Bloomberg to Toss Hat in Ring?

The NY Times speculates that Michael Bloomberg may run for president as an independent. I like a lot of things he has to say about elections, parties, and the Constitution:

Mr. Boren declined to say which candidate would be strongest, but suggested “some kind of combination of those three: Bloomberg-Hagel, Bloomberg-Nunn.” He said Mr. Bloomberg would “not have to spend a lot of time raising money and he would not have to make deals with special interest groups to raise money.”

“Normally I don’t think an independent candidacy would have a chance” said Mr. Boren, who is the University of Oklahoma’s president. “I don’t think these are normal times.”

Mr. Bloomberg, who has tried to seize a national platform on gun control, the environment and other issues, has been regularly briefed in recent months on foreign policy by, among others, Henry A. Kissinger, his friend and the former secretary of state, and Nancy Soderberg, an ambassador to the United Nations in the Clinton administration. (and Bono!)

Advisers have said Mr. Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over, might invest as much as $1 billion of his own fortune (he spent about $160 million on his two mayoral races) on a presidential campaign.

But they warned that while they were confident of getting on the ballot in every state, the process was complicated and fraught with legal challenges, and that Mr. Bloomberg would begin with an organizational disadvantage, competing against rivals who have been campaigning full time for years.

Still, the mayor said this month at a news conference, “Last I looked — and I’m not a candidate — but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It’s most states are winners take all. The popular vote assigns electoral votes to the candidate, and I don’t think it says in there that you have to be a member of one party or another.”...

...“You know,” he replied, “if it’s a three-way race, the public has more choice than if it’s a two-way race, and has more choice in a two-way race than a one-way race. Why shouldn’t you have lots of people running, and what’s magical about people who happen to be a member of a party?”

Ladies, are you considering voting for a woman just because you can?
Bloomberg's single! And he hangs out with Bono! That will be more fun to watch than Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, right? Who's with me?
Leave your party affiliations aside and bring your Constitution, we're taking America back! Anything to break the two-party system will help, doing it with a centrist like Bloomberg might be the best thing we can do.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. He has an interesting article that unmasks some of the Bush-Clinton family dynasties' perversions. He concludes that Hillary and Bill's post-White House secret service detail may have "the goods" on the Clintons":

"During Clinton's presidency, I approached then-deputy White House chief of staff John Podesta and other senior officials to ask whether they had any plans to pursue important investigations that had been left undone in 1993. I was told those issues simply weren't "on the radar scopes."

However, if Clinton thought that his collaboration in keeping the Reagan-Bush secrets from the American people would earn him some bipartisan help from the Republicans, he was mistaken.

Clinton saw his prized domestic agenda, including Hillary Clinton's health care reform, defeated; his party lose control of Congress in 1994; the House vote to impeach him in 1998 for lying about an extramarital sexual relationship; and George H.W. Bush's oldest son steal the 2000 election from Clinton's Vice President, Al Gore.

Now, as Campaign 2008 begins to unfold, a similar dynamic is in place.

George W. Bush has engaged in a variety of acts that appear to be illegal, extra-legal or unconstitutional, while the Clintons are again signaling that they have no intention of holding the Bush family accountable.

"If Bill Clinton is right - that his wife's first act as President would be to ask him and George H.W. Bush to go on an around-the-world goodwill mission - Hillary Clinton is making it clear that she has no intention of holding George W. Bush accountable for any wrongdoing.

There is no way that George H.W. Bush would help the Clintons on the diplomatic front if they were taking action against his eldest son.

So, the stage seems set for another Bush-Clinton revolving door where the Bushes get a free pass as they leave in exchange for the Clintons hoping against hope that the powerful family will show them a little respect and maybe a touch of mercy.

Or, as the Clinton friend suggested to me last week, maybe their real hope is that the Bushes won't reveal what they've learned from the Secret Service records detailing where the Clintons have gone and with whom."

Then there is this article from WND:

Documents are being prepared for release by the National Archives that could reveal what Sen. Hillary Clinton already did while she was in the White House, as First Lady to President Bill Clinton, according to a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.

Among the issues that remain clouded is her exact relationship with Hollywood Internet mogul Peter Franklin Paul, identified as the largest contributor to her campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2000, who now is presenting compelling evidence President Clinton destroyed his entertainment company – Stan Lee Media – to get out of a $17 million deal in which he promised to promote the firm in exchange for those massive contributions to the 2000 campaign, and other considerations.

Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to foot the bill for a lavish Hollywood gala and fundraiser prior to the 2000 election that eventually cost him nearly $2 million.

Officials with Judicial Watch were forced to go to court to try to obtain the White House documents, including Hillary Clinton's calendar, daily office diary, schedule, day planner, telephone log book and other files.

That's a lot of baggage for the ol' lady....

Friedman Unit

Fred Kaplan at Slate has an interesting article about the all important next six months in Iraq. The article starts with a crack on Thomas Friedman that really hits the nail on the head. He might be right this time, though:

"Thomas Friedman has been lambasted for writing way too many times (at least 14 times from late 2003 to mid-2006) that "the next six months" will determine the future of Iraq. The waggish blogger Atrios, who first cataloged this habit, coined the term "Friedman Unit," defined as six months in the future.

