Saturday, December 31, 2005




May deepest night take the reign of tyrants.

May a shattering fear fly through their souls.

May the wrongly persecuted know justice.

May we forge with our own hands,

The world we leave to our children.

Wanna see some horseshit?


It would be funny if it wasn't so damned pitiful.

No, I'm wrong. It is funny:



UT has given us a link the Fourth Amendment in pdf format :

Thank you , kind sir.

Also, here is a link to the USA Patriot Act which I believe is the pin on which Bush will try and make his angels dance:



John W. Dean: George W. Bush as the new Richard M. Nixon: Both wiretapped illegally, and impeachably'
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security

Posted on Friday, December 30

John W. Dean, FindLaw

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.

Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action that Followed

Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam -- we were at war at the time -- were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.

Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.

Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court -- that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.

The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.

Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps, Was Congress' Call to Make

No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.

What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.

Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?

The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.

No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture -- the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.

Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View

Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.

Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.

Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)

Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been -- and will be in the future -- circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."

Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.

Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively.

Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.

Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.

But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.

Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.

No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.

But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.

To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book -- one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.

Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."

To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.

Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.

In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress -- discover that he is using them?



In the past I have avoided posting entire articles or news stories, preferring instead to post excerpts and links as a courtesy to the authors and websites involved. For the purpose of intelligence gathering and to form a database on the Bush/NSA spying outrage, I am changing my policy until further notice.

Courts unlikely to hear wiretap cases, legal scholars say

By Richard Willing USA Today 12/22/05

Are warrantless wiretaps of domestic targets suspected of terrorist activity legal if the surveillance is approved by the president?

That question, raised by the disclosure of a secret National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects in the USA, is unlikely to be answered in a court of law, according to lawyers, legal scholars and security specialists.

The reason: The surveillance is so secret that its targets are unlikely to know they were wiretapped and thus are unlikely to raise a court challenge. That leaves the legal underpinnings of the program to be debated in Senate hearings expected to begin in early 2006.

Program circumvents 1978 law

"It looks like most of the accountability is going to have to come in the court of public opinion," says Carl Tobias, constitutional law specialist at the University of Richmond law school in Virginia.

On Friday, The New York Times reported that President Bush had signed an executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor phone calls and e-mails of citizens, legal residents and foreigners for signs of terrorist activity. The order, signed months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, requires one party to the communication to be outside the USA.

The program, which the Times said targeted "hundreds, perhaps thousands" of people in the USA, circumvented a 1978 law that permits anti-terrorist surveillance in the USA with permission from a special federal court.

The NSA has satellites and other equipment able to tap and store vast amounts of information from telephone calls, e-mails and satellite transmissions around the globe. Bush and other administration officials later confirmed the existence of the surveillance operation.

On Monday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the Constitution and a Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution allowed Bush to authorize the surveillance. In some cases, Gonzales said, seeking warrants would take too much time and would allow suspects to elude eavesdroppers.

Barry Steinhardt, privacy law specialist with the American Civil Liberties Union in New York City, says he and his colleagues have been "trying to work through" a way to challenge what he called a "policy that makes no sense."

"So far, nothing has come to mind," Steinhardt says.

Any criminal charges based on the warrantless searches could prompt a legal challenge. But Richard Sauber, a Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended an American convicted in 1999 of conspiring to spy for East Germany, says such charges are "highly unlikely."

The federal government, Sauber says, would be reluctant to reveal details of the program by making warrantless surveillance the basis for charges.

Senator to make issue 'high priority'

No criminal cases are known to have resulted from the warrantless wiretaps. Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker and naturalized citizen who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaeda, was said in the Times story to have been caught with the aid of warrantless surveillance. But Faris' lawyer, David Smith, says federal prosecutors have not acknowledged that.

An eavesdropping target could file a civil suit seeking damages — if he knew he was a target. But finding someone who qualifies, says Fordham University law professor Thomas Lee, is a "shot in the dark."

Which makes the Senate Judiciary Committee the venue in which the legal underpinnings of the policy are likely to be thrashed out. Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., the committee's chairman, has promised to make the issues the program raises a "very, very high priority" when hearings are held.

Some specialists in surveillance law think the administration's defense of its program rests on a shaky foundation.

Steinhardt notes that that law permits authorities to tap without a warrant if seeking one would take too much time. In that case, the warrant can be sought up to 72 hours later.

"There's a naked assertion here that the president can do anything he wants, including violating U.S. law domestically," Steinhardt says. "That's an argument not even a second-year law student would make up on an exam."

Douglas Kmiec, an attorney in the Justice Department under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and now a law professor at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif., notes that the Supreme Court has not ruled out warrantless searches in anti-terrorist cases.

