The rabid right will be marching in lock step with their “weak on terror” and “weak on defense” talking points, which per usual, will be based on dishonesty. Democrats must immediately respond in kind with their own unified talking points, which as per usual, will be based in both honesty and reality.

I suggest they try the ones I’ve offered in this column.

Operation Swarmer?

2006-03-16T17:24:00.001-08:00

What the Hell can you say about a president and a political party whose primary foreign policy "doctrine" - namely Hitleresque, preemptive WAR - turns out to be a miserable failure, and yet, 3 years after their deadly, doctrine proves to be a miserable failure, they come out and re-affirm it?

But that's what happened today. If we needed a reminder that these cowardly, war mongers in the Bush administration are still entertaining the thought of starting another ill advised, unnecessary war; earlier today, we were treated to the news that George W. Bush was reasserting and reaffiring his "doctrine" of preemptive war. And one has to almost wonder - at this stage of the game, does it even really matter, anymore? Will the American people continue to put up with this deadly nonsense? Will they forget what they've obviously learned that has sent George W. Bush's approval ratings into the toilet, or will they once again let fear rule the day and somehow once again throw their support behind this maniacal, incompetent, demonic, "bomb now, ask questions later" Bush loon. I suppose time will tell.

And get this. Not only are Bush and his White House reaffirming their pre-emtpive war lunacy, they are also now saying Iraq was not a pre-emptive war. Why? Because of 12 years of diplomacy before Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq 3 years ago this coming Sunday, (which also just so happens to be wife's birthday. )

And I guess we shouldn't be too surprised. After having observed these blood-thirsty ass clowns in the Bush administration for the past 5 years, who can really even raise an eyebrow anymore when you see them equate 12 years of almost daily bombing of a country with diplomacy. For these people bombing the living bejesus out of a country is tantamount to spreading freedom and democracy, why wouldn't bombing the Hell out of a country be tantamount to diplomacy? And of course, the sad reality is, diplomacy is nowhere near as profitable as is war.

And speaking of bombing the Hell out of a country, today, we were also treated to Operation Swarmer. The largest air assault since the war began. Which also means the largest "major combat operation" since Bush declared "major combat operations" were over, again, almost 3
years ago. The impetus for operation swarmer? The discovery of more and more dead bodies - victims of sectarian unrest and violence. So Bush's solution to finding more and more dead bodies? Go and create more and more dead bodies, now that will win the hearts and minds of the Muslim people, now wont' it?

Rumor also has it the reasons for today's new assault was to bolster support for the whole Iraq endeavor. It this is true, what does it say about this administration's opinion of the American people that another senseless blood bath will incur their favor. And what does it say about us, the American people... if they're right?

And who knows. Maybe this Operation Swarmer is just nothing more than this administration's sick, twisted way of celebrating the 3 year anniversary of their invasion of Iraq. Instead of a traditional placing of candles on top of a cake and blowing them out, they'd prefer to turn an entire city into a giant candle and blow it out instead.

And then we learn that the media wasn't invited to participate in Operation Swarmer, which begs the question - why not? And the answer is of course, simple. When you're about to engage in the biggest war crime in 3 years of war crimes, do you really want someone there recording your war crimes for posterity? Probably not. Now of course, the Bush administration's reason for not allowing the media was "operational hazard." Which I believe to be true. Allowing the media to accompany Bush's crusaders of death could certainly be hazardous to Bush's continuing ability to operate.

All of which just demands an answer to the question... could a national leader be more wrong; be more incompetent; be more dangerous; be more impeachable... than George W. Bush?

Methinks not.

Dubai, or not Dubai

2006-02-24T01:22:00.000-08:00

Couple quick comments on the hottest story of the day, and perhaps the week and month - this whole ports security issue. What amazes me is that all of a sudden people are outraged because the Bush administration wants to sell the company that leases terminals in American ports to a Muslim company. Well pardon me, but where was the outrage before this pending deal was announced over what we've known to be the real reality for months and months and months now - namely, that less than 5% of the cargo coming into these ports is even inspected. Hello...

This is the post 9-11 president... this is the national security president... this is the war on terror president... this is the president who wants to keep America SO safe - he feels completely justified in breaking the law to spy on American citizens TO keep us safe... this is a man who has built his entire, bogus, illegitimate presidency, reputation and legacy by exploiting the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9-11, 2001, and by telling us he'd make sure it never happened again. And yet, post 9-11, under the post 9-11 president, less than 5% of our cargo is inspected. Hello...

