It looks like Karl Rove is not the only one who can't remember who he was interviewed by and when. It turns out that Bush's nominee for the UN position has an equally faulty memory.
Bolton had failed to tell Congress that he had been questioned by a joint 2003 CIA and State Department inquiry into the faulty pre-war intelligence on yellow cake coming from Niger. In a statement to Congress, Bolton wrote that he had not been questioned in front of a grand jury or been interviewed by investigators in any inquiry over the past five years. Oops!
As we all know, the joint inquiry by the CIA and the State Department was no small matter. Either way, if he forgot, or tried to mislead Congress, it is not a good sign of Bolton's abilities. Hopefully, this will put a slow down on Bush's push to sidestep Congress and put Bolton in using a recess appointment.
State Dept. Now Says Bolton Interviewed
White House Hints at Installing Bolton
Friday, July 29, 2005
A Step in the Right Direction
Senator Frist has broken with Bush and has decided to endorse expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I applaud his decision not to pander to his base, and do what he believes, as a physician, is the right thing to do. Pragmatically, Frist has come to see that the embryos that would be used in such scientific pursuit would be discarded and destroyed regardless of their non-use in research.
It is narrow mindedness that compels groups, like the Christian Defense Coalition, to publicly condemned Frist for his decision.
Whether you believe life to begin at conception, at birth, or anywhere in between, an embryo that is destroyed is a lost opportunity to make the lives of millions of Americans better. Being pro-life should mean that you are as equally concerned about those suffering from potentially curable diseases as you are fertilized embryos.
A full two-thirds of the American populous believe that the Bush administration has been too restrictive in this area. While this may be a political move for Frist's 2008 presidential bid, it is also the right thing to do for the American people.
It is narrow mindedness that compels groups, like the Christian Defense Coalition, to publicly condemned Frist for his decision.
The Christian Defense Coalition says Sen. Bill Frist can no longer consider himself pro-life and vote to expand funding for embryonic stem cell research. The Coalition also states, Sen. First should not expect support and endorsement from the pro-life community if he votes for embryonic research funding.
Whether you believe life to begin at conception, at birth, or anywhere in between, an embryo that is destroyed is a lost opportunity to make the lives of millions of Americans better. Being pro-life should mean that you are as equally concerned about those suffering from potentially curable diseases as you are fertilized embryos.
A full two-thirds of the American populous believe that the Bush administration has been too restrictive in this area. While this may be a political move for Frist's 2008 presidential bid, it is also the right thing to do for the American people.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Swift Boat is Here to Stay
It looks like Republicans just can't stop smearing people in any way that they can. A Republican from the Ohio 2nd District started spreading blog rumors that Paul Hackett, the Democratic nominee and Iraq war vet, is lying and did not actually serve in Iraq with the marines. It goes to show their mantra... if you can't beat 'em, smear 'em.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Independent Panel Notes Poor Planning by Bush
A bi-partisan panel concluded that the chaos seen now in Iraq is due to poor post war planning by the Bush administration. This includes lack of troops, lack of adequate training, and misuse and under-estimation of the reconstruction costs.
basically, no surprises
Panel: Bush Was Unready for Postwar Iraq
basically, no surprises
Panel: Bush Was Unready for Postwar Iraq
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
The 18 Minute Gap
Yesterday, it was reveled that then White House General Counsel, Alberto Gonzales, informed White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, about the newly created inquiry into the Plame/CIA leak a full 12 hours before informing the rest of the staff that all documents must be retained. Some are likening this to the 18 minute gap on tapes turned over by Nixon.
Now, you may say, "but Dingo, what is the big deal?" Well, in legal matters, that 12 hours is a huge deal. As we have recently seen from the Supreme Court Ruling on the Anderson Accounting case, that 12 hours could play a determining role in the investigation.
