Police State -- the only name that fits

According to this story, the Bush administration is proposing legislation that if adopted would allow the government to detain ANYONE, do so INDEFINITELY, and bar them from access to civilian courts. This proposed legislation is blatantly in violation of the Constitution. According to the article:

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

The problem with legislation like this is the obvious possibility for the power it grants to be abused. If it is enacted, police and prosecutors won't be able to restrain themselves from constantly broadening the definition of "terrorist" and "terror ties."

The whole concept of a Constitution and co-equal branches of government is to prevent the arbitrary and capricious use of power against those who have not been proved to be guilty. Under the Bush regime, the government wants to hold anyone THEY consider a suspect -- NO OVERSIGHT, no charges, no lawyer, no courts, no trial, and NO EVIDENCE. It's un-American.

Pardon me if I don't jump on the Bush "trust me, I won't abuse my power" bandwagon. If you want to know why, look here, here, here, here, here, and here.

This country is rapidly becoming a police state along the lines of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and th Soviet Union. This proposed legislation needs to be stopped and those responsible for it need to face the consequences.

Coulter goes too far -- what else is new?

I want you to imagine that Al Franken or some other liberal commentator goes on TV and calls George W. Bush "gay" and "a big fag." How long would it be before this liberal commentator was condemned as someone offering "hate speech?" How long before he would be accused of treason? How long before the phrase "aid and comfort to the enemy" surfaced? How long before conservative pundits advocated his execution?

Well, as usual, the show is on the other foot. Conservative whacko Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton gay when she appeared on a cable TV show. Later, on another show, she responded to questions about her "Clinton is gay" claims by asserting that Al Gore is "a big fag." What happened? Total tool Chris Matthews of the completely misnamed "Hardball" closed with:

Thanks for coming on. And a smart lady. Her book's called Godless. Sometimes being smart isn't enough for a civil discourse. We'd love to have her back.

Why does anyone give this douche as platform? What will it take for her to be fired, disinvited and relegated to the scrap heap?

This is one more example that proves there's NO liberal bias in the media.

CNN tells half the story

CNN reports that President Bush signed a ban on on "fetal farming," the name given to the process of creating embryos specifically to use their tissue for stem cell research.

The problem: CNN did not report that fetal farming DOES NOT EXIST.

Where's the balance? Objectivity? THIS is what conservatives allege is "liberal bias in the media?"

CNN might as well report that Bush signed a ban on solar colonization.

Liberal bias my ass.

Look how the media covers for Bush

Here's a sentence from the story about Bush's unguarded remarks being caught on an open microphone:

"The president was expressing frustration at the United Nations' stance on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon."

How could the CNN reporter know Bush was "expressing frustration?" Why not "The president was caught making the type of remarks normally reserved for times when he is not in public?" How about "The president showed the effects of jet lag by uttering a barnyard expression not normally used in public." No, the media's FIRST reaction was to automatically minimize Bush's actions and put the best face on them.

Oh, and while I think of it, when can I expect Bush to be fined $325,000 for committing speaking an obscenity on television?

Liberal bias in the media my ass.

Show some backbone Democrats

Here's one reason the Democrats keep losing elections. Last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ran an online ad that included, among other things, images of the flag-draped coffins of US service members. In response, a few hypocritical Republicans howled about the "insult" to America's military. Of course, a couple of spineless Democratic pussies, Congressmen John Spratt of South Carolina and Chet Edwards of Texas, echoed the Republican hypocrites and asked for the ad to be taken down.

Well, the Democrats did pull the ad. And that's why I say they keep losing. You just KNOW that if the Democrats called for a Republican ad to be taken down, the Repubicans would accuse Democrats of being thin skinned and they'd run the ad twice as often just as a way of saying "screw you" to the Democrats.

How do I know I'm right? Just read this story -- at the same time Republicans were creating a fake controversy about the Democratic ad and getting spineless pussy Democrats in name only like Spratt and Edwards to reveal their Republican colors, several GOP members of Congress and the current occupant of the White House were running ads that contained images similar to the ones they criticized Democrats for. The list of Republicans who used these images includes George W. Bush, whose ad included the coffin of a 9-11 victim and Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, whose ad included pictures of the burning World Trade Center.

What are the odds that the same Republicans who expressed such fake outrage over the Democratic ad will as for the Republican ones to be pulled? What are the odds that Edwards and Spratt will call the Republicans on their ads? Somehow, I just don't see it happening.

My conclusions? First, Democrats need to show some spine. Second, as always with the GOP hypocrites who've made a mockery of national political debate, IOKIYAR.