And my point here simply is. This illiterate, embarrassing Bush buffoon was a failure in the ports department long before this deal was announced. Why wasn't there any outrage then? George W. Bush has been a miserable failure every day for five years now, and there hasn't been this level of outrage. Why? The answer of course, is simple. The majority of the American people simply did not know that less than 5% of our cargo was inspected, and I'd be willing to bet that even in light of this recent ports controversy, most of them still don't know. As well, the majority of the American people are also not aware of what a colossal failure George W. Bush has truly been. And WHY don't they know all this good stuff? Hey! It's the media, stupid.

And while we're on the subject - George W. Bush is not just a failure, but rather - to anyone with even a half-way open mind - to all intents and purposes, Geo. W. Bush is the consummate failure. If he has been successful at anything, it's been in further inflaming Muslim hatred of America and Americans and escalating it to a fever pitch. As fate would have it, he has added another feather to his Muslim inflammation hat with this stupid port security story. With all the resistance that has been voiced thus far to the Dubai port deal, Muslims are now starting to feel like they're being even more discriminated against.

So, ironically, even when "too stupid to be president" comes out with another one of his administration's hair brained ideas, and this time, one that could be construed as trying to mend Muslim fences, (and I say could only in the context of "if you weren't aware of the corrupt cronyism that runs rampant throughout this administration - and that's what this ports deal is all about - what the Hell - that's what this whole presidency has been about), but even when something could be construed as trying to mend fences, even then, the ultimate result is to further inflame Muslim hatred of America and Americans.

And by now you've heard the latest Bush administration justification for this port deal. "It's all about winning the hearts and minds of those people, (namely Muslims), that we need on our side in the war on terror. Hey George, you really wanna' win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world? Stop invading countries that had nothing to do with 9-11 in the name of 9-11, and killing countless thousands of innocent Muslims. That would probably go a lot further than selling the company that leases terminals in America ports to a Muslim country.

And none of this touches on what is potentially the most interesting element of this whole ports story is that once again, George W. Bushler and/or his neo-fascist administration has ignored, spit on and broken the law. The NY Times reported today that under a 1993 amendment to existing foreign investment law, the U.S. government is required to conduct a mandatory 45-day investigation if the investing company is owned and/or controlled by a foreign government. The key word here is mandatory. During this period, Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation department officials, along with the National Security Council and others, would get to put the deal under a microscope, ultimately reporting its findings back to the president. And, Congress would also have the opportunity to more deeply vet the transaction. Not that at the end of the day the result would be any different, but that's not the point. It looks to me that the Bush administration is required by law allow a 45 day investigation period. They did not. Therefore, did they not break the law? Again?

And as far as the Democrats are concerned, I can only view this as yet one more missed opportunity. This would've been the perfect opportunity for them to echo my words and say "You see We told you George W. Bush's war on terror was a sham, a scam and a lie." But they cannot say that, as they have bought into the republican conceived, implemented and dictated war on terror lock, stock and barrel. That aside, they still could've used this port deal to say "Maybe this isn't such a good idea due to the extreme hatred of America and Americans this administration has fueled and fostered." But they haven't said that either, not are they likely to. Instead, they've taken this issue and done the same thing with it they did with Iraq in the last election. They painted themselves as being even more republican than the republican party. With Iraq, rather than focusing on the illegality of it and the lies that led up to it, they said essentially that there was nothing wrong with the war in Iraq, it was just that the Bush administration wasn't conducting it properly, and of course, the Democrats would conduct it properly.

And so it is with the ports situation. It's not that there's anything wrong with George W. Bush's war on terror. It's just that he's not conducting it properly, evidenced by this impending ports sale. They're still for this idiotic war on terror. It's just that they'll conduct it differently.

Reality check, Democrats. There is no better way to fight these 2 wars, one of which is unjust and unjustifiable because it was predicated on lies, (as in Iraq), and the other of which is nothing more than a fear mongering tool to frighten and control the citizenry, (as in the war on terror.) You're not going to grab my attention - at least not positively - when the best you can come up with is you'll do a better job with the same misguided, idiotic policies. No. When it comes to idiotic policies, no-one can do a better job. And no-one should want to. And the only job you should be saying you'll do on these idiotic policies is eliminate them.

Couple of Must Reads!

