The discussion depends on how the issue is framed, whether it's framed as a "human rights" issue or a "law and order" issue.

Neither is correct.

Follow the money. Who benefits? Corporations who exploit "undocumented" workers by paying substandard wages for jobs "Americans won't do."

The fascists benefit.

Never mind that the border wars are raging because of the drug wars, with over 4,000 deaths now and spilling over the borders into the US. Never mind the unknown costs for social services to illegal immigrants: education, health care, welfare, crime, air tickets home (about $700), funerals, and more.

That's all corporate welfare to boost corporate profits as immigrants' native nations reduce their own costs to provide for their citizens.

Consider emigrating to Mexico legally and investigate what are the legal financial requirements and subsequent property restrictions.

Illegal immigrants got here, and they will get home when the nation's immigration laws are enforced.

The alternative is to undermine the rule of law and endorse anarchy - because it promotes corporate welfare.

To me, the topic of illegal immigration involves how the issue is framed. Is the issue framed in terms of "human rights" or "rule of law?"

If the issue of illegal immigration is framed in the broad general term of "human rights," then how does it not also endorse anarchy?

No doubt all aliens are human, and humans break laws.

Defining the issue in terms of "human rights" ignores a fundamental issue: "Who benefits?"

As workers, these people are exploited for profit by corporations and other employers who pay them substandard wages, without benefits, sometimes in cash, avoiding taxation. In advocating for ending workplace enforcement of federal immigration laws, human rights advocates also unwittingly advocate for continued worker exploitation and support the 9th characteristic of fascism, Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Advocates of "human rights" for illegal aliens place those "rights" above the legal citizens' rights to live in a lawful civil society, often employing accusations of xenophobia. Those accusations only ignore or cloud the myriad of issues involved with illegal immigration by lumping together any pragmatic issues under the disparaging umbrella of "racism" and "xenophobia."

Some of the pragmatic issues involved include:

• border violence,
  
• human trafficking,
  
• sexual exploitation and forced labor,
  
• drug smuggling,
  
• sex tourism,
  
• the Trans-Texas corridor,
  
• identity fraud,
  
• hospital costs,
  
• education costs,
  
• prison costs

to name a few.

That linguistic framing of the issue as critical to obscuring the pragmatic issues is evidenced by a recent enigmatic event when it initially was reported that the Arizona Supreme Court banned numerous immigration-related phrases, including “illegal alien” and “open-borders advocates” only to have that recanted in an update.

I cringed. As soon as I read it. And now, I've read it again. Twice. On this site. A site devoted to peace, justice and impeachment, and by extension, human rights, rule of law, and all that jazz.

It's the word. No, don't be saying "word" – not yet. I'm talking about the word. You know the one I mean – the "N" word.

For years, we white folks – perhaps I should say we honky folks? Or, should I say we northerners? - avoided using it, in polite company, in academia, in the workplace, among our friends and neighbors. It was offensive because it was historically pejorative and it separated us from "other" folks. At the very, very minimum, it was a sign of disrespect, with a historical origin of the ultimate disrespect: lynching.

Of course, we know the flip side, that it is used by African Americans among African Americans in various contexts – from classicist scorn to hot sweet love – but we northern honkies deem our use of it verboten. And rightly so.

Now, reading it twice there, I'm alarmed. Both usages were completely factual in their reports, but by objectively reporting the egregious slurs by McCain-Palin supporters, are we promoting racism by using the pejorative?

Why aren't we even considering its use as an issue?

When confronted with the pejorative usage, the customary honky format is to go with the "N word" or "n----r" which serves the purpose of both being instantly understood and politely, vaguely, and condemningly explicit.

We're doing away with that now, it seems. We just want to be upfront and all that, I suppose, as we move forward in the election process, toward electing what could be our first, second or sixth black president, depending on how you measure it. If precedence matters.

Just as racist shouts from political rally crowds should not allowed or condoned, so too, neither should racist language in their reporting be tolerated. In our quest to be accurate, are we also being inflammatory? Are we actually buying in to the racist jargon?

Many reasons for lynching violence have been cited: racism as a political tool, a permissive government, a racist environment, and economic factors (lynching rose and fell with cotton prices). Billie Holliday immortalized the lynching of blacks in her 1939 rendition of "Strange Fruit," a mournful ballad by Abel Meeropol, a Jewish schoolteacher and union activist from the Bronx who later set it to music. The lyrics she sang were haunting then, as now:

Strange Fruit: A Poem
Southern trees bear strange fruit,
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root,
Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze,
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south,
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth,
Scent of magnolias, sweet and fresh,
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh.