The 1978 law creating a secret warrant process for tapping calls in spying cases within the USA contains an exception in special circumstances.

"To say the president is acting legally or illegally oversimplifies matters," Kmiec says..

President Bush, Kmiec says, appears to be making " a good faith argument ... to comply with the law as written but not disregarding his obligation to protect American citizens."

Friday, December 30, 2005

To Shout Into the Resounding Silence


Justice Dept. Probing Domestic Spying Leak

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department has opened another investigation into leaks of classified information, this time to determine who divulged the existence of President Bush's secret domestic spying program. The inquiry focuses on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, officials said. The newspaper recently revealed the existence of the program in a front-page story that also acknowledged that the news had been withheld from publication for a year, partly at the request of the administration and partly because the newspaper wanted more time to confirm various aspects of the program.

So that "crime" gets an immediate response and the President's does not?


If we can show that the President is operating outside the law in these matters without being challenged, then the rule of law here in America is dead. Therefore action against this administration falls under the pledge to protect America against "all enemies, foreign and domestic".

The coming weeks will tell the tale of our republic. As others have already pointed out in various places on the web, the President has thrown down the gauntlet. "Yes I broke the law, and I'll do it again because I can" sums up Bush's attitude about these revelations.

If our elected "leaders" in the House and Senate will not act when such brazen disregard for the rule of law cccurs in America's highest office, we the people will be forced to.

I want to know what the exact legal arguments are and exactly what laws the President may have broken. It's not enough just to say "Bush broke the law". I want to be able to say which laws he broke.

I need all relevant information regarding the Fourth Amendment and any an all legal arguments that have thus far been published on the Internet.

This is where we can start. All you link-happy web heads, now is your time. Find this information and formulate legal arguments. Post them here in the comments or e-mail at

I also need information about legal resistance to tyranny in regards to international law and the exact legal definitions of treason and sedition.

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Smoke, Blood, and Rain


"I should like to see, and this will be the last and most ardent of my desires, I should like to see the last king strangled with the guts of the last priest."

- J. Messelier

And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it.

- Herman Melville Moby Dick

My wife worries about me.

She says that sometimes my hatred for fundamentalist Christianity can blind me and eclipse what little common sense I have.

She is right.

Should I perhaps apologize for my hatred of human sacrifice? Should I try to make peace with the faith that made my childhood a place of bloody nightmares and my teenage years a marathon of guilt?

On my arm I have a tattoo of a cross. USMC, God, and Country are on a banner draped across it. Such was my foolish faith.

I once left a girl I loved and who loved me with all of her heart and soul because I believed it was God's will.

I have preached the Gospel of Christ in the streets to strangers. I have been mocked for my faith.

I have made major life decisions based on what the Bible says.

All in what seems a different lifetime.

I'm painfully self-aware. I know exactly who and what I am.

I am seriously damaged goods. I am bitter. I am angry. And I have a hatred that knows no end or compassion when it comes to Christianity. Not the people, not the Christians themselves. They are simply fellow damaged humans and I feel only pity for them.

No, it's the ideas.

The idea that man has some sort of ugly sinful side that God, in his holy purity, just can't allow.

The idea of the Fall. The idea of redemption. The idea of blood sacrifice for atonement.

The idea of worshiping anything or anyone out of fear.

There is a dark part of me. A part I can actually feel burning when I allow it to come out and play. I have accepted it, because to repress such murderous hatred would surely drive me beyond any reach of sanity.

Oddly enough I have Muslim and Wiccan friends and I find their faiths fascinating and mysterious. I don't believe in Allah or Diana anymore than I believe in Jesus, but their names don't make me break out in hives.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not angry and obsessed wondering around seeing Christian symbolism where it is not and ranting at the faithful who happen to cross my path. I keep my darkness well hidden. It is content in it's cage because it knows it will be visited often and every once in a while it's allowed out to devour( emotionally and psychologically) some poor soul who picked the wrong guy to tell about God's plan. Mormons don't visit my house anymore.

Given free reign, would I burn down the churches and cathedrals and persecute believers and priests everywhere?


One, because I hate unnecessary violence, and two because faith just loves to be

Ahh, but the ideas. Redemption. Sin. Heaven. Hell.

I want these ideas to scream. I want them to bleed.

I want to make Christianity a historical footnote. I want children in the year 5026 to be sitting in Social Studies class, amazed at what some people used to believe. I want the will of Christianity broken.

Above all else, I am a realist. I know you can no more destroy an idea than you can hold smoke in your hands. I do know that I can make people think. And dream. And hope.
You see if I had gotten ahold of the writings of someone like me when I was around ten years old, our story might have a different conclusion. I wouldn't feel an urge to bare my fangs at every crucifix I see. I would not be haunted.