That said, the next six months might really be the decisive six months in the course of this war—and, as much as recent trends seem hopeful, the long-term prognosis, alas, doesn't."

Moravian Horns

oldsalem1, originally uploaded by Watts4.

The Moravian Lovefeast at Old Salem, NC, 2007
The tradition continues!

Merry Christmas!

Who is this lady?

Read The National Enquirer article to find out.

Yeah, that's right, I'm sourcing the National Enquirer. This kind of thing repulses and captivates me, especially since it's not in the mainstream media (yet)... But search Google for this lady's name....there's a whole other news world online often based on speculation and innuendo. Who can know what is true or not here....that's something the National Enquirer has excelled at exploiting, since way before Al Gore invented the internet. They paved the way for today's bloggers. NQ, I salute you!

Iraq War: Pay for Itself

An astute reader of the Star-News points out that the "war that will pay for itself" could in fact pay for itself:

"EDITOR: In the five years of war in Iraq, the media have reported on daily losses of servicemen, suicide bombers and any other mayhem.

There has been little news about rebuilding or redeveloping infrastructure. In particular there have been (few prominent) stories about the Iraqi oil fields, except for a few reports of equipment sabotage.

Now before the war, Iraq exported 2 million-plus barrels of oil per day.

What is the production status today?

The rate of 2 million barrels, at $100 per barrel yields $200,000,000 each day. That's $730 billion a year.

… That should be enough to rebuild the country and support our troops.

Why not bill Iraq for services rendered by our military to free the country from dictatorship?

The president recently asked congress for $50 billion to finance operations in Iraq. That's a small price compared to their oil revenues.

And a small price to pay for freedom.

Hank Oswald

Wilmington"

Send 'em the bill!

Ted Gup's False Alarm

It starts with a 5:23 AM hotel fire alarm, and ends with Gore Vidal in the lobby. Here's a delightfully told tale of the "false alarm" at the hotel:

"I make my way to the hotel's front entrance and into the lobby. Behind the reception desk a beleaguered woman is picking up the phone every five seconds to say "It was a false alarm... it was a false alarm... it was a false alarm." Beside me stands a man in a camel-hair overcoat and red baseball cap. He is chewing the stub of a stogie. He is familiar but the name escapes me, so I ask.

"George Tenet," he says." ....

"Ted Gup," I say, extending a hand. He smiles. He knows my work--the last chapter of the book I wrote on CIA operatives killed in service was deleted because of Tenet's appeal on national security grounds."

click through to read this story, it's an
unusual take on things...

"Bono Can Unite Us"...

...so says the Washington Post:

"Bono seems to provide for many in official Washington a form of inspiration, reaching into those corners of the soul to find whatever remained of the sense of optimism and altruism that drove them into public service in the first place. What Bono demands in return is the means to save the lives of millions.

"Why are people listening?" Bono says. "Because I actually believe in America and they know it and I'm not sure if they do sometimes. It is a little odd and eerie to have an Irish rock star recite the Declaration of Independence like it's a great poem, but it is a great poem. And that poetry is what's missing from political dialogue right now. And this country is parched, parched from the lack of such political lyrics, and I'm going in saying, 'This is who you are.' "...

..."And then he is gone, off to catch a private jet to New York, where he will greet the famous of that metropolis by their first names.

He leaves behind a city awash in its own bile. We are once again faced with our own disagreements over earmarking and vetoes and overrides and cots. What we do now is wait -- wait for Bono to return, the one person who can unite us."

End the War in Iraq

Here's a plan I found in my e-mail inbox this morning. Beats anything I've heard since "Mission Accomplished":

The Pentagon announced TODAY the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces (USRSF)

These boys will be dropped off in Iraq and have been given only the following facts about terrorists :

1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.
5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt .

The Pentagon expects the problem in Iraq to be over by next Friday.

Hey Big Spender

Noted commentator Bill Press takes George W. out back behind the shed for this one on Bush:

"Let the facts speak for themselves. In seven years, Bush has not once balanced the budget, nor presented a balanced budget to Congress. He took office with a $236 billion surplus, which he quickly turned into a $413 billion deficit. The projected deficit for 2008 is still $180 billion, not counting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the money we are borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund.

Bush's record of fiscal profligacy continues. The federal budget in 2001 was $1.9 trillion; today, it's $2.7 trillion. Under Bush and a Republican Congress, the national debt has soared from 5.8 trillion to $9 trillion – 25 percent of which is owned by China, Japan and the UK. It took 42 presidents 224 years to build up $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. It's taken George Bush just seven years to accumulate $1.22 trillion."

Why Ron Paul

Robert Scheer has a great column about Ron Paul and what his priorities are for America:

"What has (Bush) gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

That money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home. As Rep. Paul points out, for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000 -- which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district. He asks: "What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? Forty-six thousand dollars would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we're sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they [the insurgents] aren't killing our men and women as fast as they were last month."

