House Passes War Bill: $162B More For The Destruction Of Iraq And Afghanistan

The House of Representatives [sic] has passed a bill which would fund the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan well beyond the twice-unelected president's scheduled date of departure. And that's the good news.

Republicans [...] applauded the passage of another war funding bill without a deadline for troop withdrawals, something Pelosi and many Democrats had sought [sic] since early last year.

"The measure provides this critical funding without bogging it down with politically motivated surrender language," Boehner said.

"Politically motivated surrender language"! These monsters are so transparent, they'd make me laugh if their actions weren't so deplorable. But that's the good news.

And now the bad news: the Democrats are calling it a victory!

Included in the bill that funds continued war without a deadline, are three provisions which president Bush has already threatened to veto. With apparent support for an override in Congress, the House has "stood up" to the president on those points.

"He is reversing three distinct veto threats and signing them into law. If that ain't a victory, I don't know what is," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus [photo].

Bush can reverse any of those clauses with signing statements, so what difference does it make to him?

The bottom line: the Democrats, who control the House of Representatives [sic] and therefore the national purse-strings, have chosen to spend another $162 billion -- $540 per person -- over the next year, to keep killing people you've never met, in wars of aggression in foreign countries, which are being fought on false pretexts. And

"If that ain't a victory, I don't know what is,"

according to the so-called leader of the so-called opposition party.

Nothing in my lifetime, and probably nothing in American history, has shown as clearly as the so-called Global War On Terror just how easily corruptible and utterly corrupt the American political system is.

But even having seen it -- even seeing it more clearly every day -- we continue to drift along, sliding ever closer to the edge of a horrible abyss.

What's another $162 billion? How many more innocent people will that kill? Enough?

No! It's never enough! Next year they'll need more, and they'll need even more than they needed this year. And even if we've got a Democratic president, even if we've got a solidly Democratic Congress, will they dare to vote against it?

You must be joking.

This is the same Rahm Emanuel who denied funding and national exposure to any Democrat who was fortunate enough to win a primary but not smart enough to toe the party line. So Bob Bowman (who supports 9/11 truth) and Clint Curtis (who supports electoral integrity) were on their own for the general election, while Cynthia McKinney (who supports both) was torpedoed in the primary.

And he's running the national Democratic caucus.

All we can do at this point is drop to our knees and beg for mercy.

Raiding The Vault -- Part III: "Burn"

I almost managed to laugh back in January when I saw that the Washington Post had published a piece called "Democracy Activists Disappointed in Bush", because I knew the democracy activists in question must be foreigners.

Democracy activists in the USA have long been "disappointed" with Bush -- especially with the way in which he was supposedly twice elected -- but the Washington Post has hardly shown any interest in such stories.

As it turned out (mark the calendar!) I was correct; Bush had just ended a tour of the Middle East and some of the people there were none too happy with his failure to bring democracy to their countries.

Hisham Kassem, an Egyptian political activist who last year received a U.S. National Endowment for Democracy award, was left dispirited by Bush's tour. The year 2005 "was the best year in my life, politically. ... Our hopes were way up there," Kassem said. "But -- it was just another story."

Anger grew in his voice. "Bush, as far as American foreign policy vis-a-vis democracy, civil rights, is right back to square one," Kassem added. "This trip marks it."

Hisham Kassem amazes me with his assertion that Bush's pro-democracy rhetoric was "just another story". The amazing part is that it's taken him three years since Bush's second inaugural address to figure it out.

Bush wasn't the only salesman peddling the lies, of course.

In 2005, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped create as much of a democratic fervor as the Middle East had ever seen, democracy activists said. Rice vowed support for "the democratic aspirations of all people."
...

Middle East democracy activists these days say they wonder whether the United States has returned to the formula that Rice renounced in 2005: valuing the stability of autocratic Arab governments over the uncertainty of elected ones.

They're still wondering? Terry Jones figured it out three years ago, and he said so in an interview with Mother Jones:

What amazes me about [Bush's second inaugural address] is he’s basically just declared war on the rest of the world. But nobody seemed to really notice. He said it in a very nice way, so maybe they missed what he was talking about. Basically, he said that America can take out any government it doesn’t like and do whatever it likes. It’s stunning. It’s people’s reaction to it that’s been extraordinary to me, that nobody’s taken notice of what he’s actually saying.

Terry Jones was wrong on one point; somebody did notice what he was saying.

Chris Floyd noticed, too -- he noticed that something was very wrong, and saw what it was, and wrote an amazing piece to mark the occasion. Please read all of "Tongues of Flame: Strange Doings at the Inauguration", not just this introduction:

"Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked." – Exodus 23:7

There was something strange – passing strange – about the sumptuous carnival mounted to celebrate George W. Bush's chokehold on power this week.