Here is the fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Now, will you say "Word?"

Today, with US government and court authorization, Mexican trucks will begin to roll, bisecting the continental United States, northbound to the Canadian border – and anywhere else in the US - as part of a year-long "pilot program" championed by the Bush administration. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently approved the program when it denied a request made by the Teamsters, the Sierra Club and the nonprofit Public Citizen to halt it.

NAFTA requires that all roads in the United States, Mexico and Canada to be opened to carriers from all three countries. Previously, Mexican trucks and their cargo had to stop within 20 miles inside the US border, where cargo was then transferred to American carriers for national distribution. Advocates argue that the program allows American trucking firms access into Mexico and upholds agreements in NAFTA.

Teamsters argued that the program failed to create a program that yields statistically valid findings and to reveal the inspection results for motor carriers allowed to drive beyond the border zone.

Reacting to the decision, Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa stated: “Congress has repeatedly and overwhelmingly set stringent safety conditions for the cross-border trucking program to meet before our borders are thrown open,” Hoffa said. “The Transportation Department inspector general’s report released Aug. 21 made it clear that those conditions have not been met. The Bush administration’s reckless endangerment of the American people is matched only by its brazen disregard for the law of the land....This is the wrong decision for American working men and women. We will now proceed to litigate this case on the merits. We believe this program clearly breaks the law. We will continue to fight for safety and national security in the courts and in Congress."

Under the current briefing schedule, the Teamster brief is due on November 19 and government's response is due on December 17.

In May, the House of Representatives voted 411-3 to delay the pilot program, requiring a series of safeguards including an independent panel for program evaluation, and US DOT certification that safety and inspection requirements have been met, including English-proficiency and alcohol and drug testing. The Border-Trade Alliance supported the program and safeguards.

The Senate is scheduled to begin debate on the FY2008 Transportation Appropriations bill next week. This week, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) issued a national action alert urging its members to contact their senators and ask them to include a provision to cut off funding to the Mexican truck pilot program, similar to the already amended House version.

Some critics oppose the program because they say that it fails to comply with congressional mandates for operator, equipment and safety requirements. Others fear that the Mexican trucks will disperse illegal immigrants and drugs throughout the nation. Still others oppose it as a labor-cost lowering device by international corporations.

All of which is a more than a bit reminiscent of the unconstitutional techniques successfully employed by the Bush administration in Rovian-contrived black-box voting: obliterate standards and undermine quantitative measurement.

But, there's much more to raise alarm.

Never mind that California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have higher truck-vehicle accident rates than other states – a possible and probable indicator of the carnage we can anticipate on our national roads, in the name of "expedited delivery" of consumer goods – and higher corporate profits – without corporate accountability (liability).

Never mind that Article 4, section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees the federal government will protect every state against invasion and domestic violence.

Never mind that the federal government, under the Bush administration, has failed to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to secure our national borders.

Never mind that the US Department of Transportation Inspector General acknowledges in his recent reportthat:

• the driver database used by US highway enforcement officials to identify Mexican truckers contains "data inconsistencies," (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California inexplicably stopped recording tickets issued to Mexican truckers for a period of time, according to a Senate Appropriations Committee report);
  
• Mexican buses may not be inspected during peak periods;
  
• it isn't mandatory for inspectors to record the vehicle identification number (VIN) and year of manufacture;
  
• Mexico has no laboratories certified to do drug and alcohol testing so all samples must be sent to the US.
  

Never mind that a FBI intelligence report of the Joint Terrorism Task Force reported that an illegal human-smuggling ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year after reckoning that it was more lucrative (at $20K-$25K a pop) to smuggle Iraqis than Mexicans.

And, let's not take into account experiences and warnings the Congressional Research Service documented, or the actions Congress took:

• On March 23, 2005, George Bush hosted meetings in Texas with President Fox and Prime Minister Martin, in which the leaders established the trilateral “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America.” The SPP will seek to advance the common security and the common prosperity of the countries through expanded cooperation and harmonization of policies.
  