How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for. "

Damning indeed. Shame on the Democrats for allowing this to continue, and particularly shame on Hillary Clinton voting with Bush's team to make the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization. She's falling for it all over again, and Democrats seem to be OK with that.

We need a leader who will change the system, we need Ron Paul (or at least somebody other than Hillary Clinton).

Tacoma > Space Invader

More terriffic Tacoma ads:

Meteor: Tacoma Meteor-Proof ad

Loch Ness: Tacoma Loch Nest Monster ad (Shoot it!)

World of Warcraft: Tacoma World of Warcraft ad

Robosaurus: Tacoma Robosaurus ad

High Tide: Tacoma 2006 Super Bowl ad

Palm Centro Review by Watts

I'm usually at least 2 years behind the times with PDAs, so the new Palm Centro was the perfect choice for me (ha!). Yes, the operating system is old, but the Centro hit all my buttons. It's relatively cheap, has e-mail and internet access, and it's small enough to put in my pocket.

First, get a look at where I'm coming from: The Clie SJ-33 on the left was my first PDA, bought it on eBay back in 2003 after it had been out for a couple of years. It hooked me, and lasted about a year until I cleaned the screen with Windex (oops). I can get it working pretty much now and again, but it has become harder to reset since the up arrow no longer works. I loved the size, and the protective cover was perfect for a pocket. The design is a bit wider than the new Centro, but they do share a lot in the look and feel departments.

Not pictured is the Clie TG-50 I bought to replace the SJ-33. It had a keyboard, metal cover, tougher, smaller and more durable screen. It was longer, thinner, and much faster. Unfortunately, it was stolen out of the Volvo while we were at Chucky Cheeses's.

I replaced the TG-50 with the brick, the Sony Clie NZ-90. This mammoth PDA originally cost about $800, but I snagged it for less than $200 on eBay a couple of years ago. The screen is gigantic, 320 X 480. It runs much faster than the old Clies, even a reset takes only a couple of seconds. A wifi stick enables internet functions and e-mail, but it takes up the memory stick slot, and I found it to be too cumbersome and battery-draining to be of any real use. The NZ-90 sports a 2 MP camera with a flash. Pictures aren't half bad, better than any cameraphone I've seen including the Centro. The downside? Battery-life. You might get 2 or 3 pictures with the flash on, and that's it. Battery drained all the way. And it's not just the camera, this thing is an all-around battery-hog, not good for more than 2-3 hours doing anything. Did I mention that it's huge? No way to put the NZ-90 in a pants pocket.
And that leads to the new Palm Centro. Compared with my other PDAs, the Centro is tiny, and fits in my pocket better than my old cellphone did. That's big difference #1, the Centro is also a phone! Told ya I was always about 2 years behind the times, but there you go, that's the biggest addition to my PDA arsenal.

Along with the cellphone, the Centro comes with a Sprint unlimited data plan for e-mail and web browsing. Although we don't have high-speed cell service in my area, the internet is speedy enough to browse pretty good, and it even does streaming audio and video. My daughter was amazed when I pulled up Sponge Bob and Dora episodes. Always having access to e-mail has been a revelation. No more booting up the main computer just to see if I have any e-mails. I have my e-mail IMAPPed through gmail and it works flawlessly. That's big difference #2.

One of the coolest features is Google Maps. This function nearly eliminates my desire for GPS, since you can set up directions on the go. When you look up a contact, there is a "Map" option so you can see the contact's address. Click on aerial view and you get aerial photos. Wow.

Yes, the keyboard is rather small on the Centro, but I've found it to be just as usable as the keyboard on the NZ-90. One handed operation is possible, and the backlit keys help out in the dark. The screen is super-bright, and not as battery-draining as the larger NZ-90. I've loaded some larger fonts for the Pluckr program, and that has helped a great deal as the smaller screen means smaller fonts.

I like the small size of the Centro, it fits my rather large hands well, and it has basically become an additional appendage for me. It feels solid, and after two weeks I have no regrets about my choice. Go Centro!

W, You're no Reagan

"Mr. Reagan, like Mr. Bush, had gone through his share of second-term blues, including scandal (Iran-contra) and a hit to his job approval. But Reagan rebounded in his final year-plus in office – in part by cutting deals with Congress (and the Soviet Union) – and ended his presidency with job-approval ratings above 60 percent. Perhaps not coincidentally, he pulled off a rare feat: He was succeeded by his vice president, George H.W. Bush.

The current President Bush has shown no such inclination to compromise with the Democrats lately, instead using or threatening to use the veto pen early and often, particularly on spending bills. On Tuesday, Bush signed one, Defense appropriations, and vetoed one, the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, on the grounds that it was $10 billion over budget and funded 2,000 special projects.

Bush went after Congress in a speech Tuesday in Indiana: "Their majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it is acting like a teenager with a new credit card."

Bush went 5-1/2 years before his first veto, but his apparent goal now is to reestablish his bona fides as a fiscal conservative, after spending big earlier in office."

Good luck with that 60% approval rating, George.