2006-02-08T02:54:00.000-08:00

Firstly, former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts latest.

Who Will Save America?

Entire article here. Here's a couple excerpts...

A number of readers have asked me when did I undergo my epiphany, abandon right-wing Reaganism and become an apostle of truth and justice. When I saw that the neoconservative response to 9/11 was to turn a war against stateless terrorism into military attacks on Muslim states, I realized that the Bush administration was committing a strategic blunder with open-ended disastrous consequences for the US that, in the end, would destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.

...The TV networks mimic Fox News' faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda. The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

...Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation. Other readers write that 9/11 shields Bush from accountability, They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government's story on 9/11 remains unchallenged. They could be right. There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.

Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry

Entire article here. Here's a couple excerpts...

A House Republican whose subcommittee oversees the National Security Agency broke ranks with the White House on Tuesday and called for a full Congressional inquiry into the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

The lawmaker, Representative Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, chairwoman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, said in an interview that she had "serious concerns" about the surveillance program. By withholding information about its operations from many lawmakers, she said, the administration has deepened her apprehension about whom the agency is monitoring and why.

Altorturo Gonzo Revisited

2006-02-07T13:00:00.000-08:00

What can you say about a political party when hearings are being held to see if their head guy (as in George W. Bush - the acting president of an entire country) is guilty of breaking the law - and this political party refuses to allow the very first witness (in this case, the head guy’s former attorney as in Altorturo Gonzo) to be sworn in and testify under oath.

Arlen Specter, the committee chairman, was sporting his new post-chemo comb over, (and I’m being unnecessarily unkind here; actually, Senator Specter looked good today, and I was glad to see him looking good) but here’s where your free pass ends, Arlen.

You didn’t see the light on stem cell research until you got sick. It didn’t matter how many children would die and never live to enjoy the long, pampered life you have for illnesses that might be helped thru’ stem cell research. It didn’t matter until you got cancer, and all of a sudden you thought it was going to be you that might die. Ahhh - then suddenly you saw the light of your ensconced, selfish republican ways and you started to support stem cell research.

And I was really hoping this wasn’t just another republican act of brazen self service. I truly hoped you had seen the error of your selfish, republican ways, and had maybe turned over a new leaf. But then we came to today. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you had the power today to help even more young children by helping to slow down, further expose, and potentially even terminate a criminal administration that thinks nothing of sacrificing these young children’s older brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers in their corporate carnages they proudly call war.

So what do you do? Do you think of the young children? Of course not, just like you didn’t when it came to stem cell research. Chances are you're not gonna’ die if this administration continues to kill more of your fellow American citizens and your fellow global citizens. You're not gonna’ die - at least not from being sent to FIGHT in one of their wars - so why bother swearing in Attorney General Altorturo Gonzo so that he wouldn’t just be lying, but lying under oath.

Be careful, Arlen. Don’t get too attached to that new hair do. Perhaps that disease of yours we both hope is in remission isn’t really in remission at all. Personally? If I were in your shoes, I’d feel a whole lot better if I’d made the right decision today instead of a partisan decision. (Did you like that, Senator? That was the best impression I could come up with of Jerry Falwell.)

So Specter made the decision that Attorney General Gonzo would not be sworn in and then it was put to a vote to see who supported Specter’s decision. Every republican on the committee voted to uphold Specter’s decision to not put Gonzo under oath. And did you see it folks? Many of those republican senators either hung their heads or refused to look up as they cast their 'yes'
votes. What does that tell you folks? It tells you that these people know that no matter how much they proclaim to be the party of morals and family values, in reality they have none. It shows you they know their claim to the party of Christianity is also a sham and a lie. It shows you they know that their case is weak and that George W. Bush broke the law. And it shows me that they are only too well aware that they are every bit the inherent and shameless liars this show tries to point out on a nightly basis. What an abomination.

And did you hear the reason the republicans on the Judiciary Committee did NOT think… Attorney General Altorturo Gonzo should have to testify under oath? Because it was… disrespectful… to ask him too. Excuse me? #1) So now we’re supposed to respect people who are suspected of breaking the law - because they’re republicans? And #2) Tell me one thing Altorturo Gonzo or ANY-body in this squalid Bush administration has done to warrant respect.