Go ahead -- read it all! But don't forget to come back for another piece from the cold vault: a horrified look at exactly what the twice-unelected president said on the occasion of his second inauguration.

"Burn"

It was billed as a giant party. It was presented as a celebration. But in reality it was an act of war. And its centerpiece was a cold-blooded declaration.

George Bush's declaration of war wasn't phrased in conventional terms. But nobody in his administration has ever done anything in conventional terms. They have never said what they meant. We have always been required to read between the lines.

But the meaning of Bush's second inaugural address was crystal-clear, for those who can interpret the code-words. This speech featured two code-words in particular: Freedom and Democracy.

Please read it all, especially all you democracy activists, and don't be disappointed anymore.

It was always just a story.

No Charges Against Spitzer, But Wingnut Calls For Resignation Or Impeachment

Republicans nationwide are calling for the resignation of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer [photo], following allegations of involvement with a high-priced prostitution ring. The story is generating international attention, even though no criminal charges have been laid.

And, according to the New York Times,

[New York State] Assemblyman James Tedisco, a Republican and the Assembly minority leader, said he would begin moving to have Mr. Spitzer impeached if the governor did not step down within 48 hours.

My, what double standards we keep.

When the offending party is an elephant, such as Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi, it doesn't matter whether he's been charged, indicted, arraigned, whatever ... We get explanations like this:

"There is a presumption of innocence in this country and it applies to congressmen. And Congressman Renzi is fully prepared to continue serving [sic] his [constitutents] while we fight for his rights in court. And there's plenty of rights to be fought for."

But when the offending party is a donkey, all that "presumption of innocence" stuff goes out the window. This is politics, after all; and post-democratic America, too; in other words: There are no rules. There is only power.

Larisa Alexandrovna has more at At-Largely. In "Remember the days when being linked to a straight, female, adult hooker was political suicide?" she mentions a few Republicans who have been caught doing much worse, but who have remained in office; she also mentions some of the sleaziest Republican sex scandals of recent times, all of which go way beyond this one.

Then, in "Spitzer's selective prosecution?", she looks at some of the disturbing indications that this case is personal and political rather than anything else.

Jane Hamsher asks some good questions at Fire Dog Lake, too. See "Some Questions About the Spitzer Incident".

As for me, I merely wish to express my confidence that this incident has nothing to do with the op/ed Spitzer published last month in the New York Times, in which he exposed the fact that the Bush administration had used its power to protect predatory mortgage lenders, over the objection of all 50 state Attorneys General.

I am also confident that it has nothing to do with any of the anti-corruption work he has done on behalf of the people of his state.

How can I be so confident? Because ruining somebody because of a truth he'd told -- or because of good work he had done -- would be dishonest.

That's why.

Now, if he had done something really trivial -- started a war of aggression, or several of them -- and an opposition politician had called for his resignation with the threat of impeachment, I might be singing a different tune. I might say "Aw, come on! This is meaningless; it's all political; they just don't like his attitude."

And then I could be the perfect wingnut.

Arizona Congressman Arraigned For Corruption; Party Affiliation A Secret

Arizona Congressman Rick Renzi [photo] pleaded not guilty Tuesday to federal charges including insurance fraud, extortion and money laundering.

Lupita Murillo reports for KVOA News 4 Tucson:

Congressman Renzi arraigned in federal court

On February 21, Renzi and his former business partners were indicted after a lengthy investigation.

It focused on the land development and insurance businesses owned by Renzi's family.

Renzi and his business partners James Sandlin and Andrew Beard are all accused of concealing at least $733,000 that Renzi allegedly took for helping seal the land deals.

Renzi and Beard are also accused of embezzling more than $400,000 in insurance premiums to fund Renzi's first congressional campaign.

Renzi says he's not resigning his position. That's the message congressman Rick Renzi sent to his constitutients from court.

Congressman Renzi sat stoically next to his attorneys as he entered his 'not guilty' plea.

The judge released Renzi on a promise to appear in court and didn't set bond.

Renzi was ordered by the judge to stop at the U.S. Marshall's office to be fingerprinted and photographed.

Outside the courthouse, Renzi and his team of attorneys were met by the media. Renzi's attorney did all the talking.

Reid Weingarten told the media, "There is a presumption of innocence in this country and it applies to congressmen. And Congressman Renzi is fully prepared to continue serving his constitutients [sic] while we fight for his rights in court. And there's plenty of rights to be fought for."

The FBI spent 26,000 man-hours on this case.

Prosecutors declined to comment.

I don't mind commenting.