War Costs Mounting

I remember when they estimated the war would pay for itself, cost $50 Billion at most, and now that's less than a "supplemental". From the AP:

"The $1.6 trillion figure, for the period from 2002 to 2008, translates into a cost of $20,900 for a family of four, the report said. The Bush administration has requested $804 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined, the report stated.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said....

...Meanwhile, “the sum of interest paid on Iraq-related debt from 2003 to 2017 will total over $550 billion,” the report said. The government has to make interest payments on the money it borrows to finance the national debt, which recently hit $9 trillion for the first time.

The report comes as the House prepares to vote this week on another effort by Democrats to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq as a condition for providing another $50 billion for the war."

I'm not really anti-war per se, but a cost-benefit analysis of the war does not look good, even if you're in the pro-torture camp. It would be difficult to prove that this war has been "worth it". Just imagine what we could have spent that money on...or saved in taxes if that's what you prefer.

Indian

http://www.WattsCarr.com

Hall Eve

Centro blog test

centro!

Blackwater, 2 Years Ago

Checking out some old posts , I came across this one I wrote in October '05:

"...why the government and military are hiring these private companies for security in Iraq and Afghanistan is questionable.

These companies hire away our best soldiers, pay them more money and then we the taxpayers end up paying more money, so they can do the same work our military should be doing, at a much higher price. These private companies happen to be pals with the politicians and military folks, and it all may seem rather ordinary, but I can't help but think that this is unconstitutional. And certainly, it is costing us more money.

But worse than being in Iraq and Afghanistan, now these private companies are working here in the "Homeland", "protecting" us from ourselves and the ever-present dangers of terrorism and floods and drugs and whatever else they can think of to scare the public. There's a lot more to this story than we can already see, and I submit that Congress should commence investigations into companies like Blackwater immediately. It's not that I think the folks in Blackwater are bad people, but rather we need to look closely at this new system to be sure everything is on the level, and taxpayers and civil rights are protected. This is not a sound or sustainable policy."

Congressional Money for War

Fred Kaplan at Slate takes on our war machine:

The military budget in question—not including any money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—totals $500 billion. This is roughly equal to the military budgets of all the rest of the world's nations combined. Adjusting for inflation, it is larger than the U.S. military budget at the peak of the Cold War—in fact, larger than any budget since the Korean War. Again, this is true, apart from the money allocated for the current wars. ...

...Look at the defense budget.... The Army gets $130.1 billion. The Navy (including the Marines) gets $130.8 billion. The Air Force gets $136.6 billion. This near-even divvying is no fluke or accident. It's been constant since the mid-1960s. (In no year since then has the split varied by more than 2 percentage points.) There is no principle of national-security policy that requires the money be divided this way. It would be an amazing coincidence if there were. Its origins lie in the truce that the service chiefs reached 40 years ago, and have maintained ever since, to quell the vicious internecine rivalries of the 1950s, when the chiefs battled furiously for every scarce dollar

It is for this reason that secretaries of defense and seasoned congressional chairmen rarely get entangled in procurement battles. They don't want to reignite the hellfire of interservice rivalries."

Hey, that's a good reason for the empire to go to war!

Mario is Pro-Constitution

We need to bring back the power to declare war. Bring it back to Congress, that is:

"Congress’s refusal to comply with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has led to a catastrophic aftermath. Such a tragedy should never be allowed to happen again. Rather than enact new legislation that would create constitutional ambiguity, the Democratic leadership in Congress should assert its strength by simply announcing it will allow no “resolutions” or “authorizations” purporting to delegate to the president Congress’s constitutional power to declare war against any other nation. Nor will there be any new war without Congress’s solemn deliberation and declaration of war."

Thank you, Mr. Cuomo! Hey, would you mind telling everybody that it's Hillary's fault?

Throw your hat in the ring while you're at it, at least you're honest and care about the most important parts of our Constitution. This issue is at the root of our current problems in Iraq, and caused us much heartache and loss in Vietnam, Korea, etc. Congress has the war power and they do not have the right to delegate it. Time to take it back, Congress, take it back!

Knee-capped on Terror

From ABC:

"Three days after Americans saw the Bush administration's counterterrorism chief say the Iraq war has likely not made the United States safer from terrorism, the official announced his resignation, citing health reasons.

In an e-mail sent to his staff Wednesday afternoon, Adm. Scott Redd, head of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), said he was stepping down to "take care of some long-delayed surgery that I can no longer neglect.""

The surgery? For his knees. He was literally "knee-capped".

End of War Mistake

The COLD War, that is. What an opportunity we had to show the world the greatness of America. Instead we turned petty and belligerent. Who can blame Putin for being an ass after the way we've treated Russia? Communist-hater Pat Buchanan opines:

"At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

We blew it.

We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

Who restarted the Cold War? Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together."

War at the Airport

"By Thomas Frank

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Security screeners at two of the nation's busiest airports failed to find fake bombs hidden on undercover agents posing as passengers in more than 60% of tests last year, according to a classified report obtained by USA TODAY.

Screeners at Los Angeles International Airport missed about 75% of simulated explosives and bomb parts that Transportation Security Administration testers hid under their clothes or in carry-on bags at checkpoints, the TSA report shows."