When the Justice Department opens an investigation into any matter, once they have notified the entity that they are investigating, that entity must cease and desist destruction of any and all documents related to that issue. Notification changes the deletion of an e-mail from an innocent click of the mouse to a federal crime. The fact that Gonzales gave Andrew Card a 12 hour heads up on the pending notification may have allowed important documents to be destroyed before the staff was 'officially' notified that they had to retain all.
It may just be an innocent "I'll do it in the morning" on Gonzales's part, put he should have never told Andrew Card that the next morning would bring an order to hold all material. It only adds to the credibility problems the White House is already besieged with.
Aide Got Early Word on CIA Leak Inquiry
By Leslie Hoffecker, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was notified about 12 hours before the rest of the White House staff that the Justice Department had begun an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's name, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said Sunday.
It was not known whether Card informed any other White House staff members before they were formally told of the investigation the next morning. The White House has repeatedly said it will have no comment on the specifics of the continuing investigation.
Gonzales also said he was among the current and former White House officials who had testified before a federal grand jury investigating whether any laws were broken when the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent and the wife of a prominent administration critic, was disclosed in July 2003.
...
Gonzales, who was White House counsel before being named attorney general this year, told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the Justice Department call announcing the investigation came about 8 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003.
He said he asked whether the staff should be notified immediately, given that most of them had gone home, or whether it could wait until morning.
"And we were advised, 'Go ahead and notify the staff early in the morning. That would be OK.' " he said.
But he did tell one person in the White House that evening.
"I told the chief of staff," he said. "And then immediately the next morning, I told the president. And shortly thereafter, there was a notification sent out to all the members of the White House staff."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said that Gonzales' decision to notify only Card immediately did not reflect "the soundest in judgments."
"The real question now is, who did the chief of staff speak to?" Biden asked. "Did the chief of staff pick up the phone and call Karl Rove? Did the chief of staff pick up the phone and call anybody else? Ordinarily, you would think that he would immediately send out an e-mail to every member of the staff."
(Full Story)
Now, you may say, "but Dingo, what is the big deal?" Well, in legal matters, that 12 hours is a huge deal. As we have recently seen from the Supreme Court Ruling on the Anderson Accounting case, that 12 hours could play a determining role in the investigation.
When the Justice Department opens an investigation into any matter, once they have notified the entity that they are investigating, that entity must cease and desist destruction of any and all documents related to that issue. Notification changes the deletion of an e-mail from an innocent click of the mouse to a federal crime. The fact that Gonzales gave Andrew Card a 12 hour heads up on the pending notification may have allowed important documents to be destroyed before the staff was 'officially' notified that they had to retain all.
It may just be an innocent "I'll do it in the morning" on Gonzales's part, put he should have never told Andrew Card that the next morning would bring an order to hold all material. It only adds to the credibility problems the White House is already besieged with.
Aide Got Early Word on CIA Leak Inquiry
By Leslie Hoffecker, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., was notified about 12 hours before the rest of the White House staff that the Justice Department had begun an investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's name, Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales said Sunday.
It was not known whether Card informed any other White House staff members before they were formally told of the investigation the next morning. The White House has repeatedly said it will have no comment on the specifics of the continuing investigation.
Gonzales also said he was among the current and former White House officials who had testified before a federal grand jury investigating whether any laws were broken when the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent and the wife of a prominent administration critic, was disclosed in July 2003.
...
Gonzales, who was White House counsel before being named attorney general this year, told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the Justice Department call announcing the investigation came about 8 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003.
He said he asked whether the staff should be notified immediately, given that most of them had gone home, or whether it could wait until morning.
"And we were advised, 'Go ahead and notify the staff early in the morning. That would be OK.' " he said.
But he did tell one person in the White House that evening.
"I told the chief of staff," he said. "And then immediately the next morning, I told the president. And shortly thereafter, there was a notification sent out to all the members of the White House staff."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said that Gonzales' decision to notify only Card immediately did not reflect "the soundest in judgments."
"The real question now is, who did the chief of staff speak to?" Biden asked. "Did the chief of staff pick up the phone and call Karl Rove? Did the chief of staff pick up the phone and call anybody else? Ordinarily, you would think that he would immediately send out an e-mail to every member of the staff."
