It's official...Brooks has left the reservation

David Brooks, the current resident conservative at the New York Times since William Safire (one of my favorites) left, has left the GOP party line for good. This is his third (fourth?) column that is taking to task the White House for its utter lack of responsibility. Today's piece talks of the likelihood of a new Ross Perot, a fiscal zealot and moral crusader. Money quote:

"Over the next few months we will be watching a government that may be millions-wise, but trillions-foolish. We will be watching a government that sometimes seems to have lost all perspective - like a lunatic who tries to dry himself with a hand towel while standing in a torrential downpour."

Also, this:

"But the White House is threatening to veto anything they [fiscal conservatives] do! President Bush, who hasn't vetoed a single thing during his presidency, now threatens to veto something - and it's something that might actually restrain the growth of government. He threatens to use his first veto against an idea he himself originally proposed! Have we entered another world, where up is down and rationality is irrational? Every family and business in America has to scale back when the cost of something skyrockets. Does this rule not apply to us as a nation?"

I'm really liking this guy more and more every day.

Friday-night fright humor...and I'm pissed

Imagine this:

President Bush announces Constitution "doesn't exist"; American people respond, "Baaaaaaaa"

By Jeff Gannon
New York Times
January 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, D.C.--President Bush today announced that the United States Constitution does not exist, and then ordered the Democratic Party chairman jailed, along with the White House press corps.
The Times filed an immediate appeal with the Supreme Court, but Chief Justice Antonin Scalia refused, saying, "I do not have the power to reverse the President's ruling, since the Constitution does not exist. The Supreme Court, therefore, is now disbanded."
In a Times poll, 95% of the American people agreed with the President's decision, with respondents generally answering, "He's the President, so he must be right."


Okay, obviously that would never happen....we hope. But the reason so many of the Bush administration's scandals don't hold is because we have become scared sheep. Now he's telling us the Social Security trust fund doesn't exist, so why wouldn't the Constitution be next? One terrorist attack and we all fall in line. Fucking Israel has been under attack for 60 years and they still speak out against their leaders and protest and go out and do their thing, despite the fact they face more danger than we do. So, dear Lord, will Americans wake the fuck up and realize that their country has been hijacked by a group of radicals, who don't even believe in conservatism the way it was envisioned by Eisenhower and Nixon and Reagan. I'm tired of Bush NEVER being accountable, and I don't want to hear that bullshit about the election being his accountability moment. Our elections are so full of holes anymore, and the people so fucking scared, that he wasn't held accountable for a damn thing. That needs to change, NOW.

Let's think about this...

From my dKos posting:

Dick Cheney was quoted in Woodward's The Commanders as saying that George Bush Sr. has a long history of vindictive political actions. Obviously, nowhere near Dubya's level.
Secondly, there's two different thoughts to consider regarding Gucnnon/Gankert. One is that, just like Nixon, paranoia about making sure Democrats get buried led to an incredibly stupid action, i.e. hiring a male prostitute to play reporter and ask ridiculous softball questions or repeat GOP talking points.
Now, consider THIS: What if the Bushies put him in there, get the left and the center distracted by this "scandal," and while we are running around trying to find out what the hell is going on, Bush pulls some more of his behind-the-scenes chicanery that he's become famous for? What if this is a setup to cast doubt on ALL the reporters in the room?
It's not above this man to play Soviet politics. Hired propagandists posing as media, hired journalists, fake journalists in the press room, and soon enough people will be questioning ALL media. Probably, not knowing any better, many of them will run to Fox News, who carries the President's line unfettered. This way, no one would believe it even if the Post pulled out another Watergate story. In 1972-1973, with far more trust in our media outlets, it still took over a year for Watergate to take hold in Middle America. How long might it take if the media is seriously discredited?
I'm glad Gannon got exposed, but dammit, I'm also wondering if it wasn't a setup all along. We need to look farther than Gannon himself. This story has a lot more to it than just a fake journalist in the briefing room.

How do you get to Orwell?

You do this. (registration required, scroll down to "No Court shall have jurisdiction)

Here is the actual text of the law being debated in the House right now, the Real ID Act.

SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
"Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
"(c) Waiver-
"(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
"(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
"(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or "(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision." (boldface mine).

I hope to living God that this bill dies or is vetoed (although I find THAT highly unlikely, given that Bush loves executive power).

How does such a bill get in? You could NEVER have had such a bill, not even during the age of McCarthyism, that so blatantly violates the Constitution, giving an executive branch official the power to overrule ANY law that prevents a security barrier or road from being built, AND cuts to pieces the check of the judicial branch's right to oversight, not to mention Congress' rights.

Do these idiots have any idea what they are doing? THEY ARE GIVING AWAY THEIR OWN POWER TO A CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY. We toppled Saddam Hussein, and now our own president is making the same manuevers to get himself the same sort of power. I don't recognize my own country anymore. This isn't America. We don't give an appointed official the right to OVERRULE LAWS! Only the United States Supreme Court can OVERTURN an existing law, and that requires a majority opinion, and it doesn't give them the right to write new laws.

Richard Nixon didn't have shit on George W. Bush and the Republicans today. The very BALLS of these people, to try and run this right underneath our noses in the middle of a TOTALLY different law. I am scared, and I am scared because what do you do when the party in power tries to subvert the very fabric of our land, to grant powers that they have no right to grant? Nixon resigned, and I always felt that he was one of the worst examples of government run amok, but now, I'm not so sure at all.

This is dangerous, this is unconstitutional, and people need to wake the hell up and realize that their country is being STOLEN by those in power. This is the very CORE of America, and if this bill isn't stopped, then we have taken a GIANT step closer to the totalitarianism this country was founded to prevent. People of all parties and ideologies need to unite, NOW, and stop this fascist bill and all the others like it. We cannot allow this to go on any longer.

Orwell may only have been off by thirty years...

I guess this is how Bush makes us safe...

Just read this:

Budget cuts FDA safety checks
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
The Food and Drug Administration's proposed budget for next year includes cuts to nearly all its inspection programs, from checks on imported food to reviews of overseas plants that make prescription drugs bound for the USA.
If Congress approves, the number of domestic food safety inspections made next year would fall by 5%, foreign drug plant inspections would drop 5.8% and checks on the nation's blood banks would be cut 4.7%, compared with estimated 2005 inspections.

So, once again, I must posit this question: WTF is wrong with our President? Anyone who cuts down safety inspections and claims he's making us safer is either A: arrogant enough to believe it, B: completely out of his God-lovin' mind, C: protected by party majorities and citizen apathy, or D: all of the above.

Obviously, there's more to the story, but this is still scary, disgusting, and completely out of line. Yes, let's cut safety inspections of food and drugs, two things that anyone could easily poison. Remember how Tommy Thompson said he was surprised terrorists haven't attacked our food supply yet? Well, I'd say we just opened the door and invited them in.


Yeah, I feel so safe now. Thanks, Dubya.