Taking just this NSA scandal for example. Warrantless eavesdropping doesn’t warrant respect. Lying to the American people and the entire world in order to garner support for an unnecessary war doesn’t garner respect. Giving obscene tax cuts for the country’s biggest earners doesn’t earn respect. And being a deluded republican who thinks God wants him to govern, and doesn’t mind how many people you kill while you are governing certainly doesn’t get you respect. So why then do republicans think we owe this... respect?

Because they’re the president and his Attorney General? Sure as Hell not legitimately. And even if they were legitimate; have they forgotten how they treated the last legitimately elected president and his attorney general? Where was this obligatory respect then? And herein lies the difference, the disconnect, and the theocratic sense of entitlement Republicans delude themselves into believing they possess. Bill Clinton wasn’t chosen by God - therefore it was the republican’s obligation to God - to ensure that Bill Clinton would not enjoy one peaceful night’s sleep for the entire 8 years he was in - not his house - not the American peoples house -but in their house - the house God himself wants them to inhabit.

And besides, how can anyone possibly have any respect for someone who says something as inherently stupid as this.

Now help me out here. How many Presidents have we had with the last name of Washington? One, right? George Washington? And he was president from 1789 to 1797? Now help me out again here. How much electronic anything was available back in 1797? But Attorney General Altorturo Gonzo just told us that George Washington used electronic surveillance on a far greater scale than has George W. Bush.

#1) What’s wrong with this picture #2) Can there be any doubt why George W. Bush and Gonzo are such close friends? If you took the smartest portions of both their brains and combined them into one brain - you'd still have a festering, lying idiot.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin Nails it Again

2006-02-07T01:37:00.000-08:00

RISE OF THE FOURTH REICH?
By Pastor Chuck Baldwin February 7, 2006

[FYI, Chuck Baldwin is a conservative Christian, hosts his own conservative talk radio show, and is as right wing as they come. For his complete bio, click here. Entire column available here.]

... as a student of both the Bible and history, I believe we in America are living in times that are eerily reminiscent of the days leading up to the rise of the Third Reich. If after reviewing this thesis, the reader wants to dismiss its conclusions as insipid and irrelevant, he or she is certainly free to do so.

...In the case of Nazi Germany, it was the German churches first and foremost that failed their country. It was the churches that provided Hitler with moral and spiritual cover. It was the ministers and churches that allowed Hitler to seduce the nation.

... Hitler literally wrapped himself and the Nazi Party in the Cross of Jesus Christ. Even today, one can view photos from Nazi parades showing the Cross of Christ highlighted in the heart of the Nazi Swastika. In short order, Germany's pastors and churches were convinced that the Nazi Party was God's party and Hitler was God's man.

...By the time Hitler consolidated power and became Germany's Fuhrer, the Nazi Swastika was displayed proudly on the walls and halls of Germany's churches, both Catholic and Protestant. Germany's pastors often preached sermons supporting Hitler and the Nazi Party. They told their congregants that to support any other party or any other potential leader was to "fight against God." Very soon, congregants who refused to swear loyalty to Hitler were denied last rites and Holy Communion by Catholic priests, while Protestant pastors excommunicated such members. Romans chapter 13 was often quoted from Germany's pulpits as scriptural justification for demanding loyalty to Hitler.

...It seems clear to me that the attitudes and actions of Nazi Germany's ministers and churches are being repeated in the United States today. To a large degree, Evangelicals have wrapped the Cross of Christ in the banner of the Republican Party. They quote Romans chapter 13 to justify their unflinching, yes, even blind support for President Bush. They are willing to surrender their freedoms and liberties so that President Bush might protect them. Pictures of the president almost universally line the halls and walls of our churches, Christian schools, and pastors' offices. They castigate and denigrate in the most caustic terms anyone who dares to challenge or even question President Bush.

...They are willing to let the president lead them into multiple wars, even wars of aggression, based solely on Bush's word. They refuse to hold the president accountable to the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It seems to me that President Bush has taken on the aura of an American Fuhrer in the minds of many Evangelicals. Just how far are Evangelicals willing to allow Bush to go? They already support unbridled spying on American citizens. They have gladly surrendered their Fourth Amendment rights. Would they be willing to support the imprisonment of fellow Christians who don't support Bush if the Department of Homeland Security ordered it? I believe many would. And if so, how is that different from the attitudes of Christians in Nazi Germany?

Quote of the Week - Democratic Senator Russ Feingold

2006-02-06T13:36:00.000-08:00

"I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on."

"It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?"

US Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), on February 2, 2006

Feingold has been all over Attorney General Gonzo for "not being straight" with the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" [yeah, right] to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope [hope?]to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

When it comes to blatant, in your face dishonesty and deceit, these Bush republican flat-worlders are in a class all by themselves.

Kindergarden.

What? No Oath for Gonzales?!

2006-02-06T13:07:00.000-08:00

Crooks and Liars has the video.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University. He said today: "Alberto Gonzales has been claiming national security to avoid answering basic questions about the program. For example, when asked if he revealed information from the program to the FISA court, he refused to answer under the absurd claim that it was somehow sensitive information. It is a use of national security for purely political reasons....

"The Democrats are not asking basic follow-ups, like when Gonzales said today that the administration did not request an amendment to FISA because doing so would result in the ending of the program; no one asked if the program, since it has been disclosed, must now end.

"Fundamentally Gonzales is following the script of the white paper he released several weeks ago. The legal arguments are without merit. The administration is attempting to argue that the president is not bound by law; that is a concept entirely foreign to our system....

"Perhaps most astonishing is the unwillingness of the committee to place Gonzales under oath. During his confirmation hearings, Gonzales expressly denied that the president was asserting this authority. He did so when he knew that the president had exercised that very same authority."

Rats and a Sinking Ship?

2006-02-06T11:55:00.000-08:00

As hearings begin on President Bush's domestic spying program, increasing numbers of prominent conservatives are breaking with the administration to say the program is probably illegal and to sharply criticize Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's legal theory that a wartime president can override a law.

'Bout time.

Quick question on John Boehner

2006-02-06T00:46:00.000-08:00

Appearing on Meet the Press this morning, the GOP's new House leader said "I think we need to restore our trust between the Congress and the American people."

Quick question. When have the majority of the American people ever been able to trust the GOP? Their entire "morals and family values" ideology is based on a lie of mythical self-righteousness that laughably dismisses basic human nature. Lying is as second nature to republicans as butt licking is to a dog.

Come to think of it, that's not a bad analogy...

Be afraid folks - be very afraid

2006-02-05T23:57:00.000-08:00

Newsweek has a story in their February 13 edition that carries the headline "Can the President Order a Killing on U.S. Soil?"

...a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.

Which wouldn't be as frightening if this administration had shown even a rudimentary understanding of the words "terrorism," "terrorist," or "terror." They have not.

They like to keep telling us "We're at war." And yet when our troops are out on a mission, and the Iraqis fight back, the Iraqis are immediately and automatically referred to as "terrorists." They are not. They are simply fighting back against an invasion and occupation by a foreign country. And before you cite the equally insidious "foreign terrorist" lie - check here and here.

Terrorist, terrorism and terror have become nothing more than verbal bullets in the Bush administration's fear mongering gun.

So read between the lines, folks. Anyone who opposes the Bush administration and/or their misguided, criminal polices automatically becomes a "terrorist suspect" - whether they be an Iraqi in Iraq - or an American in America.

Again, be afraid - be very afraid.

Gosh, what a shock

2006-02-05T23:53:00.000-08:00

How many times did you hear a rabid right wing mouth piece say that Valerie Plame was just a desk jockey, and not a covert CIA agent? Newsweek is reporting in their February 13 edition...

...special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

Entire story here.

As I said, what a shock, I mean... really. I am just... speechless.

The party that supports the troops

2006-02-05T22:48:00.000-08:00

Just a couple odds and ends.

First we had our worst fears confirmed by Robert Burns - AP's military reporter - in a story that carried the headline Army stretched to Breaking Point, which miserably failed secretary of defense, Ronald Dumbsfailed immediately denied.

How's this for adding insult to injury? Wounded soldiers told they owe the army money?

Shameful folks... absolutely shameful.

The lastest Bush crime - the NSA warrantless eavesdropping

2006-02-05T22:19:00.000-08:00

Looks like the Washington Post is finally reporting what Insight Magazine reported back in their December 26, 2005 edition - Bush's "life saving" NSA warrantless eavesdropping program doesn't work - or at least not in the context Bush publicly declares it works - spying on "terrorists."

Methinks it works just dandy in the context I believe it is being used in - spying on George W. Bush's opponents, foes and enemies. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Certainly wouldn't be the first time, now would it?

Here's the Insight Magazine story.

Here's the Washington Post story from today.