(Full Story)
Condemning Attacks is not Enough
Last week, I commented on the difficulties of quelling the radical Muslims who live in the US, UK, and other western nations and incite violence. While it is impossible to completely silence anyone in an open and free society, where freedom of speech and religion is paramount, being passive to the problem is not an option either. Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society is at least making a step in the right direction by standing up and saying condemning attacks "is not enough." Mr. Bray makes note that the best way to counteract the radical elements of Islam is to use the resources of those Muslims who reject notions that violence is acceptable in any form.
As much as we condemn those who would incite violence and preach hate, we also need to support those who are willing to preach the opposite message.
Muslim groups target youths in anti-terror campaign
From Paul Courson
CNN
Monday, July 25, 2005; Posted: 11:13 p.m. EDT (03:13 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A coalition of U.S.-based Muslim groups launched an intensified anti-terrorism campaign Monday using community groups to persuade young people their religion provides no basis for violence.
The president of the Muslim American Society, Esam Omeish, told reporters at a news conference that his group rejects attacks such as those recently in Britain and Egypt, and will "deny terrorists any religious, ideological or political legitimacy."
He said the attacks bring the spotlight back to prevention, and that such efforts must go beyond surveillance and intelligence by law enforcement.
The Muslim groups said they would intensify an effort among community groups such as religious schools, youth centers and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America programs.
Responding to questions, Omeish and representatives of other organizations said they knew of no al Qaeda or Muslim terror groups in the United States.
"We know of no sleeper cells," Omeish said, attributing that in part to what he called the teaching of moderate, authentic Islam.
"What has protected our community far before 9/11 from extremism and violent ideology is that balanced mainstream advocacy of Islamic principles," Omeish said.
Imam Abu Malik-Johari, president of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations, condemned any killing motivated by anger or alienation.
"People who would go out and kill anyone, of any religion, from any country, of any age, for no reason other than the fact they are angry, isolated and upset is against God by whatever name you call," Johari said.
Johari, former Muslim chaplain of Howard University in Washington, told reporters he was at a mosque last weekend where he was approached by a young person who said someone had tried to "recruit" him.
He declined to identify the youth and did not say what the recruitment involved. He said he has never learned of any recruitment for al Qaeda in his community.
But using the case as an example of what the Muslim groups plan to do to pre-empt violence, Johari said he told the youth, "You need to alienate yourself from those people."
Johari said he told the young man: "They're saying to you that they're your friend, and that you'll be their confidant, when in reality, they're going to sell you out."
Some of those speaking at the news conference were critical of the Bush administration for not including Muslim leadership in counterterrorism activities, including efforts by law enforcement to keep tabs on Muslim groups in the United States.
"This Justice Department has engaged us from the back door, rather than the front door," said Imam Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society.
"Rather than spending all their energies in terms of recruiting spies and snitchers, they need to spend more time and more energy engaging the authentic Muslim leadership" in the United States, Bray said.
(Full Story)
As much as we condemn those who would incite violence and preach hate, we also need to support those who are willing to preach the opposite message.
Muslim groups target youths in anti-terror campaign
From Paul Courson
CNN
Monday, July 25, 2005; Posted: 11:13 p.m. EDT (03:13 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A coalition of U.S.-based Muslim groups launched an intensified anti-terrorism campaign Monday using community groups to persuade young people their religion provides no basis for violence.
The president of the Muslim American Society, Esam Omeish, told reporters at a news conference that his group rejects attacks such as those recently in Britain and Egypt, and will "deny terrorists any religious, ideological or political legitimacy."
He said the attacks bring the spotlight back to prevention, and that such efforts must go beyond surveillance and intelligence by law enforcement.
The Muslim groups said they would intensify an effort among community groups such as religious schools, youth centers and Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of America programs.
Responding to questions, Omeish and representatives of other organizations said they knew of no al Qaeda or Muslim terror groups in the United States.
