 |
|||
| December 23, 2005 |
MAILBAG ARCHIVES | ||
The BuzzFlash Mailbag The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. More reader opinion is at "Contributors." You can write to Mailbag at http://www.buzzflash.com/contact/mail.html. Guidelines for submissions are at BuzzFlash FAQ #18. Subject: What a Plan! When the Republicans cut all that money from social programs that help the poor and middle class I didn’t realize the ingeniousness of their plan. It really is all about protecting the country. See, this is how it works, you take all the money and give it to the rich. They’re all locked up in their gated communities or hiding in their 50,000-square-foot mansions except for forays to Rodeo Drive or the local equivalent so they count for nothing. People who take more than they give don’t count. The Republican genius is that they will succeed in getting all those gas guzzling SUVs off the roads. With an economy for the rich there just won’t be enough people who can afford to buy them. Silly me, I had thought that folks like the pinheads, ah geniuses at Ford and the like were shooting themselves in the foot. If you make your people too poor to buy your product how does that help you? That one still has me a little puzzled, but that is no doubt because I haven’t figured out how clever it is yet. Secondly, by making most Americans as poor as the third world there will be less envy of our ways and bingo, less hatred. They don’t hate our freedom, they envy our Home Shopping Network and our credit cards. No envy, no hatred. Problem solved. Third, if you outsource all the jobs why on earth would we have an illegal alien problem? Whirlpool just outsourced 1000 jobs to Mexico. Now we know of at least 1000 Mexicans that won’t be trying to get into the US for a job. Do you see the sheer scope and genius of the plan yet? Finally there is the clever plan to combat illegal aliens coming to our country looking for freedom. That would be the less freedom plan. Scare the dickens out of Americans so that those who are cowardly fools are willing to give up their freedom as long as Papa Bush keeps them safe. Now there is no reason for folks from other countries to come here looking for freedom. Oh, it is a masterful plan. Rich in texture and depth. Of, course America won’t be America anymore, but what the hell, we’ll be safe. Marjorie L. Swanson Subject: Thank You, & Sharing a Resource Your staff is admired for the courage, tenacity, integrity, and honesty modeled to the American Public. Your service to this nation is immeasurably valuable. Please accept a humble but sincere thank you from a private citizen who requires these traits of herself and of all community members and agencies, be they profit, non-profit, or public affiliated. Another thing: I subscribe to the GAO (government accountability office) and the FCC (federal communications commission) daily digests. These agencies are still able to research and publish uncorrupted information that is, at times, very revealing in content. Your investigative inquiries and insightful conclusions could be strongly supported with these agency's daily monitoring. For your readership, the following links will provide access to updates: GAO - http://www.gao.gov/subtest/subscribe.html FCC - subscribe@info.fcc.gov Again, THANK YOU, and Blessings to you all. Jamie Koroch [BuzzFlash Note: And thanks back. Good to know you're fighting the good fight with us.] Subject: Kenneth Lay What ever happened to "Kenny Boy" and will he ever see the inside of a jail cell? Bob Fincher [BuzzFlash Note: He recently gave a talk in which he painted federal prosecutors as the bad guys: Ken Lay is no victim (St. Pete Times); follow Google's links if you want to read more.] Subject: Election 2006 ... ... could be the one that turns it around for us; we the people, that is. The major ingredients for something truly profound and momentous definitely will be there, what with our approaching the point of no return on this here dead-end straight ahead that we're on; so enough already of this stay the course BS, because it's only by bringing the troops home now that we'll be able to save our individual and collective hides. And with more and more of us realizing this to be so, how about us choosing as our candidates in the forthcoming election, only those individuals who support Troops Out Now (with no ifs, buts or maybes) which would translate into at least one of our candidates on the ballot in every congressional and senate seat that's up for grabs next November? It's perfect for the Internet, too, with its openness and transparency. Yes, eventually someone (s) will have to show up at the courthouse with the required petition, signatures & cash, but by then.............. A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: Orwell rolls in his grave ... as Big Brother grows in size and omnipotence and individual liberties vanish. This article describes a new program rolled out in Great Britain which allows government surveillance of EVERY vehicle in the nation, EVERY movement EVERY mile logged EVERY destination visited. Chilling in the extreme and every freedom-loving person should be alarmed and aware, as Mr. Bush would no doubt like to bring that here to America claiming he has the inherent authority to set this up without the say-so of Congress and in defiance of the judiciary. Britain will be first country to monitor every car journey: From 2006 Britain will be the first country where every journey by every car will be monitored (The Independent) Dan D. Subject: Williams Rivers Pitt: The Breaking Point BuzzFlash: I think you should put