The latest Downing Street Memo

2006-02-05T19:30:00.000-08:00

Britain's "The Guardian" reported it first on Thur. Feb. 2.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1700879,00.html

The Associated Press picked up on it Fri. Feb. 3.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/13783540.htm

Keith Olberman discussed it with Pat Buchanan on his Countdown Show on MSNBC.

Wonder how many more American media sources will mention it. David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org notes the media coverage thus far.

Uruknet.info had this to say about our esteemed Chimperor in Chief...

...Bush is so impeachable only Shakespeare can do it justice: "Judgement has fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason."
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20316&l=i&size=1&hd=0

Amen. So impeachable is right.

Super Bowl

2006-02-05T19:25:00.000-08:00

Yawn. Loved the Fed-Ex commercial. Also the football game commercial between the horses and the sheep with the "streaker." The cell phone spot was good too. Did you catch Stevie Wonder's prescient words at the end of the pre-game show? That we need to seek peace before we annihilate ourselves?

George W. Bush is not the answer. Peace is anathema to Bush. Just like honesty.

Congressman John Murtha's letter to George W. Bush

2006-02-05T01:18:00.000-08:00

I want to thank Carri in Sacramento for sending me a link to Congressman John Murtha’s letter to George W. Bush. Here it is in its entirety...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/01/murthas-letter-to-the-pr_n_14939.html

Now I have to tell you folks; as much as I admire and love Congressman John Murtha, I absolutely think this is the wrong approach for the Democratic Party to take. And I hear a lot of good progressive talking heads and even progressive radio talk show hosts taking the same approach, and I think they’re all wrong.

And as I’ve mentioned before, maybe I’m alone in my thinking on this. And maybe I’m wrong. If you think I am wrong, please do not hesitate to tell me. I would certainly concede my approach just might not be the most practical one at this stage of the game, considering how much the Democratic party has surrendered to he republican party on this issue, but that doesn’t change my thinking that my approach is the only honest approach, which ultimately might wind up being the most practical after all. Let's review what Murtha just said...

"Our country needs a vigorous and comprehensive strategy for victory against global terrorism. The architect of 9/11 is still out there but now has an international microphone. We must get back to the real issue at hand - we have to root out and destroy al-Qaeda's worldwide network."

Now here's what bothers me about this. Congressman Murtha – whether he believes it internally or not - at least publicly, in this letter, he's basing his entire premise on the official version - the George W. Bush and his administration official version - of 9-11.

Consider this.

These people haven’t told you the truth about anything in the past 5 years. Why on earth would you assume they’ve told you the entire truth about 9-11?

Secondly, even if for reasons that are well beyong my comprehension, you do buy into the official version of 9-11, it is my considered (and I would hope, well thought out opinion) that this is nothing more than delegitimizing one Bush administration sham, scam and lie - as in, their "war in Iraq" - by legitimizing another sham, scam and lie - as in, their "war on terror."

Remember - this whole “global war on terror” is the creation of George W. Bush and his administration. It didn’t exist until the GOP created it. And why do we have to accept anything these monstrous liars have created at face value? Why do we have to accept it as part of our very existence from now until Kingdom come just because the GOP has said it will be?

Like I’ve said so many times on this show; to this day, we have yet to have an honest, open, thoughtful and rational debate on the pros and cons of a "war on terror." And while I do realize that it may be too late to have such a debate on this topic, I can’t base my opinion on what I think is the most honest approach on what should have been done in the past.

Practicality aside; for an honest solution, I disagree vehemently with this approach that "Iraq has diverted us from the global war on terror." To me that’s the same as saying "The Bush administration’s Iraq sham, scam and lie has diverted us from the Bush administration’s war on terror sham, scam and lie." You are legitimizing one fraudulent lie in order to expose another fraudulent lie. I think it is a far better approach to expose the idiocy of both the Iraq and the War on Terror lies.

Democrats are finding it difficult to expose the Iraq failure (and the lies that led up to it) because they helped legitimize it. They are making the same mistake with the "war on terror." And before they develop as long a paper trail with the "war on terror" as they did with the war in Iraq, I would rather see them start challenging the entire premise of the GOP mandated, defined and dictated "war on terror."

This is why I have never jumped on the "Where's Osama" or the "Iraq has distracted us from the 'war on terror' " bandwagon. I refuse to legitimize the illegitimate, as well as provide the fear mongering right with more ammunition to justify their infringement on our civil liberties and their criminality on eavesdropping on America citizens, by allowing them to say, "The 'war on terror' is important. Even the Democrats have said so."