I had really never intended to get into the realm of politics in my blogging. It was simply a happy accident that a mad man was appointed president just when I got my head out of my ass and began to look around at the world. No, I was strictly motivated by anger and revenge when I started my first blog Blasphemy Inc.

I'm glad I decided to branch out into the political arena. It's sorta fun watching the empire crumble. Fun in a terrifying and sad way. Some days I have to pinch myself to make sure this isn't some kind of Twilight Zone hallucination that I've tripped into, but it's never dull.

If you are a visitor to this blog and a Christian, and this blog offends you, too bad. No apologies from me.You get no points with me for having imaginary friends that you talk to. Crawl back into your church and pray for your bloody savior to make it alright if you need to, but get the hell out of my neighborhood. It's a bad neighborhood, the old ladies carry switchblades and the children all have the thousand yard stare. It's not safe here.

No matter where my writings and bloggings take me, most likely nowhere or a cell in sunny Guantanamo Bay, I will always remain that damaged and angry bomb thrower with an inexhaustible rage at all things Christian. It's my white whale. My own obsession. All monotheistic religions make me angry, Christianity is just the one that abused me. It also happens to be the one with which I am bombarded with it's message daily. If you haven't lived in the South and the Bible Belt you have no idea how cloying and pervasive it is here. Like mental kudzu, it's everywhere and you can't escape it.

I'm sure if I moved in next door to our dear friend Barnita in India, or our other hot babe Brenda in Portugal, I would have less stress about all this and much fewer reminders. Too many ghosts shadow me as I walk my path here. Here in the occupied territories of the Native Americans. Where the Great Spirit rides the thunder with the souls of my ancestors, whispering to be avenged. When it rains their tears make tracks on the dusty crosses which adorn the churches.

I remember you, I say to the rain.

And I am angry.



A Bush photo-op.

I tried to come up with something funny and scathing to say.

Nope. Too bitter. All I can do is wonder how he lives with himself.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

I like the Biblical gun cases

I can't believe I didn't see this before the holidays.

Shit, it would have changed my entire Xmas list.

Monday, December 26, 2005

Witchy Woman


I saw The Chronicles of Narnia the other day. For those of you waiting in breathless anticipation for my review:


Really that's about all the excitement I can muster for it. Don't get me wrong, the special effects were flawless and all of the actors were on their marks

I know what it is. The Lord of the Rings films have ruined any sort of fantasy film for me for the rest of my life. They were (for me at least) so well done that I will no doubt compare anything along those lines to it.

It just seemed flat. Bloodless. Literally bloodless. They could have added some actual blood to all the knifings and sword hacks and still lured the kids with a PG-13 rating. Once again, LOTR rears it's head.

The one thing that is still with me is Tilda Swinton's White Witch. She can feed me Turkish Delight any day of the week. She was beautiful and cold and she made you believe she wanted all good things to come to an end. Her sword fight at the end of the film was the the most exciting part of an action heavy feature. She first caught my attention as Gabriel in Constantine, which was an acid trip of a movie that I enjoyed once I figured out what the hell was going on. She played the androgynous angel with a magnetism that made me want the movie to be about her/him instead of Neo. I believe I have a crush.


The death and resurrection of Aslan was so heavy-handed it just ruined whatever joy I might have had. "See the stone was moved and two women were the witnesses of his return, get it? GET IT? WELL DO YOU?" was what I kept hearing. However I may be a bit biased and I always have voices in my head screaming at me, so take all that with a grain of salt. DEAD SEA SALT! GET IT?

The voices are saying wrap it up. Bye.



It feels so wrong and so dirty, but it's the truth.

The enemy of my enemy.........

UPDATE: Jason J has a comment I think perfectly sums up dissent in the information age:

Robert, don't feel bad about agreeing with Buchanan. It can happen to any of us from time to time. A couple of things have bothered me here lately on this subject. I keep wondering how hard the right is going to start pushing on our lack of resolve to defend the 'American Way of Life' and how I really feel about it once I get past hating George Walker Bush and his corrupt administration. The way I have come to think about it is that however perceived, we have communications never imagined in the era of the 'greatest generation in history' and when I read authors like Zinn, I begin to understand that how we feel isn't much different than how people felt 60 or 70 years ago. We just have somebody to talk to about it. Poor people are still poor, the wealthy still rob them blind, the church still sells lies to the blind, and the faithful still believe God will vindicate all their atrocities in some sweeping, rapturous act of vengeance. What has changed is the fact that when one of us discovers the institutional violence inherent in our capitalist society, he has the power to communicate this discovery to others on a much larger scale.