How is it that I can read this whole article without once finding any allusion to the name of the political party to which Rick Renzi is attached?

Why can I go to his website, and read "About Rick", and still find no mention of his party affiliation?

Could it be because he's an elephant? YES.

Are the elephants so rotten that they no longer publicly identify themselves as such? YES.

Are the American "news" media sufficiently corrupt to go along with this distortion-by-omission? YES.

If the indicted congressman were a donkey, would the media be singing a different tune? OF COURSE.

Anybody who didn't get all these answers on the first try is welcome to stay late today for some review.

As for presumption of innocence, there are more than 350 people incarcerated at Gitmo who have never even been charged with any crime of any nature, let alone betrayal of the supposedly sacred trust of public service. Some of them were captured by lawless tribesmen when they tried to escape the American bombing of their homeland, then sold into eternal captivity. And they aren't entitled to any presumption of innocence. They aren't entitled to anything -- not even a hearing!

So why does "presumption of innocence" apply to a congressman who's been indicted after 26,000 man-hours of investigation, and against the prevailing political winds, when it doesn't apply to people who have never even been charged?

Because "presumption of innocence", like every other aspect of the rule of law, is now a political weapon, to be used against enemies of the regime, and on behalf of their friends. Pakistan is the model.

In Canada, A Parliamentary Jihad Against Corruption

The bogus rhetoric of the bogus War on bogus Terror has reached stunning new lows in Canada, where an investigation by a parliamentary ethics committee looking into corruption allegations against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has been described as a "jihad".

CBC reports:

Mulroney spent four hours before the committee on Dec. 13 and admitted to taking $225,000 in cash from [German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz] Schreiber after his time in office for lobbying efforts abroad in the late 1990s.

The former prime minister has apologized for that lapse of judgment [sic], said Mulroney's spokesman, Robin] Sears, but adds that the business arrangement wasn't illegal or unethical.

Schreiber, however, maintains that he paid Mulroney $300,000 to lobby the Canadian government for a light-armoured vehicle plant known as the Bear Head project. He also says that the two reached their working arrangement on June 23, 1993, two days before Mulroney stepped down as prime minister.

The line in question came about because Mulroney -- who apparently lied to the committee in December -- has refused to appear for a second round of questioning. It's more dangerous now that the committee has heard other witnesses and his deception has been exposed. So instead of allowing the long-overdue pursuit of justice to proceed, Mulroney has set his spokesman on the attack, like so:

"This has been like a 15-year jihad against Mulroney and his family by his enemies — led by Mr. Schreiber and enabled by some in the media," Sears told CBC News earlier in the day.

So there you have it; it's a holy war, waged by international enemies.

Committee vice-chair, NDP MP Pat Martin, was swift to condemn the spokesman's choice of words, saying the comment was "shameful," "goofy" and trivializes the "international crisis of jihad."

Au contraire, Mr. Martin. It trivializes the international crisis of political corruption. And if this is what the global jihadis are out to expose, then they just got my vote!

Screwed: How The Bush Administration Defied All 50 States So Predatory Bankers Could Rape American Consumers

Here's one of the most disgusting stories to come along since ... well ... Tuesday:

The Bush administration [...] used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer [photo], courtesy of the Washington Post, in toto, with my emphasis (and thanks to z):

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime:
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers:

Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

As I read this piece, I couldn't help asking myself: How much more treason are we going to put up with?

When I finished reading, I started thinking: Why isn't this front-page news all over the country? This is not some crank we're talking about; it's the governor of a very important state! And he's not whining about what the feds did to him or his little fiefdom; he's speaking for all 49 others as well! So why is this story not considered "news"? Why is it only an "opinion" piece? Why was it run on page 25? Why aren't reporters chasing this down all over the country?

... and all these questions answer my first one, don't they?

So does this video: "Orwell Rolls In His Grave".

Not "If" But "When": Business Will Become Enforcement Under Martial Law

When the meltdown passes the crucial stage and Bush has "no choice" but to declare martial law, a select group of businessmen will know about it first, thanks to inside information from the FBI.

And if you don't like it, they'll be ready to shoot you, without danger of legal consequences, as Matthew Rothschild reports for The Progressive:

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law.

InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

“Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

As the name implies, InfraGard values property rights above all else. So they're the perfect tools of a fascist government, and they're being readied for more action than one might suspect:

One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation—and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.

“The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out.

But that’s not all.

“Then they said when -- not if -- martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.

I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.”

I'm not someone who gets nervous either.

It's a win/win situation. The businessmen get inside information, and the feds get a few more details -- armed thugs.

On second thought, make that situation "win/win/lose".

And read Matthew Rothschild: Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business

Tom Toles: So Much For Mikey