Not it is not. The "war on terror" is just another GOP manufactured crisis. "Terrorism" is an under-funded, under-supported, unpopular, fringe movement. The "war on terror" is a scam, sham and a lie. And it's high time Democrats started calling it what it is, like they should have done with Iraq.

On Mike Malloy being dropped from AA's flagship station WLIB in New York

2006-02-04T20:32:00.000-08:00

I became aware of Mike just as his gig with the IE America network was coming to a close. And I was a little shocked the first time I listened to Mike to discover he opened his show by addressing his audience as truth seekers - like I did - and closed his show by saying "Take care" - again, like I did. I decided to drop the truth seekers, as I was certain he’d been using that far longer than I had. "Take care" I felt was innocuous enough for two people to use.

I received an email from Brian in New Hampshire on Friday - the night we rebroadcast our interview with operation Iraqi freedom veteran Specialist Douglas Barber who committed suicide one month after our interview with him - and in the email, Brian said he’d just heard that Air America was removing Mike’s show from their flag ship station in New York, WLIB. Now apparently, Mike would still be heard on Air America affiliates around the country, but not on their flagship station in New York.

Now because I didn’t have to prep for my own show on Friday (because we were doing a rebroadcast), I tuned into Air America on my computer and listened to Mike’s show. And if I am not mistaken, Mike said that in order to raise money, air America had sold Mike’s time to ABC.

And of course the first think that crossed my mind was, "Oh, that would be the same ABC that recently rewarded the despicable Sean Hasn’t Any with a 25 million dollar a year contract. " Kind of reminded me of when the local Fox News station bought my first hour here in Las Vegas on my last station.

And the thing you have to keep in mind here is, Mike Malloy won the Best Talk Show Host in New York last year. But now his air time in New York, has been sold to Sean Hasn’t Any’s ABC?

Mike Malloy is the best progressive talk show host in the United States, and he is my favorite talk show host - bar none. And the first question is; why in the Hell is Air America so desperate for money that they’d sell the air time of an award winning talk show host? Does the progressive community STILL not get it? Have they STILL… not realized… that "it’s the media, stupid?"

Does the progressive community still not realize that the biggest danger this nation faces today is the huge disparity in the media? In his appearance on our show, Air America founder Sheldon Drobny recounted the "We don't do media" excuses he received when he was seeking initial funding for Air America. Well guess what, progressives? If you don't do media, the media will do you (can anyone say "Swift Boat Liars?")

This is disgraceful, folks. Simply, and profoundly disgraceful.

Bush's State of the Union

2006-02-04T20:07:00.000-08:00

To me, this was nothing more than more right wing fear mongering, war mongering, 9-11 exploitation, more attempts to sqelch dissent and paint dissent as being unpatriotic, more dishonesty, and more, quite frankly, idiocy, when Bush said "enemies of freedom." My God. I was more impressed with republican Lincoln Chaffee's vote to not confirm Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court today... than I was by George W. Bush's entire speech.

And speaking of Bush - to paraphrase an old saying - never before has so much (as in applause) been given to so very, VERY little (as in George W. Bush - and everything he said).

Which reminds me. Did you notice the rabid right in the audience? They looked more like they were attending an Amway meeting than they did a State of the Union speech. And every time their sponsor (Bush) drew another "possibility circle" (not likely circle, but remote possible circle) they all jumped to their feet as if they would be the next person to go double diamond.

One thing I must say. Can anything better make the case for preparation and rehearsal better than George W. Bush's State of the Union speech tonight? He didn't look maniacal, as he has been prone to lately. He flubbed very few lines and his delivery was relatively smoothe. It was still your typical shallow, meaningless republican rhetoric and lies, but his delivery of that rhetoric and those lies was pretty smoothe.

And I have a question for you. Is Ben Nelson, the Dem. Senator from Nebraska... Zell Miller's secret, illegitimate, bastard love child? You talk about going 0 for 3. Yesterday Nelson voted to end the debate or fillibuster of now Justice Samuel Alito. Today he voted to confirm Alito the the Supreme Court. Which brings us to the State of the Union. At one point in his speech, Bush asked Congress to renew the Patriot Act. The rabid right "civil liberties be damned" crowd immediately leapt to their feet, just as if their Amway sponsor had just yelled "I'm going double diamond,"and the Democrats - and rightfully so - sat on their hands and offered NO applause. Except... for Ben Nelson, perhaps the most isolated politician in Washington next to George W. Bush. When Bush mentioned the Patriot Act, not only did Ben Nelson "put his hands together" - "gave it up" for the combination George W. Bush and Patriot Act abominations, he rose to his feet and gave the liar in chief the same standing ovation republicans were giving him.