WRP's article on the masthead for a few days, at least. It is the most powerful thing I've read on the subject of King George's abuses of our Constitution -- and I think I've read most of them. The Breaking Strain (truthout) Denise Brooks Subject: The Clinton comparison I have seen this story debunked at least three times today....by people I would never think would defend Bill Clinton.... Are they forever going to compare every horrid thing Bush does...to Bill Clinton? The only reason Bush cannot get sex in the Oval office...is because no woman is that hard up for sex! Thank you, David Schlomer..Mission, KS....I will do my best to find that DVD...may not have any luck...but I sure will try. Believe it or not.....likely a couple of years back.....I think PBS here, showed the War Room....it was great!!... PBS shows different programs in each city...or state. In Springfield, Mo., for instance, they showed a "Partial Birth" Abortion....but, that is Greene county for you....didn't Matt Drudge lose his TV job because he wanted to show that? Whatever...that is the very place it was not needed...everyone in Greene county thinks it is the most vile and evil thing on earth... Shirley......St. Louis Subject: The Third of February Deadline This gives us more than enough time to defeat Patriot II; saving the red, white and blue, thereby, as well as the republic for which it stands, and mustn't forget the pursuit of liberty and justice truly for all. This five-week delay is supposed to give congress a chance to make a "good-faith" effort to come up with some formula that's going to keep us safe and sound and not sacrifice the freedom and privacy that we all cherish so very much. And, what do you know, that desperately sought-after formula turns out to be - Why it's none other than we the people uniting to defeat Patriot II. Security-wise what'll said defeat mean for us? It'll depend upon what sort of response, if any, our undoing of Patriot II elicits from our "enemies." Here's what sort - "Hey, what's going on over there in America? Looks like some sort of awakening, doesn't it?" - which is exactly what we've been praying for all these years; so we must do everything we possibly can to keep this new spirit alive and thriving in America, which means that, in our struggles for freedom and independence, peace and nonviolence is the only way to go. And with security thus assured us, delivering on the rest of said formula? What could be easier? A BuzzFlash Reader Subject: "Impeachment Nonsense" Leave it to his raucous minions to rally to Bush's defense about the charges that he broke the law in wiretapping U.S. citizens. No, no, they cry, exasperated, he did no such thing! He merely "circumvented" it. That's hardly criminal or deserving of impeachment. Well, let's see, did he, or didn't he break the law? WaPo's Charles Krauthammer quotes a law school professor as saying Bush "probably" has constitutional authority to wiretap citizens. After more whining about what he considers the Democrats' annoying "demagoguery" (calls for impeachment), Krauthammer pleads,
Excuse me?
So let me get this straight. I disobey the law and when they come to arrest me, I can say: "No, no, there's no crime here. I merely "circumvented" the law. Yeah, right. A Buzzer Subject: You May Enjoy This Foxnews -- Christmas Parody Five to the Egg Noggin from my blog, RISING HEGEMON. Features, Laurie Dhue, John Gibson, Brian Kilmeade, Bill O'Reilly and TED NUGENT as the man who plugged 5 shots into Santa's noggin'. It's pretty funny -- if I don't say so myself. Attaturk [BuzzFlash Note: For only those of our readers who are irreverent.] Subject: The Video Clip of the April 20, 2004 "Roving Surveillance" speech By Bush I saved the clip, but it won't open, and I cannot find it anywhere on the web. Can you re-post it? Gary Wenkle Smith [BuzzFlash Note: Try this, but it's slow for us: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape/] Subject: Dancing Elves Bush’s attorneys at DOJ are dancing like little elves attempting to justify gutting the NSA and the cheap power grab to conduct illegal and unconstitutional warrant-less searches on American citizens. The justification DOJ is presenting suggests the president has unlimited power, unrestrained by Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitution or the people of America. In short, their argument is Bush is dictator of America until he says otherwise. Note the joint resolution specifically only refers to "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Specifically that would mean bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. In addition, in signing the bill, Bush promised to “continue to consult closely with them (Congress, Supreme Court) as our Nation responds to this threat to our peace and security.” Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (White House) The administration used wording with limitations in the resolution to create a vast domestic spying organization involving all federal agencies including the NSA. Of course, Bush lied again when he said he would consult closely with congress about his activities. It is a cheap power grab worthy of only a man bent on assuming dictatorial powers over this country. Congress needs to put this man on a very short leash until we can send him back to the loony farm in Crawford where he belongs. References: Justice Dept. says security needs justify spy program (AP/detnews.com) DOJ “relied on a Sept. 18, 2001, congressional resolution, known as the Authorization to Use Military Force, as primary legal justification for Bush's creation of a domestic spying program.”