"We know of no sleeper cells," Omeish said, attributing that in part to what he called the teaching of moderate, authentic Islam.
"What has protected our community far before 9/11 from extremism and violent ideology is that balanced mainstream advocacy of Islamic principles," Omeish said.
Imam Abu Malik-Johari, president of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations, condemned any killing motivated by anger or alienation.
"People who would go out and kill anyone, of any religion, from any country, of any age, for no reason other than the fact they are angry, isolated and upset is against God by whatever name you call," Johari said.
Johari, former Muslim chaplain of Howard University in Washington, told reporters he was at a mosque last weekend where he was approached by a young person who said someone had tried to "recruit" him.
He declined to identify the youth and did not say what the recruitment involved. He said he has never learned of any recruitment for al Qaeda in his community.
But using the case as an example of what the Muslim groups plan to do to pre-empt violence, Johari said he told the youth, "You need to alienate yourself from those people."
Johari said he told the young man: "They're saying to you that they're your friend, and that you'll be their confidant, when in reality, they're going to sell you out."
Some of those speaking at the news conference were critical of the Bush administration for not including Muslim leadership in counterterrorism activities, including efforts by law enforcement to keep tabs on Muslim groups in the United States.
"This Justice Department has engaged us from the back door, rather than the front door," said Imam Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society.
"Rather than spending all their energies in terms of recruiting spies and snitchers, they need to spend more time and more energy engaging the authentic Muslim leadership" in the United States, Bray said.
(Full Story)
Monday, July 25, 2005
Why Repealing the Estate Tax is Wrong
This week, the Senate is looking to permanently repeal the estate tax. For those of you who think that the estate tax is unfair or un-American, let me try to explain to you how it works, and how repealing it would be the unfair and un-American action. It is important to know that only 2% of Americans will ever pay estate tax. This is because the first $2 million of a decedants estate is exempt from taxes already.
First, you need to understand how a persons assets are measured when they die and how they are passed on. When someone dies, the value of an asset in their estate is the value at the time they die, not the time they purchase it. For instance, if you were to buy 500 shares of Microsoft stock in 1986. The current value of that stock would be $3,600,000. The 500 shares of stock (with the nine stock splits since 1986) would now be 144,000 shares at $25 per share. If you were to sell that stock today (while alive), you would pay approximately $540,000 in capital gains tax. And, if you were to die today, your estate (assuming no other assets so as to make this simple) would be worth $3.6 million, not $10,500, the initial cost of the stock.
Now, lets look at what happens what happens with and without the estate tax.
With the estate tax - If you are married, all of your assets pass on to your spouse with no tax incurred until the death of your spouse. At the time of your spouses death, or if you are not married, then the estate tax is levied. According to the Tax Policy Center, an estate of $3.5 - $5 million dollars paid a average tax of 4.4% of the gross estate. This is because the first $2 million dollars of someone's gross estate is exempt from the estate tax. So, at the time of death, the heirs of your $3.6 million estate would pay about $158,400 in estate tax. That is $381,600 less that if you had sold your stock before death. Since your heirs paid tax on the estate of $3.6 million, they can take ownership of that stock at the current market value ($3.6 million). If they turn around an immediately sell the stock, they pay no additional tax on the sale because it has now "stepped up" in taxable basis. This means, the government views it as if they had bought 144,000 shares of stock at $25 per share. They would only pay additional tax if the stock continues to climb in value.
Without the estate tax - If you were to die with the $3.6 million estate, the entire amount would be passed along you your heirs and the the government would continue to view it as the heirs buying the 144,000 shares of stock at $25 per share. That means, that no tax is ever paid on the stock that has risen from $10,500 to $3,600,000.