And as you might expect, that act did not go unnoticed by one particular member of the opportunistic conservative corporate controlled media. In their post SOU show, Ben Nelson was interviewed on Fox News.

And I don't know what sickened me more - George W. Bush's fear mongering and war mongering state of the union, or the Democratic "we have to work together" rebuttal speech, delivered by Tim Kaine, the relatively new governor of Virgina. Personally, I don't think he was ready. He looked more like the interior decorator for the room in which he spoke than he did a Democratic spokesperson. which might explain the buzz on the internet in the lead up to tonight's speech and rebuttal. Many Democrat grass roots activists wanted the Democratic rebuttal to be given by Congressman John Murtha.

One part of the SOU that did concern me came when George W. Bush took a moment to address the citizens of Iran directly, and he told them how much he respected them. That's the exact same thing he said to the Iraqi people in his SOU of 2003, shortly before he invaded their country and started killing them indiscriminately. In other words, be afraid Iran... be very afraid. George W. Bush... respects you.

Two glaring omissions from Bush's speech. I didn't hear one word about 2 important things. Two CRITICAL things... two things that minus reform... this country is done like dinner. #1) Election reform, and #2) Media reform. Which begs the question that the right wing brain dead faithful never seem able to formulate in their own minds. If the media truly is as liberal and anti-republican and anti-George W. Bush as all republicans say it is, why is it that no right winger never calls for any sort of mainstream media reform? And of course the answer is simple. to call for election reform, (at least to the extent it became a serious issue, and not just their regular, daily "liberal media" whining), would call attention to who actually owns the media - which would prove what liars the right were each and every time they call the media liberal.

And to this day, I hear rabid right wingers call conservative talk radio and whine about how the left tried to steal the 2000 election - the 2002 election - and the 2004 election. If that were true, why hasn't the republican controlled government called for any, again, serious election reform. And the answer is the same as the one to the media question. To call for election reform just might reveal who owns the companies that manufacture and program the voting machines, and expose their "stolen election" accusations for the blatant lies they are as well.

The man who conned Oprah

2006-02-04T19:58:00.000-08:00

Let's talk about James Frey… the man, as the media has been telling us ad nauseum… the man… who conned Oprah. Now there's a topic that’s going to make America less a nazi dictatorship and more the democracy our founding fathers visualized.

Isn’t it just astonishing how much time the media is willing to devote to a man who conned one of this country’s entertainers – Oprah Winfrey - and how little time they’re willing to devote to the man who conned the entire damn country, George W. Bush? My God. Altho’ I did have to give Greta Van Susteren credit here. At least GRETA didn’t spend her whole show reporting on James and Oprah – Uh uh. Greta gave us all a Natalie Holloway update.

And I couldn’t help but wonder… is America’s collective reputation irreparably damaged in the eyes of the global community because of how this James Frey lied to Oprah, like it has been irreparably damaged over the way George W. Bush lied to America and the entire world as well?

And I also have to wonder how many people died because of the lies this James Frey told Oprah Winfrey, compared to how many have died over the lies George W. Bush’s told America and the entire world.

And I couldn’t help but notice, the media didn’t even need a "semen stain" factor to obsess over this James Frey/Oprah story. So… why is this such a compelling news story? Answer - because this story features a big name entertainer everybody is familiar with, this story serves as a fluff piece the 24/7 news networks can portray as being of interest of all of America, and sadly, they’re right. The average American citizen would much rather hear a story about Oprah Winfrey than one that deals with the little understood world of politics or government.

A story like this ALSO provides the 24/7 news business with their own distractive story so that they don’t have to talk about the real con job of the century - George W. Bush and his repugnant, criminal, impeachable administration. But we shouldn’t be too hard on this James Frey and Oprah Winfrey here. If it wasn’t an Oprah story, it’d be a Michael Jackson story, or a Natalie Holloway story, or a Scott Peterson story… etc. etc. etc. Anything to avoid reporting not only real news… but the truth about the real news. And if all else fails, why then, why not have good old boy Charlie Daniels sing us a go to war, patriotic song, huh?