Um, hello? The enemy started our War on Terror in our own airports, and yet we still cannot stop bombs from getting on the planes even most of the time? Seems to me this should have been a top priority, right after reinforced, lockable cockpit doors.

""That's a huge cause for concern," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's former inspector general. "

Take it from Clark Kent, folks...

The New JFK According to Sorensen

We can't have JFK Jr., but one of Kennedy's closest aids and speechwriters, Ted Sorensen, has a lot of nice things to say about Barak Obama (and some not-so-nice things about the Clintons). From the UK Telegraph:

""Both Kennedy and Obama have fantastically winning smiles and I might say both are very relaxed in front of an audience and on television," he said in an interview. "They don’t shout into a microphone, they talk.

"The principles, the values Obama and Kennedy are enunciating are not five-point plans for new health care programmes, which is more Hillary's style."

The Kennedy legacy and the aura of Camelot have been powerful but largely unspoken themes underpinning the campaign of Mr Obama, another charismatic Harvard alumnus heralding a new era in politics. "

And on to the Hillary-not-quite-bashing:

"When asked about her similarities to Bill Clinton, Mr Sorensen said that her election would be "a continuation of the Clinton-Bush 20 years" and business as usual in Washington.

“She has the same tendency to triangulate, as he called it, she has the same ability to equivocate, to vacillate, to imitate what the Republicans are doing and saying.”...

...The Clintons, he said, were Washington insiders who wanted to maintain the status quo and who had not brought honour to the White House.

“I’m not accusing Clinton of being lawless. He was impeached for trivial reasons.

"But I don’t think that it was the noblest time for the White House when the Lincoln bedroom was rented out to donors and pardons were being issued to some truly dreadful people.”...

...He argued that the former First Lady would be defeated in a presidential fight with a Republican candidate like Rudy Giuliani. "She's got everything going for her but a lot of people just don't like her.

"I'm tired of losing. We've had these candidates who give those five-point programmes, who sound like they are lecturing at MIT or trying to convince the New York Times board of editors.

"That doesn't reach the hearts of the voters. Mr Kennedy reached the hearts of voters. And so does Obama."

Hillary Hires Known Theif

"Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. ...

...Berger has admitted stealing documents from the National Archives in advance of the 9/11 Commission hearings in 2003. The documents, written by White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, were a “tough review” of the Clinton administration’s shortcomings in dealing with terrorism, Clarke’s lawyer told the Washington Post. ...

...the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism. Several Archives officials acknowledged that Berger could have stolen any number of items and they “would never know what, if any, original documents were missing.”
At his sentencing in September 2005, Berger was fined $50,000, placed on probation for two years and stripped of his security clearance for three years."

And this is who Hillary chooses to hire as an adviser?

What does he have on her/them? That's the only explanation for this hire....Sandy has the goods on the Clintons. Maybe he stole it from the National Archives.

Smooth Operator

Just 'cause I've been hitting on Hillary does not mean I've forgotten about you George W.
Remember this one? Nice move, G

Hillary's Funny

Frank Rich has an interesting editorial in the NYT. Nice to have the editorials back for free, thanks New York Times!

What Makes US Great

At the risk of overdoing Pat Buchanan, I submit his latest pitch about Ahmadinejad and his request to visit Ground Zero:

"That the Iranian president has PR in mind is undoubtedly true. Much of what national leaders do is symbolic. But that wreath-laying would have said something else, as well.

It would have said that, to Iran, these Americans were victims who deserve to be honored and mourned and, by extension, the men who killed them were murderers. Bin Laden celebrates 9-11. So do all America-haters. By laying a wreath at Ground Zero, the president of Iran would be saying that in the war between al-Qaida and the United States, he and his country side with the United States.

How would we have been hurt by letting him send this message?"

Food for thought.

Also, how do we win by not letting him speak?

If we cannot easily win a debate with this "madman", then we should listen to him.

It can't hurt to have him expose himself for what he is, unless we are afraid of exposing something in ourselves. Open communication and debate is essential to democracy and truth. I credit George W. for being on the right side on this one, unlike Fred Thompson who sounds ready to kick the UN out of the US. Read the Buchanan article for more history of our relations with our enemies, and how we used to handle it, with diplomacy even in the face of war, it's part of what used to make the US Great.

What's Wrong with America TODAY?

Three columns ripped from today's headlines, columns that show the real problems going on with America right now. Not OJ or Britney problems, but real BIG problems we as Americans need to face.
#1. Let's start with the Constitution, and the power to declare war. That power rests with the Congress. I know we've all been conditioned to think that it's the executive power, but that's wrong. We need to correct this:

From John Nichols at The Nation:
"“The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war,” explained Roger Sherman, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Connecticut, who moved to make clear the intent of the founders that nothing in their exposition of the powers of the executive branch should be conceived as authorizing the president to “make war.” An executive could assume the mantle of commander-in-chief only when it was necessary to defend the country; never to wage kingly wars of whim.

Sherman’s resolution was approved overwhelmingly by the Philadelphia convention that finished its work September 17, 1787"....