  
• According to the Department of Homeland Security, from FY2001 to FY2005, there were 144 border incursions by the Mexican military. Dialogue with the Mexican military has reduced the frequency of such incursions by half. (Never mind that we're "dialoguing" with bordering military invaders but can't do that with Middle Eastern nations with disparate political views, whom we would rather provoke). A recent Mexican military border incursion netted US law enforcement 1,400 pounds of pot, later disavowed by the Mexican government as "drug traffickers, not Mexican military. (OK, pare that back to 143 border incursions, for the sake of "diplomacy"...)
  
  
• On January 26, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced the discovery of a tunnel from Tijuana to a warehouse in San Diego. Mexican officials seized 2 tons of marijuana, and U.S. officials seized 200 pounds of marijuana. The 2,400-foot long tunnel is the longest tunnel ever found at the the U.S.-Mexican border.
  
  
• In testimony before the Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Homeland Security on February 7, Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar indicated that assaults against border patrol agents are increasing. In FY2005, 778 border patrol agents were assaulted, and 192 have been assaulted in FY2006. This is a significant increase from FY2004, when 374 border patrol agents were assaulted.
  
  
• National Intelligence Director John Negroponte named Mexico in his Annual Threat Assessment for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as a country of concern regarding the capacity of drug trafficking organizations to undermine already weak state authority.
  
  
• On December 16, 2005, the House passed H.R. 4437 (Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005) that would, among other things, strengthen border security, compel employers to use a pilot system to check for employment eligibility, mandate retention of illegal immigrants, make it a crime to be in the United States illegally or to assist illegal aliens, and require the deployment of a fence and surveillance equipment along the Mexico-U.S. border.
  
  
• On May 12, 2005, (Former) President Fox stated that his government would protest the recently passed immigration measures in the FY2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, saying that “it is useless to pursue walls, barriers, and the use of force and violence.”
  

And the current Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, recently reinforced that assertion, saying that would continue to "energetically protest unilateral actions" of the U.S. Congress on the immigration front that "exacerbate the persecution of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S." He boasted that Mexican consulates in the United States have been fortified to protect the rights of millions of Mexicans living there illegally.

"Wherever there is a Mexican," he said, "that is Mexico."

It's not about a Bush-supported invasion of our national sovereignty to ingratiate him to his corporate masters in contravention of our national Constitution, though, or as his father, Bush, Sr. asserted, "the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order," it's about "free trade," right?

Unlikely Alliance: Put The Impeachment Movement on Steroids - Join with the Conservatives on Illegal Immigration

Even Carter did not exercise a quitclaim deed of America to Mexico!
All he gave away was a tiny strip of Panama.
Bush wants to give the whole f****** country away.

Treason has been on my mind lately, ever since I read that the US is now arming Iraqi insurgents. And it came to mind again again, as I watched ABCNews report that al Qaeda and the Taliban had a 'Graduation' for their terrorist attack teams bound for United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany.

The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

"These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places," Dadullah says on the tape. "Why shouldn't we go after them?"

The leader of the team assigned to attack Great Britain spoke in English.

I'm alarmed, I think understandably, that US intelligence officials commented that it was "an aggressive and sophisticated propaganda campaign" in view of the fact that there were numerous pre-911 warnings that were ignored by the Bush administration. So naturally, I have to wonder if warnings are again being ignored as the Homeland Security's Advisory System hasn't budged.

History does have a way of repeating itself, as it did last week when Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) reached a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) allowing the Senate to take another kick at the immigration can, a piece of domestic legislation that Bush desperately wants to sign – while demanding that it be "comprehensive." (Never mind that the deal that Reid made was that he would place the bill back on the schedule if senators would limit the number of their amendments thereby impeding coordinated comprehensiveness to an arbitrary figure - wouldn't want that comprehensiveness to be too thoughtfully considered and refined. Don't send Harry to dicker for a used car.)

If fact, one of the central problems with the "comprehensive" immigration bill is that it's a patchwork of provisions that aren't well-calculated, well-coordinated or thoughtfully designed to address the actual issues, so the ramifications are often unanticipated and difficult to enforce, with undesirable outcomes. No matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still a pig (with all due respect to that little fashionista Ms. Piggy), and we're going to be subjected to a whole new round of make-up which is carefully contrived to avoid the most expedient, practical way to solve the problem: vigorously enforce the existing laws – especially against employers. When the government makes hiring illegals expensive, troublesome and embarrassing for corporations, the illegals will head home.