Lets step this up one more level. In stead of just using Microsoft stock, lets use Bill Gates himself. His net worth is around $58 billion the last time I heard. Most of it is made up of his own stack shares. If he were to sell his shares today, he would owe the government $870 million dollars in capital gains tax. But, without the estate tax, he would pass on the full $58 billion tax free to his kids. I can only assume that Bill Gates heirs will do just fine with $57,493,000,000. But, with the Veterans Affairs Agency $1 billion short in caring for our nations service men and women, that $870 million would do a great deal of good for them.
By repealing the estate tax, we are allowing the rich, who are already rich, to pass on huge estates tax free so their kids can enjoy a life of luxury. When a vey wealthy American dies, they already pay less tax than the normal American. It is the hard working middle class who is left to pick up the burden to fund education, Medicare, Medicade, Veterans medical, etc. that would normally receive partial funding from the estate tax.
So, what is more unfair, a veteran not getting medical attention or Paris Hilton not being able to buy yet another Prada bag?
First, you need to understand how a persons assets are measured when they die and how they are passed on. When someone dies, the value of an asset in their estate is the value at the time they die, not the time they purchase it. For instance, if you were to buy 500 shares of Microsoft stock in 1986. The current value of that stock would be $3,600,000. The 500 shares of stock (with the nine stock splits since 1986) would now be 144,000 shares at $25 per share. If you were to sell that stock today (while alive), you would pay approximately $540,000 in capital gains tax. And, if you were to die today, your estate (assuming no other assets so as to make this simple) would be worth $3.6 million, not $10,500, the initial cost of the stock.
Now, lets look at what happens what happens with and without the estate tax.
With the estate tax - If you are married, all of your assets pass on to your spouse with no tax incurred until the death of your spouse. At the time of your spouses death, or if you are not married, then the estate tax is levied. According to the Tax Policy Center, an estate of $3.5 - $5 million dollars paid a average tax of 4.4% of the gross estate. This is because the first $2 million dollars of someone's gross estate is exempt from the estate tax. So, at the time of death, the heirs of your $3.6 million estate would pay about $158,400 in estate tax. That is $381,600 less that if you had sold your stock before death. Since your heirs paid tax on the estate of $3.6 million, they can take ownership of that stock at the current market value ($3.6 million). If they turn around an immediately sell the stock, they pay no additional tax on the sale because it has now "stepped up" in taxable basis. This means, the government views it as if they had bought 144,000 shares of stock at $25 per share. They would only pay additional tax if the stock continues to climb in value.
Without the estate tax - If you were to die with the $3.6 million estate, the entire amount would be passed along you your heirs and the the government would continue to view it as the heirs buying the 144,000 shares of stock at $25 per share. That means, that no tax is ever paid on the stock that has risen from $10,500 to $3,600,000.
Lets step this up one more level. In stead of just using Microsoft stock, lets use Bill Gates himself. His net worth is around $58 billion the last time I heard. Most of it is made up of his own stack shares. If he were to sell his shares today, he would owe the government $870 million dollars in capital gains tax. But, without the estate tax, he would pass on the full $58 billion tax free to his kids. I can only assume that Bill Gates heirs will do just fine with $57,493,000,000. But, with the Veterans Affairs Agency $1 billion short in caring for our nations service men and women, that $870 million would do a great deal of good for them.
By repealing the estate tax, we are allowing the rich, who are already rich, to pass on huge estates tax free so their kids can enjoy a life of luxury. When a vey wealthy American dies, they already pay less tax than the normal American. It is the hard working middle class who is left to pick up the burden to fund education, Medicare, Medicade, Veterans medical, etc. that would normally receive partial funding from the estate tax.
So, what is more unfair, a veteran not getting medical attention or Paris Hilton not being able to buy yet another Prada bag?
Blawg Review
Sean at Objective Justice has posted a reveiw of last weeks blogs, including a bunch on the Roberts nomination. I recommend taking a gander.
Blawg Review #16
Blawg Review #16
Friday, July 22, 2005
Can We Ever Really Get Rid of the Messages of Hate?
After the the four failed bombings in London and the shooting of one man said to be directly linked the terrorist bombings, Muslims are now concerned about a possible 'shoot to kill' policy with UK police.