..."The voters dealt with last fall (2006) with the Republican Congress that had collaborated with Bush to thwart the rule of law. The unfortunate reality of the moment is that a Democratic Congress that was elected to restore a measure of balance to the federal stage has responded to necessity with caution. But that does not change the eternal reality of the Republic, which is that this “opposition” Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Members of the House and Senate must impeach and try a president who is assaulting the most basic precepts of the American experiment. Anything less is a mockery of the document they swear an oath to defend - and an invitation to this and future presidents to further unchain the dogs of war that the founders struggled so mightily to contain."


#2. Freedom of Speech. Sure, the dude was a jerk, a real punk, but shouldn't we tolerate him asking questions? Where's the harm in asking a politician difficult questions? Naomi Wolf may read too much into it, but certainly that incident shouldn't just be laughed off. Dissent is essential to Democracy.

From Naomi Wolf at the Huffington Post:
"Today’s news shows a recognizable shock moment in the annals of a closing society. A very ordinary-looking American student — Andrew Meyer, 21, at the University of Florida - was tasered by police when he asked a question of Senator John Kerry about the impeachment of President George Bush. His arms were pinned and as he tried to keep speaking he was shocked — in spite of begging not to be hurt. A stunning piece of footage but unfortunately, historically, a very familiar and even tactical moment.

It is an iconic turning point and it will be remembered as the moment at which America either fought back or yielded. This violence against a student is different from violence against protesters in the anti-war movement of 30 years ago because of the power the president has now to imprison innocent U.S. citizens for months in isolation. And because, as I have explained elsewhere, we are not now in a situation in which ‘the pendulum’ can easily swing back. That taser was directed at the body of a young man, but it is we ourselves, and our Constitution, who received the full force of the shock."

3. Mercenaries- We've privatized our military, folks. We hire companies to protect our soldiers and politicians who visit Iraq. Isn't that what the military is for? If they can't protect their own, who can? Ah yes, mercenaries that answer to no court. This practice must end at once.

From Peter Grier and Gordon Lubold at the Christian Science Monitor:"In the case of the latest incident, Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said in a statement Monday that the company’s contractors “acted lawfully and appropriately…. Blackwater regrets any loss of life but this convoy was violently attacked by armed insurgents, not civilians, and our people did their job to defend human life.”

Iraqis have long bristled at the presence of the private guards, who they claim are little more than mercenaries with little respect for Iraqi lives and less discipline than uniformed US troops.

An Iraqi police officer who works in Karada, a mixed sectarian neighborhood in eastern Baghdad, says the foreign private security firms act out of their own interests as they jet through the city and seem to pay little heed to the dangers they pose to average citizens on the street.

The officer says employees of the firms use overly aggressive tactics, crashing into cars and disobeying traffic laws and often rolling over gardens and hitting trees - and never stopping.....

...“It is possible that some contractors may remain outside the jurisdiction of US courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq,” concludes CRS.

This legal gray area stems in part from the fact that the Iraq conflict represents the first time the US has depended on private contractors to provide widespread security services in a hostile environment."

So, those are my big three bad things from the headlines this week...enjoy! Now back to watching OJ get off again.....

Bush Stumbles Over Border

Conservative first-lady Phyllis Schlafly has some major complaints about George W. Bush and the Mexican Immigrant/Border problem. We've now made it far easier for them to come here illegally, literally by the truckload, and it's all thanks to George W:

"At 9 p.m. Sept. 6, the Bush administration opened up all U.S. highways and roads to Mexican trucks and drivers. That gave the green light to the first 38 of up to 100 Mexican trucking companies. Nobody knows how many thousands of Mexican trucks will eventually drive on U.S. roads.

Bush thumbed his nose at the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 411-3 on May 15, and again July 24 by voice vote, to prohibit the entry of Mexican trucks. White House pressure prevented a vote in the U.S. Senate."

and there's more:

"...Sept 14, the first anniversary of the overwhelming, 283-138 passage in the House of the Secure Fence Act. The Senate subsequently passed it 80-19, and President Bush signed it into law on Oct. 26 in front of TV cameras.

This law ordered the government to build an 854-mile fence along our U.S.-Mexico border. After one year, the Bush administration has built only 18 miles.

This failure - or refusal - to obey the law makes us believe that Bush and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff do not intend to build the fence, and is a prime example of why the U.S. people don't trust their government."

George W., doin' our country proud, on so many fronts. Ironically, Hillary would probably be doing the same thing on these issues.... the Democrats have the best issue to run on (controlling our borders), and yet they're not willing to do anything, either. Are we a country if we don't control our border? Isn't that part of the definition of "country"?

Daddy's Got Truck

P1060768b, originally uploaded by Watts4.

Adios Mazda3, Hola Toyota Tacoma

Ron Paul Epiphany

Vox Day at WND has a terrific article about Ron Paul's candidacy:

"The reason there is so much cheering for Ron Paul is that he is the only Republican who has staked out popular positions on the two most significant issues of the 2008 election cycle. He is anti-occupation and pro-border control. No amount of Bush administration spin is going to change the fact that "the surge" is strategically irrelevant, that the neocon's Democratic World Revolution is a total failure and that Mexico is being allowed to invade the United States. In short, Ron Paul is the only Republican whose positions on the two primary issues are different than Hillary Clinton's stance on them, and, more importantly, are more credible and more popular than Hillary Clinton's. He is the only Republican whose nomination can realistically be considered a potential impediment to what otherwise looks like a Democratic landslide."