Of course, corporate interests have, and continue to pay, their dues to the Bush administration, and are now demanding that the supply of cheap labor continue so they can maximize their profits on the labors of illegals. We all get that.

But what is less apparent is the very real danger our nation is facing because of Bush's laissez-faire, and I suggest, treasonous, non-enforcement of our nation's existing immigration laws.

In March, 2006, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House Appropriations subcommittee that "...Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States," and admitted "Hezbollah had succeeded in smuggling some of its operatives across the border." That wasn't an isolated instance.

Before the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq, the U.S. State Department offered congressional testimony that both al-Qaida and the Shiite terrorist group Hezbollah were taking firm hold in "America's backyard."

Mark F. Wong, the State Department's acting coordinator for counterterrorism, told the House International Relations Committee about the threat posed by both groups in Latin America.

Anti-terrorism experts say extremist cells tied to Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida network are operating in Argentina, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Uruguay. Although cooperation between al-Qaida and Hezbollah has been known for some time, the two groups have formed a much closer relationship since al-Qaida was evicted from its base in Afghanistan.

Both al-Qaida and Hezbollah were active in the common border area of Colombia, Peru and Ecuador, according to an earlier statement of Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage in hearings before the Foreign Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, cited in a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

In March, FBI Director Robert Mueller told a congressional panel that illegal aliens from countries with ties to al-Qaida have crossed into the U.S. from Mexico using false identities.

Mueller said some of the aliens are people with Middle Eastern names who have adopted Hispanic last names before coming into the U.S.
"We are concerned, Homeland Security is concerned about special interest aliens entering the United States," Mueller said.

Mueller said one route takes Middle Easterners to Brazil, where they assume false identities before entering Mexico and then crossing into the U.S. Bush administration officials have previously said al-Qaida could try to infiltrate the United States through the Mexican border.

Islam is gaining adherents rapidly in Mexico and South America, and the head of the Attorney General Office's special terrorism investigation unit, Gen. Jorge Serrano, said that his office is investigating alleged terrorist activities being carried out by Mexicans.

And US federal law enforcement agencies know that linkages between illegal immigration, expanded trade, Mexican narcotics organizations and terrorist groups are growing, according to DEA documents. Terrorist groups are aligning with drug cartels to fund terrorism.

We saw "home-grown" terrorists in Britain, and the Bush administration recently made a startling revelation that could well mean that we can expect "home-grown" terrorists on our soil, too.

On May 7, 2007, six foreign-born Muslims were intercepted in a terror plot to attack Ft. Dix solders.

"Authorities said there was no direct evidence connecting the men to any international terror organizations such as al-Qaida. But several of them said they were ready to kill and die "in the name of Allah," according to court papers...Four of the men were born in the former Yugoslavia, one was born in Jordan and one came from Turkey, authorities said. All had lived in the United States for years. Three were in the United States illegally; two had green cards allowing them to stay in this country permanently; and the sixth is a U.S. citizen."


So, half the danger of this band - who were caught when they asked a Circuit City employee to transfer video onto a DVD – would have been averted with enforcement of existing immigration laws.

In 2002, Richard M. Stana, Director of Justice Issues at the US General Accounting Office, testified before the House's Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, saying "Historically, Congress and INS have devoted over five times more resources in terms of staff and budget on border enforcement than on interior enforcement." He continued to summarize his main points:

• INS’s interior enforcement strategy is designed to address the detention and removal of criminal aliens, the dismantling and diminishing of alien smuggling operations, community complaints about illegal immigration, immigration benefit and document fraud, and employers’ access to undocumented workers. INS faces numerous enforcement issues in each area.
  
  
• INS could do a better job of using its limited interior enforcement resources. For strategy implementation to be effective, INS needs better data to determine staff needs, reliable information technology, clear and consistent guidelines and procedures for working level staff, effective collaboration and coordination within INS and with other agencies, and performance measures that help INS assess program results.
  
  
• Having an effective interior strategy is an essential complement to having an effective border strategy. Addressing management challenges is important if INS is to achieve their full potential.
  

Who benefits - profits - from lax interior enforcement of immigration laws?