My first reaction was, "well, what do you expect. Maybe you should have thought about that before you let your Clerics create a 'bomb to kill' policy."
There has been a lot of talk about the Muslim community and the radical Muslim clerics who openly preach hate toward the infidels. Overall, the Muslim communities have some huge issues to deal with. Terrorism, of course, is one. Treatment of women, another. Etc.
But, then I thought about a conversation I had yesterday. It made me wonder, how much control the average Muslim has over these radical Muslim clerics. After all, I have no control over the radical Christian leaders. The vast majority of Christians are peaceful people who condemn violence as a tool, but that doesn't stop Reverend Michael Bray of the Army of God. His organization calls those who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors prophets and heroes.
The Army of God has an entire page dedicated to Paul Hill. It calls those who kill people martyrs. I have no way to stop him preaching hate.
Not only does Reverend Bray endorse terrorism against anyone connected with abortion clinics, he also sided with Saudi Arabia and applauded when three gay men were beheaded by Saudi officials. I have no way to stop him preaching hate.
Then there is Reverend Fred Phelps who also endorses violence against homosexuals. He not only applauded the beating to death of Matthew Shepard, he wanted to erect a monument on the Idaho State Capitol grounds saying that a gay man murdered in a hate crime in Wyoming 1998, is "burning in hell." I have no way to stop him preaching hate.
I have no way to stop Jerry Fawell from saying that 9/11 was caused by God's wrath on liberals:
While I don't, for a second, think that the Muslim community is without fault in allowing the messages of hate and murder to flow from its mosques and schools, I also don't think it is as easy as many Americans may think it is. 95% of American Christians believe it is not ok to commit terrorism against fellow Americans, regardless of their view of abortion. But yet the message is still present. 95% of Christian Americans believe that violence against African Americans and other minorities is wrong, but the KKK and other racists groups who call themselves Christian still preach their hate and avocation of violence. If there is such little acceptance in our community for these messages of hate, how do these extremist still have such a loud voice? How would we stop them? Assassination? Is there anyway to muzzle them without sinking to their level and breaking the law? Protest? Would they even listen if we had a 10 million person march on Washington, D.C. telling these preachers to sit down and shut up? I don't think so.
If we can't reign in our own religious leaders from preaching hate, how can we blame the entire Muslim community for not being able to reign in their radical clerics. As we see in our own community, when we are free, we can never fully rid ourselves of these preaches of hate. The Muslim community does have a lot of culpability in the current degree of hate being preached, but if we ever expect them to live in a true democracy (as we claim we do) it will be impossible for them to ever weed out all of the religious extremists, just like it has been impossible for us to do the same.
My first reaction was, "well, what do you expect. Maybe you should have thought about that before you let your Clerics create a 'bomb to kill' policy."
There has been a lot of talk about the Muslim community and the radical Muslim clerics who openly preach hate toward the infidels. Overall, the Muslim communities have some huge issues to deal with. Terrorism, of course, is one. Treatment of women, another. Etc.
But, then I thought about a conversation I had yesterday. It made me wonder, how much control the average Muslim has over these radical Muslim clerics. After all, I have no control over the radical Christian leaders. The vast majority of Christians are peaceful people who condemn violence as a tool, but that doesn't stop Reverend Michael Bray of the Army of God. His organization calls those who bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors prophets and heroes.
I have always interpreted Paul’s [Paul Hill murdered a doctor on the street] deed not as an example of how any and every citizen may lawfully defend the innocent; I see him not as a citizen and defender but as a statesman and prophet. Paul did not choose to terminate an abortionist covertly so that he might repeat the good deed to future joy of many babies and their relatives. Rather, he chose to abort the abortionist in public, laying down his weapon and holding his hands to heaven as he walked away and submitted to arrest. His was the message of a prophet to the civil authorities. This is the proper legal standard. This is justice. Murderers are to be executed.