If Republicans can come to their senses.....oh never mind!

For the Love of Money

As we approach the 9/11 anniversary, I think it's worth noting that our response to the attacks has been unwise, even if you only look at the monetary costs. Robert Scheer writes:

"In the effort to retaliate against terrorists who hijacked planes six years ago with an arsenal of $3 knives, this year’s overall defense budget has been pushed to $657 billion. We are now spending $3 billion a week in Iraq alone, occupying a country that had nothing to do with the tragedy that sparked this orgy of militarism. The waste is so enormous and irrelevant to our national security that a rational person might embrace the libertarian creed if only for the sake of sanity. Clearly, the federal government no longer cares much about providing for health, education, hurricane reconstruction or even bridge safety, as the military budget now dwarfs all other discretionary spending, despite the lack of a sophisticated enemy in sight."

When you look at the overall budget numbers, what our government spends money on, it becomes obvious that the military takes up too much of our spending. The Iraq War has just blown it through the roof. Our surpluses have turned to debts. And that's just the money side of the problem...

Ron Paul Back in the Day

Remember the Morton Downey Jr. Show? Back in the late 80's, Mr. Downey ripped and roared through debates on issues facing America, all the while smoking cigarettes and being belligerent with his guests and audience. I loved it, but it got old pretty fast. I preferred Downey to say, Arsenio Hall... he did cover important issues (if only in a crude way). Anyway, Slate unearthed this clip with Ron Paul, great stuff!

Ron Paul's website

Wreck 2

DSC00038b, originally uploaded by Watts4.

Wreck

DSC00037b, originally uploaded by Watts4.

Everybody was OK, thank God!

Outside Broadcast, Zoo2, ya know

Best U2 bootleg ever? Find (and download) it here

Found this through Scatter o' Light, a great blog for music/U2 fans.

Freshmen Dems Question Hillary's Electibility

Robert Novak may be a complete ass, but occasionally he reports things that others don't, and sometimes it makes sense. In honor of one of these occasions, I submit this recent quote from an article on Human Events:

"Many of the Democratic congressmen who ousted Republicans in marginal House districts last year privately express concern about the impact on their re-election prospects if Hillary Clinton is nominated for president.

Because of the strong possibility that Sen. Clinton indeed will be the party's candidate, these congressmen will not openly express their fears. But they dread her impact from the top of the ticket.

Clinton's opponents don't raise the question in public. But there is such underground talk in Iowa, the state opening the battle for convention delegates, questioning her "electability.""

Edwards Surge?

"Fighting for One America" Bus Tour - Portsmouth, NH, originally uploaded by John Edwards 2008.

I sense a change in the Edwards campaign lately, he seems to have thrown away the shackles of party politics and is really speaking from the heart. Hillary's campaign donation troubles may open a window and hopefully will unravel her campaign as people are reminded of her dealings with Chinese donors, the Lincoln bedroom for rent, Mark Rich pardon, etc.
There is still a lot of time, and hopefully smart Democrats will realize that Hillary is not the right candidate. America deserves better.

Pat Boone Loves Bush (no matter what)

Pat Boone had the audacity to fill one of his World Net Daily columns with one of those pass-along to your Republican friends' e-mail pieces, so I'm going to go through and make some points of my own (my points will be italicized like this):

The Speech George W. ought to give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying, "My fellow Americans."

Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. (Pretty soon half us won't be Americans, not legal ones anyway thanks to your lack of border security and pimping to agri-interests)

I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer. (Does that mean you're going to torture us, or just wiretap us?)

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. (Cheers from around the world) Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office. (A-hem, OK)

The reason I'm quitting is simple: I'm fed up with you people. (The feeling is mutual, Mr. President)

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world (we have more in common than you might think, then!) – or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damn lazy to do your homework and figure it out. (we really DO have a lot in common!)

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians (Republicrats) and the news media (FOX News and Rush Limbaugh, for example. Certainly not lefties like Phil Donohue who was fired before the invasion because NBC didn't want to be seen as anti- war. Not when your guys were doing such a good job making everybody feel patriotic enough to go to war.) Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. (Before the war, a majority of us thought Saddam was behind 911. Thanks for taking advantage of our stupidity that you are so well aware of) And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of minority homeowners. (Have you seen that your free-money lending cronies are now foreclosing on these poor folks at record rates?) And while we're mentioning m minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. (Are these minorities the ones who are here legally?) Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. (Heck, a lot of these folks have two and three jobs!) I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels, and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. (Thanks to your tax cuts for the rich and record spending that the next generations will be paying for, good job!) Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security. (The only thing stopping your oil-rich buddies from building refineries is the fact that they want gas prices to be high, so they can make record profits like they have the whole time you've been in office. Why spend money on refineries, when that will only eat into their profits? We should be investing in new energy technologies, instead of planning more giveaways to your oil cronies)