While Bush uses the scare tactic that we "must fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here," while he depletes our own homeland defense with repetitive draining overseas deployments of police/fire/EMT/Guardsmen that are fertile terrorist training grounds, he continues to acquiesce to his corporate benefactors demands.

Is that not treason? Is it not "adhering to ... Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort?"

But then again, perhaps it serves his own egocentric, megalomaniacal proclivities very well, as he recently signed a presidential directive that essentially declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator."

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

Why, in the name of national security, is a toddler's sippy cup suspect – and yet our porous borders are tolerated?

And we should legitimize between 12-20 million people whose first acts in our nation were illegal?

Is it benign neglect – treasonous - presidential benign neglect? And now Congress is considering being complicit in the circumvention of our nation's laws?

Anti-immigration laws are already on the books of the country for enforcement. Are these too harsh?

• There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for election, and all government business will be conducted in our language.
  
  
• Foreigners will not have the right to vote, no matter how long they are here.
  
  
• Foreigners will never be able to hold political office.
  
  
• Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, No food stamps, No free health care, nor any other government assistance program.
  
  
• Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
  
  
• If foreigners do come and want to buy land that is fine, but options will be restricted. You are not allowed to own waterfront property. That property is reserved for citizens naturally born to this country.
  
  
• Foreigners may not protest; No demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no criticism of our president or his policies. If you do any of these things you will be deported.
  
  
• If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.
  

Too harsh you say? The above laws happen to be the immigration laws of Mexico.

Do you agree with this quote?

"This is a bipartisan issue not a Conservative or Liberal issue BUT AN AMERICAN issue."

It's quoted verbatim from a FreeRepublic.com post.

Why isn't it credible that the purpose of the war in Iraq was to cover up that Bush was warned about 911 and did nothing?

We know that Bush knew that the New Orleans levees would breach, and we know that he did nothing with that information, when he could have saved at least lives if not property if he would have contacted Louisiana officials. So, in another life-threatening circumstance, Bush did nothing. That isn't benign neglect; it's CRIMINALneglect.

Knowing about 911 and doing nothing would have been treasonous and impeachable.

I'd quibble with the thought that it was the sole purpose of the Iraq invasion, though. The interests of PNAC and the oilboyz also played a part.

Bluebear, Your reply to me was totally non-substantive. I'm not an apologist because I have a different viewpoint than yours. I think Imus is being scapegoated, and I've said so, with a few links. And I'm not the only one. Don Imus: the good-natured racist

I've said that Imus' problem is that he was talking black while white, that there is a double standard here, and I meant it. Black rappers commonly call women hos, boetches, and more, and that speech is tolerated. Those lyrics spread throughout our youth community. We don't react to that as uncivil speech, and the rappers aren't fired for using it. But let a white shock jock (why do you think he is termed that?) say the same thing, and all hell breaks loose. That's a double standard.

It's more than a bit ironic that McQuirk parodied a black director's work. "Meanwhile, there was little mention of the remarks made by Imus's executive producer, Bernard McGuirk, who seemed to instigate the controversial comments during the April 4 broadcast (a video of which quickly found itself onto YouTube and other video websites). McGuirk used language from Spike Lee's School Daze to refer to the women's teams as "Jigaboos versus the Wannabes." Imus's defenders pointed out that the Lee film never touched off a similar uproar."

Rev. Sharpton makes a good point when he says that the public airways shouldn't be used to spread racist and sexist language; it's all uncivil language. That also means that gangsta rap would be off the airways. If we really want to fight racist, sexist language, we should expect the same standard from all people, regardless of age.

Rev. Sharpton also made the point that major networks don't have black commentators. Does he have an ulterior motive? Who can know? But it will be interesting to see if Imus' firing opens up a time slot for Rev. Sharpton in the national media.

Imus is a shock jock. While his language was offensive, and did detract and distract from the Rutgers' team accomplishment, it's nothing not heard regularly in the black community. Imus' mistake was to talk black while white. There's a double-standard at work here. You can see it in this clip of Chris Rock on Bill Maher's show.

Did NBC make the right decision in dropping Don Imus' show from MSNBC?

You can express your opinion to CBS radio.