The Army of God has an entire page dedicated to Paul Hill. It calls those who kill people martyrs. I have no way to stop him preaching hate.
Not only does Reverend Bray endorse terrorism against anyone connected with abortion clinics, he also sided with Saudi Arabia and applauded when three gay men were beheaded by Saudi officials. I have no way to stop him preaching hate.
Then there is Reverend Fred Phelps who also endorses violence against homosexuals. He not only applauded the beating to death of Matthew Shepard, he wanted to erect a monument on the Idaho State Capitol grounds saying that a gay man murdered in a hate crime in Wyoming 1998, is "burning in hell." I have no way to stop him preaching hate.
I have no way to stop Jerry Fawell from saying that 9/11 was caused by God's wrath on liberals:
"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
While I don't, for a second, think that the Muslim community is without fault in allowing the messages of hate and murder to flow from its mosques and schools, I also don't think it is as easy as many Americans may think it is. 95% of American Christians believe it is not ok to commit terrorism against fellow Americans, regardless of their view of abortion. But yet the message is still present. 95% of Christian Americans believe that violence against African Americans and other minorities is wrong, but the KKK and other racists groups who call themselves Christian still preach their hate and avocation of violence. If there is such little acceptance in our community for these messages of hate, how do these extremist still have such a loud voice? How would we stop them? Assassination? Is there anyway to muzzle them without sinking to their level and breaking the law? Protest? Would they even listen if we had a 10 million person march on Washington, D.C. telling these preachers to sit down and shut up? I don't think so.
If we can't reign in our own religious leaders from preaching hate, how can we blame the entire Muslim community for not being able to reign in their radical clerics. As we see in our own community, when we are free, we can never fully rid ourselves of these preaches of hate. The Muslim community does have a lot of culpability in the current degree of hate being preached, but if we ever expect them to live in a true democracy (as we claim we do) it will be impossible for them to ever weed out all of the religious extremists, just like it has been impossible for us to do the same.
What The...
The congress has just voted to extend daylights savings, but not as far as the earlier version called for. One of the justifications for not extending it further was the effect it may have on live stock:
Since when did cows start wearing wrist watches and caring about what time 'desperate housewives' would be coming on?
Lawmakers move to extend daylight-saving time
According to some senators, farmers complained that a two-month extension could adversely affect livestock
Since when did cows start wearing wrist watches and caring about what time 'desperate housewives' would be coming on?
Lawmakers move to extend daylight-saving time
More on Plamegate
There is an interesting story in today's Bloomberg about how Libby's and Rove's account of things are not adding up to what the reporters said. I think Lucy has some 'splanin to do.
Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters
By Richard Keil
July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.
Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.
These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.
(Full Story)
Rove, Libby Accounts in CIA Case Differ With Those of Reporters
By Richard Keil
July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.
Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.
These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.
(Full Story)
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Hold The Presses
President Bush has nominated a cross dresser to the supreme court.
Not only is this definitive proof that Roberts is a cross dresser who wears god knows what under his black robe when he is sitting on the bench. Not only does this show that he likes to wear women's' garments like Herbert Hoover, but he also likes to do it as an ambiguously gay cartoon character, thus making this revelation doubly perverse. What kind of "family values" is that, a two dimensional lesbian trapped inside a man's body. What would James Dobson have to say about this?
Who is next Mr. President? RuPaul to fill Karl Roves position? Will the insanity never end?
[Roberts] school yearbook from 1972, his junior year, shows he played Peppermint Patty in the production of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown."
Not only is this definitive proof that Roberts is a cross dresser who wears god knows what under his black robe when he is sitting on the bench. Not only does this show that he likes to wear women's' garments like Herbert Hoover, but he also likes to do it as an ambiguously gay cartoon character, thus making this revelation doubly perverse. What kind of "family values" is that, a two dimensional lesbian trapped inside a man's body. What would James Dobson have to say about this?
Who is next Mr. President? RuPaul to fill Karl Roves position? Will the insanity never end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