Statement by the President:
Joe Kluwecksinski Subject: The Antidote to Spin Dear BuzzFlash, What we can do before the next election is provide the voters with a short summary of the voting record of each incumbent. It could be posted online, sent out as postcards, posted as flyers, even distributed at the polling places. The actual truth of how that person voted could counter the spin and obfuscation that politicians rely on to cloud the issues. Then voters could see if they are really voting their best interests. A BuzzFlash Reader [BuzzFlash Note: Good idea. Can you start on it? We'd post it for some contested races.] Subject: "We're At War!" Bush says, "We're at war." Bush says, "Go shopping." Strangest war I have ever seen! A BuzzFlash Reader [BuzzFlash Note: Maybe his is the war of the "have mores" on the "have nots."] Subject: Legal reason for continuting war in Iraq isn't clear Hello, All. Earlier in the week I sent the following letter to my Senators and Representative. Although Mr. Bush keeps working to tie our presence in Iraq to the broader authority granted to deal with the attackers of the U.S. on 9-11, in point of fact the legislative authority for use of military force in Iraq (absent a declaration of war) seems to be defined otherwise. If any of you wish to query your own Senators or Representative on these questions, feel free to use any of the following information as you please. I would be glad to hear of any response you receive. (text of my letter) Please be assured this letter in no way seeks to be sarcastic, coy or entertaining. I am simply confused about the situation in Iraq and persistent language indicating we are at war. Federal courts have shaded our posture on matters ranging from deprivation of due process to abridgement of Fourth Amendment protections of the Constitution, using the excuse or reasoning that we are at war. But, are we? I have pulled up full texts of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and the legislation granting use of force by Mr. Bush for the limited purposes spelled out in the Joint Resolution. Absent additional legislation, I am unable to understand the continued deployment of American troops in Iraq. Can you enlighten me on what additional declarations of war or more specific pieces of legislation account for our continued presence in Iraq? The full text of the authorization to use force in Iraq may be found at: S.J. Res 45 H.J. Res 114 S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm The specific, limited purposes of military intervention in Iraq, spelled out in the Resolution are as follows:
As the regime leading Iraq at the time of the U.S. invasion no longer exists, no case exists for a credible threat against the United States from it. Ergo, this authorized reason for the use of force no longer exists. With regard to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, the opportunity to use multilateral persuasion or peaceful means is obviously behind us, by choice of the United States. The UN sanctions against Iraq have been lifted. This purpose of military action by the United States no longer exists. No other reasons are spelled out in the section dealing with Authorization in the Resolution. Later in Section 3, establishing the source of statutory authority, the Authorization of Force Resolution makes reference to the 1973 War Powers Resolution as follows:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 in full text may be found at: The War Powers Act of 1973 (http://www.milnet.com/war-powers-act.htm) Quoting Section 5 of this ACT:
So, looking at the governing statute, seeing that the two justifications for use of military force against Iraq have been realized, and seeing that no other authorizations delegating war powers have been passed, I am puzzled on what basis we remain as an occupying power with military operations continuing on the ground in Iraq. Further, I am unable to see that the statutory basis (the 1973 War Powers Resolution) for the Force Authorization, which is specifically stated to be in full force and power, is receiving any respect or consideration. It seems abundantly clear that operations beyond 60 days, undertaken without a declaration of war by the Congress, need supplemental authorization or extension by the Congress to continue. It doen't seem to me that this has occurred. Have we declared war on anyone? If, so, who would that be? Please help me understand how Mr. Bush can posture as a War President and claim exceptional powers, which so far as I can tell, have not been granted to him in perpetuity by the Congress, or in congruity with the specific language in the Constitution and governing statutes, quoted here. Any enlightenment you can provide would be appreciated. John F. Williford
|
|||
| back to top | |||