Outgoing Atlanta congressional representative Cynthia McKinney just took a historic stand as her last legislative act. She introduced into the House legislation to impeach George W. Bush for violating his oath of office to "faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

"Article I states that President Bush has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. Specifically cited in this article is the charge that Bush has manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war: “George Walker Bush...in preparing the invasion of Iraq, did withhold intelligence from the Congress, by refusing to provide Congress with the full intelligence picture that he was being given, by redacting information...and actively manipulating the intelligence on Iraq’s alleged weapons programs by pressuring the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.”

This manipulation of intelligence was done, the charge continues, “with the intent to misinform the people and their representatives in Congress in order to gain their support for invading Iraq, denying both the people and their representatives in Congress the right to make an informed choice.”

Article II, “Abuse of office and of executive privilege,” states that President Bush has disregarded his oath of office by “obstructing and hindering the work of Congressional investigative bodies and by seeking to expand the scope of the powers of his office.” The President has “failed to take responsibility for, investigate or discipline those responsible for an ongoing pattern of negligence, incompetence and malfeasance to the detriment of the American people.”

This article continues by indicting Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in their actions to manipulate or “fix” intelligence and mislead the public about Iraq’s weapons programs. Ultimately, this article calls not only for Bush’s impeachment and removal from office but also asks the same actions to be taken against Cheney and Rice.

Article III states that President Bush has failed to “ensure the laws are faithfully executed” and that he has “violated the letter and spirit of laws and rules of criminal procedure used by civilian and military courts, and has violated or ignored regulatory codes and practices that carry out the law.”

Specifically, McKinney cites illegal domestic spying as a result of failing to obtain warrants thereby subverting congress and the judiciary in the process: “...by circumventing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act courts established by Congress, whose express purpose is to check such abuses of executive power, provoking the presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to file a complaint and another judge to resign in protest, the said program having been subsequently ruled illegal; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of spying on American citizens from the people and all but a few of their representatives in Congress, even resorting to outright public deceit.”

The article continues by citing public statements Bush has made that were blatantly contradictory to his policy and actions regarding domestic spying.

While the staff was editing the document, one advisor told me, “As we sat down and worked on this, a pattern became very clear...a pattern to specifically undermine the constitution and establish a unitary presidency.'”

Congresswoman McKinney, the first American woman to introduce articles of impeachment, made the following statement on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration's actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid: trust and truth.
From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.

President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent, the President then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families--who have been asked to make sacrifices--including the ultimate sacrifice--to keep us safe.
Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.
This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice, should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res.1106 in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.

###

Thank YOU, Representative McKinney, for speaking truth to power and for embodying the words of Reverend Martin Luther King:

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." -- Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

After January 2007, George W. Bush will have to deal with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. He has already met with the new leadership, including Pelosi and Reid. To both he promised cooperation; he even told Pelosi he’d give her the name of a decorator for her new office. He also said that this was not a new situation for him, wrily noting that this was not his “first rodeo.” He joked with senators Durbin and Reid that his blue tie was further evidence of post-“thumping” good will.

All of this came on the heels of his abrupt dismissal of Don Rumsfeld. And when W replaced him with Robert Gates, he led many old Washington hands to think that “Poppy” and his gang would be back influencing things. Misguided pundits wrote that daddy was going to bail out his boy once again. One noted that Oedipus had entered the political realm; as op-eds called Bush pathetic and in need of having his presidency saved. Newsweek’s cover screamed “Father Knows Best: With Congress lost and Iraq in chaos, Bush calls in his dad’s team.”

Well, I’m not so sure that George W. Bush is really singing a different tune - he doesn’t want to, and even if he did, I don’t think he could without extensive psychotherapy. The Gates nomination is not a sign that W will soon be surrounded by his father’s team, though this has been a life-long pattern. Rather, I see the Gates appointment as an in-your-face move, imposing yet another known manipulator of news and a former Iran-Contra operative on the ever-gullible media. To me, Bush is saying, “You don’t like Rummy? Now look what I’m dishing up.”

And it’s not only Gates. Bush is appointing the same old right wing judges he always has, as reported in the Wall Street Journal. He is re-appointing UN Ambassador Bolton. His newly appointed head of family planning was described in the Washington Post as “striking proof that the Bush administration remains dramatically out of step with the nation’s priorities.” And to top it off, he wants 20,000 more troops for another push – one more deadly push – so he can stay the course in Iraq.