Captain Renault of Casablanca would be proud

So stupid a-holes like Ann Coulter suggest that the New York Times should be bombed or its staff killed or charged with treason. (here, here, here, here, here) After the "treason" story gets hyped for weeks some other a-hole decides to send a copy of one of the paper's editorials to the paper's offices in the mail along with a mysterious white powder -- an anthrax scare.

Coulter and the rest must be shocked, shocked to hear that anyone would commit such an act. I'm sure they NEVER intended for THAT to happen.

Where's my Bush Chronicles DVD?

Enron witness found dead in park.

Enron Founder Dies Before Sentencing.

If Bill Clinton was president, these coincidences would be fodder for another installment of The Clinton Chronicles.

How come the current White House occupant doesn't get the same scrutiny?

I'm just wondering...

This sums up what's wrong with the Bush crowd

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Steven Bradbury, head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel. In response to questions from Senator Patrick Leahy (Sane, Vermont), on whether Bush's interpretation of the Hamdan case was right or wrong, Bradbury replied, “The President is always right.” Watch it:

O'Reilly is a tool

Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham both trashed the New York Times for recently publishing photos of Donald Rumsfeld’s vacation home. O’Reilly called what the Times did “awful.” Ingraham called the Times "bizarre." What he failed to mention was that the photos were taken with Rumsfeld’s permission and the Secret Service said the photo did not constitute a security threat. Watch it:

Fuck you, Emmett Tyrrell

In this ridiculous column, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. again slanders John Kerry. Tyrrell writes about Kerry's recent attempt to counter the false claims the misnamed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made about Kerry's Vietnam military service. Among Tyrrell's bullshit is this passage:

Well, I for one shall delight in reviewing the Swifties' corpus delicti once again. There are his Purple Hearts that his officers deny authorizing. There are the missing medical records needed to substantiate his decorations. There are the questions the Swifties raised about his honorable discharge, a mysterious discharge not issued until several years after he was out of the Navy and then only issued by President Jimmy Carter in the midst of his amnesty program for draft dodgers. And there is all the controversy about young Mr. Kerry's dealings with the North Vietnamese in Paris while the war was going on and he was still in the service.

Here's the truth. Kerry volunteered to join the Navy. He volunteered for SERE school. He volunteered for service in Vietnam. He volunteered to be trained as a swift boat commander. he volunteered to go back to Vietnam, this time assigned as a swift boat commander, the most hazardous duty in the Navy. He risked his life on numerous occasions to carry out his duties and save the lives of his comrades, which earned him the Silver Star and the Bronze Star with "V" for valor. He was wounded three times.

No reasonable person and no one interested in the truth can argue with the exemplary military service of John F. Kerry. That still hasn't stopped guys like John O'Neill, who have serious career envy, from claiming Kerry's record is fabricated. And it hasn't stopped pussies like Tyrrell, who never served a day in uniform, from continuing to smear a genuine hero.

Bush -- I Ordered Plame Leak

Well, well, well. The whole time Bush was refusing to talk about the Plame leak and disclaiming responsibility and saying with a straight face that he wanted to know who the leaker was, he knew all right -- himself.

So Bush promised to fire anyone involved with the leak, then he promised to fire the leaker, then he promised to fire the leaker if he'd committed a crime. Now it's turned out that Bush apparently needs to fire himself. Somehow, I suspect that won't happen.

Of course, Bush recently condemned the New York Times for publishing the leaked story about the administration's monitoring of banking transactions. Apparently his dislike of leaks is not general -- it really depends on who's doing it and why.

The real question is whether the mainstream media will finally condemn Bush for his lying political thuggery, or whether he can literally get away with anything.

Bush's "friend" in suspicious death

Ken Lay, the Enron executive, Bush friend and supporter and convicted felon allegedly had a heart attack.

Is it just me or is the timing questionable?

Here's what I want to know -- when can I expect to see "Bush's Circle of Power," "The Bush Chronicles," and Lay's name on a list of people Bush killed to gain and maintain his grasp on power?

Conservative commentators hate America

Government officials are planning to tighten controls on the media with a new law that would impose financial penalties on news organizations that report about certain events without government consent.

Despite opposition from journalists government officials expect the legislation to be adopted this year.

Under the draft law, media outlets face fines of tens of thousands of dollars for reports on natural disasters, accidents, public health incidents and public safety disturbances if the government determines such reporting would be "harmful to social order."

But this story is not a dream come true for US conservatives, Bush supporters, and Bush's mainstream media lapdogs (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) who want to stop bad news about the Dear Leader. The country that's planning to censor its journalists is undemocratic and oppressive in name as well as fact -- it's China.

Why do US "conservatives" support the same position on a free press as that of Chinese dictators? They "hate us for our freedoms."