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this "blood for oil" thing. If I were trading blood for oil, I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. (So instead, you don't control the oil fields, AND let Iraq go to hell, nice job!) And don't give me this "Bush Lied; People Died" crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be "discovered." Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. (One Republican I battled with before the invasion said that was exactly what we should do if we didn't find them....with all the other lies, why not? I suppose all the supporters you have left DO think we found WMDs)

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. (Well, except for the inspectors. And here I was thinking you were smarter than everybody else!) Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy before I came into office. Some guy named Clinton established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? (And you agree with everything Clinton did, I see. Your Daddy was the one who thought it would not be prudent to invade Iraq, maybe you should have consulted with him, instead of ignoring him and his most trusted advisers like Scowcroft, Baker and Powell)

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the Cold War, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them. (And when we won and had a chance to re-shape the world, we could have chosen to take the high ground, instead we tried to rule with an iron fist. Smart!)

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe. (I thought they were all lured to Iraq, so we could fight them over there? )

You should be grateful they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since Sept. 11. But you're not. (Of course not, we want to be bombed so you'll look bad) That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of "Survivor." (Your cronies also said it would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators, and democracy would spread through the MidEast. Well, those democracies are electing terrorists, my friend. Good plan.)

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops. (Maybe we should have avoided fighting the Iraq War. And you thought we could take over Iraq with a quarter of the troops your smart advisers suggested, with only England, Portugal, and Poland as our allies. Unless you still want to count Pakistan and "the General", you know, the country Bin Laden is hiding in, a place we can't possibly search for him because....Pakistan already has the BOMB. No wonder Iran wants one, too. Under your leadership, countries know that's the only way we won't invade. Brilliant plan.)

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a jihadist. It amounts to the same thing. (I see, the Democrats and the media are the real terrorists, let's send 'em all to Guantanamo!)

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch "American Idol." (You told us to carry on like normal, don't let this war inconvenience your shopping habits, we have an economy to support. No need to sacrifice for your country, just keep on spending. Debt is good for us!)

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. (Ah, blaming the victims, nice!)

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford; I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. (Unless they speak Spanish) Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall. (I hope you're still around to take most of the blame)

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting, too. (Did he tell you that? You still believe everything he tells you? Talk about dummy!) That means Pelosi is your new president. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008. (Which Republican candidate will be riding into office on your coattails, Mr. President?)

So that's it. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off. ('Cause that's the American Way, George W-style, bring it on!)

Stop Hillary

A letter to the editor in the Star-News caught my eye, and in my battle to save the country by stopping Hillary Clinton, I thought I'd share some of it with y'all:

"Many syndicated pundits frequenting the Star-News pages are wriggling on their bellies to kiss Hillary Clinton's feet and crown her even before the election.

They've conveniently buried the commodity market and land development (deals) the Clintons were involved in, the political favors … and Bill's 140 pardons and 36 sentence commutations in the last hours of his presidency …
Marc Rich, who fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution on tax evasion, was pardoned after his wife contributed $70,000 to Hillary's Senate campaign and even more to Clinton's presidential library.

The powerful Clintons escaped, though several of their partners went to prison. The Bush administration has cooperated with the Clintons by refusing to release unredacted Justice Department records regarding these matters.

Lastly, Clinton's advocacy and passage of NAFTA was the beginning of outsourcing and the end for America's manufacturing industry and good paying jobs.

Who wants the Clintons in the White House again - and why?

Stan Bozarth

Wilmington"

Now I'm no Clinton-hater, but my man Stan has some good points I'd like to elaborate on myself. Many of Bill Clinton's pardons at the end of his second term were a slap in the face to justice. I had hoped this meant that Hillary would never run for president, because they really let loose some evil folks who did bad things for the country while lining their own pockets, and the Clintons' campaign coffers. Money for pardons, basically.

NAFTA could have been worked to be favorable for our interests and Mexico's and Canada's too, but instead, it became a gift to big corporations who took advantage. Reagan's immigrant amnesty was tied to making NAFTA work, providing good paying jobs to Mexicans in Mexico, so they would not have to come here to make a decent wage, so they could build a strong economy and become a better neighbor. Instead, the NAFTA we got allowed companies to move down there, ignore environmental laws and pay lowly wages that only encouraged more of them to immigrate here. The Clintons bow down to big money just as much as the Bushies do.

Lastly, a point I have not seen elsewhere... I believe Hillary's run is against the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. That's the one about a two term limit. Sure, Hillary was not president, but she was part of the team. When they ran, Bill claimed that we'd be getting "two for the price of one". I suggest that Hillary has already served two term in the White House, and her attempt to regain control runs counter to the spirit of the 22nd Amendment. She's flaunting our Constitution, folks!

Do we really want Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? 20+ years of the same bought and paid for leadership? Have they really been that good for the US? I submit that Clinton/Bush are two sides of an expensive coin, and we'd do better to toss that coin into a wishing well and elect a leader who will take us in a new, more moral and upright direction.