In other words, Bush remains defiant, still out of touch with what is happening both in the world around him and in his own inner world. Wearing a blue tie and recommending an interior decorator is not Bush offering olive branches to the Democratic victors – rather it is his way of mocking them. Bush remains the consummate con artist, joking and smiling while continuing to stick the knife in. Because of all this, January will be a time for action, not reaction – a time for careful and thorough investigation with all blinders off.

###

Dr. Justin A. Frank, M.D., is a highly-regarded Washington-based psychoanalyst and Professor of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical School. He authored "Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President."

Election Defense Alliance is on the cutting edge of netroots organizing to fight electronic voting machine fraud.

They will be auditing the "official" election results on Election Night - but they need your help.

We ask every pollworker and monitor who will be working inside the polls when they close -- or will be outside if the totals are posted -- to please capture the precinct tallies for us. We need you to copy the data and enter it into an online form as soon as possible so that those figures will be used in our real-time analysis of "official" outcomes.

What will they do with this data? Find fraud, report it to the media, and empower activists.

We will be using a series of mathematical and statistical computer models to run baseline data (historical election data, demographic and pre-election poll data) against precinct poll tape totals, independent exit poll data, official returns, and any other relevant data we can obtain, in order to flag suspect patterns and anomolous outcome. In real-time! And we will report any significant findings back to the public immediately via website feeds, press releases, and radio interviews. We are hoping that by providing such rapid analysis, we may prevent some premature claims to victory or concessions. As well, the results we produce may influence citizen actions.

This fits in perfectly with the Blue Revolution vigils outside county election offices. Start at the Election Defense Alliance:


* Print copies of the Form for machine results
* Take the printed forms to your polling place when the polls are closing, and write the results on the form (bring a pen and clipboard)
* Return home (or visit an internet cafe) to enter the results from each printed form at http://www.electiondefense.net
* Join a Blue Revolution vigil outside your county election office

Imagine: a simple, universal data collection form with fields for the most important races across the country, that citizens anywhere can fill in, enter into a webform, and have the data uploaded to a national collection website for real-time analysis all within an hour of closing of the polls!

This is a first-of-a-kind project with terribly exciting ramifications. We sincerely hope you will participate. It is but a simple addition to the important work you will already be contributing.

Please forward this request to all your friends and colleagues who also may be at the polls as they close.

I see that our last constitutionally-elected President Clinton went to Iowa yesterday and talked about how the people know that "something is wrong in Washington"...ah, Bill, it's more than one thing...

"I have never seen the American people so serious," said Clinton. "I think I know why. People know things are out of whack. The rhythm of our public life and our common life in America has been disturbed."...yeah, our common life may be disturbed, but that's not all...

Regarding the MIT study that Bush's Iraqi war has cost 655K civilians their lives, note how casually this Reagan Republican author, John Paul Roberts, remarks:

"When asked about the report, President Bush stated, "I don't consider it a credible report." Bush, of course, is not reality-based, and he knows that any unfavorable news is "enemy propaganda." That's what the neocons who pull his strings tell him, and that is what he believes."

WoW! Such a stunning assertion, made so casually by a Reagan Republican...as if we heard in a former time "Well, yes, of course, the king is mad...perhaps a crumpet with your tea?" Look how callously and casually Bush dismisses the report of thousands of civilan deaths in his Iraqi war.

But man, is Bill ever going to be in trouble with Hillary! Check this:

Bill Clinton joked about the speculation. "I am under no illusions as to why I'm here," he said. "You were so desperate for a Democrat with any name recognition at all who isn't running for president that you resorted to the chief caseworker to the junior senator from New York."

Chief caseworker? She's gonna be on HIS case, LOL!

President Clinton coined a great phrase when he "called the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress 'unprecedentedly unaccountable' and said tax cuts for the rich have led to huge deficits." I'd argue that the phrase could more correctly be "unpresidentally unaccountable" given how Usurper Boy got into office.

"In Iraq, which is famous for no-bid contracts, $9 billion has gone missing and there has been no serious congressional investigation," said Clinton. "There's never been a more secretive, unaccountable administration."

President Clinton may be vastly underestimating how much taxpayers' money was squandered, leaving our nation, our children and their children, a huge burdensome debt.

"The 15-month proconsulship of the CPA disbursed nearly $20 billion, two-thirds of it in cash, most of which came from the Development Fund for Iraq that had replaced the UN Oil for Food Program and from frozen and seized Iraqi assets. Most of the money was flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 “cashpaks,” each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.

Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There was also considerable money “off the books,” including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil exports. The CPA and the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Board, which it controlled, made a deliberate decision not to record or “meter” oil exports, an invitation to wholesale fraud and black marketeering.

Thus the country was awash in unaccountable money. British sources report that the CPA contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts.

The contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in return. It became popular to cancel contracts without penalty, claiming that security costs were making it too difficult to do the work. A $500 million power-plant contract was reportedly awarded to a bidder based on a proposal one page long. After a joint commission rejected the proposal, its members were replaced by the minister, and approval was duly obtained. But no plant has been built.

Where contracts are actually performed, their nominal cost is inflated sufficiently to provide handsome bribes for everyone involved in the process. Bribes paid to government ministers reportedly exceed $10 million.

Money also disappeared in truckloads and by helicopter. The CPA reportedly distributed funds to contractors in bags off the back of a truck. In one notorious incident in April 2004, $1.5 billion in cash that had just been delivered by three Blackhawk helicopters was handed over to a courier in Erbil, in the Kurdish region, never to be seen again. Afterwards, no one was able to recall the courier’s name or provide a good description of him."

Ides, I've long contended that all our fellow "Merkins" (as our esteemed pretzeldent mispronounces it) that preceeded us are watching eagerly to see how we handle these challenges. After more than 6 years of being in the resistance, sometimes, I reflect about them and all they accomplished without our technology. Perhaps we really need to pamphlet America - who knows, it worked well for them!

And before someone tells me that the net is the "new pamphlet," a 2005 PEW Internet & American Life Project "sixty-eight percent of American adults, or about 137 million people, use the internet, up from 63% one year ago. Thirty-two percent of American adults, or about 65 million people, do not go online, and it is not always by choice...At the other end of the spectrum, 53% of home internet users have high-speed access, creating a new divide among internet users."

Those 65 million Americans who don't go online are 47.36% of the 123,480,019 votes cast in 2004, and they're getting their news and views from other sources: TV, squawk radio, papers, clergy...

...and concerned friends and neighbors who reach out to them...could that be you?

GOP leaders continue to scramble in their Foley damage control efforts. Growing evidence shows that Pagegate has badly shaken the religious right's belief in the Republican party's "family values" and "morality". Pat Robertson urges them to use Foley's predatory behavior to further their homophobic agenda. According to the Time article:

"Last week some conservatives went so far as to insinuate that Foley proves that every gay person is a pedophile waiting to happen. "You don't need 'gaydar' to understand he has certain dispositions," Utah Congressman Chris Cannon told the Deseret News. Televangelist Pat Robertson recommended that G.O.P. leaders simply explain the situation this way: "Well, this man's gay. He does what gay people do."

Robertson is so wrong. It's not about gays. It's about a man using his position to prey on teens, and it's about how his congressional colleagues aided him in his perverse interests by their silence and inaction. It's about how they all cared more about their own self-interests than the youths entrusted to them, and it's about money - Foley was a Republican rainmaker.

"Foley has given about $745,000 to fellow Republicans since 1995, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign financing.

But the top recipient of Foley's contributions, the National Republican Congressional Committee, is holding onto the cash. The NRCC, which works to increase the number of Republicans in Congress, has received $550,000 from Foley since 1996, including $100,000 this past July, according to the Federal Election Commission.

"We decided that the best use of the money is to elect other Republicans around the country," said Carl Forti, a NRCC spokesman.

Foley left Congress with $2.8 million in his campaign account through Friends of Mark Foley, his political action committee. He has the option to transfer the money to national, state or local political party committees, candidates or charity. He can also return the money to contributors.

If he chooses, Foley may petition the Federal Election Commission to request the money be used to pay possible legal bills related to his defense against any alleged misdeeds."

Like disgraced Republican congressman Bob Ney of Ohio, Foley went into alcohol rehab after being confronted with his behavior. Ney plead guilty to federal criminal charges of taking bribes from Jack Abramoff and is now facing 10 years in prison and $500,000 in fines.

Given the amount of change in Foley's campaign coffers, one has to wonder if Foley has more in common with Ney than just rehab. Follow the money...

"Pretending that you believe a liar is also a lie." Arthur Schnitzler

This post is to catalog the lies, damn lies...

What's the lie, and what's the link?