Read the entire piece in the comments section. Thanks Jason J.

Friday, December 23, 2005


God Says Nothing Back

Seems like the world's gone underground
Where no gods or heroes dare to go down
As teardrops from a hole in heaven come
Overhead like ravens dropping down like bombs

Through the morning silver-frosted glow
God says nothing back but I told you so
I told you so

God bless the void of my daydreams
Head back in the snow making angel wings
As slow motion dancing lights at dawn
Sail beneath a burning yellow sun

I'm calling out from the deep ends of my bones
Time says nothing back but I told you so
I told you so

Still waters rising in my mind
Black and deep, smoke behind my eyes
Last night I could not sleep at all
I hallucinated that you were in my arms

To be in your heart I failed my own
Love says nothing back but I told you so
I told you so

Still here re-climbing every rung
Someone saw something
Someone speak up
Back over the rotted bridge I cross
Open up these graves, let these bodies talk

Buried under leaves blood red and gold
Death says nothing back but I told you so
I told you so

-The Wallflowers

One Again


Call it Christmas if you like. Wish me a merry one if you like. As far as I'm concerned, worrying about if there is enough Christ in Christmas while we still illegally occupy Iraq and the President is pissing all over the Fourth Amendment here at home, is perverse beyond words.

But that's not what this is about.

It's about peace on earth.

To me Christmas doesn't mean Christ. It means home and warmth and family.

It's chestnuts roasting on an open fire and Jack Frost ripping at my nose.

I swear, as a child, I thought those were the words.

It is magic to me, this holiday. I wish I could celebrate a Prince of Peace. To me the idea of redemption and salvation are repugnant, but I can get behind the idea of peace on earth.

I hope someday my children and grandchildren will have a new holiday. Call it Peace Day perhaps. They will celebrate every year the day that no shots were fired from the soldiers of one country at the soldiers of another. I don't believe we shall ever see the day that no human harms another, but I believe we can stop carnage on a large scale.

Perhaps someday that will take the place of our separate tribal holidays. A one-world celebration that we learned the Lesson. That we did away with our divisions and our greed and actually worked toward peace on earth. Think of that in the coming days. If we teach our children and educate the people around us.....someday.

The colors of Peace Day will be all the colors of the rainbow. We will give gifts and tell stories about what it used to be like before we learned, truly learned in our hearts and minds, that we are all one here on our precious Earth.

I am one. You are one. The soldiers who destroyed Fallujah are one. The holy warrior building his bomb with shaking hands, he's one too. The scared and hungry child in Detroit is one. The Israeli soldiers on the wall are one. The lonely rich man in his Swiss chateau is one and the family in Rhode Island singing carols in front of the fire, they are all one. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld are me and I am them. And they are you. I may curse that part of me, yell at that part of me, and with a heavy heart I may someday have to fight that part of me to defend all that I love, yet they are one as I am one.

Learn and teach this lesson, and you shall know peace.

We've just forgotten our holy birthright. We are not part of the universe. We are the universe. We were never apart from the entire cosmos and we never can be. We've just been lied to all of our lives telling us that the voice in our head and the barrier of our skin is where we stop and the rest of creation begins. No my friends. If there is one Holy Truth in this world that is it. Someday, some bright day, we will remember what we have lost.

We will remember our one Tribe, huddled around the fire we call the sun.

It won't be sweeping and loud change, no this change will take place in the deepest depths of the human heart. It will happen and one day the rich men will try to start their wars, and the young and the poor will say no.There will be no one left to fight.

Think not his season of mythological mangers and the words of prophets and angels. You are the Prince of Peace. You redeem mankind with your actions and words. Bow not in devotion to deities, but in respect to your brothers and sisters of the Tribe.

For they are the reason for the season.

The Blowjob Heard 'Round the World


Thanks to Moe for pointing this out. I hate hypocrites.

Thursday, December 22, 2005

0ne Voice, Afraid To Speak In the Silence


So this year draws to a close. It has been a terror and a wonder for me. Terror at watching my country slide farther down into the darkness of fascism, and a year of personal wonder as I watch my what was a little squirming bundle of cute slowly become a person with his own ways and wants. These things, the horror and the hope, will always be intertwined when I think of 2005.

No doubt many of you have wondered what happened to Green September, the group that was going to change the world. Where went the fire that was going to cleanse the world of injustice in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? Why do the ramparts sit unstormed?

I have done much thinking and soul searching as of late. I had always wondered, where do you draw the line? How much do you allow to happen?

What is the straw that breaks the camel's back as it swims across the Rubicon?

It seems our government has been caught ignoring the Fourth Amendment, using chemical weapons against civilians, and are merrily torturing anyone who they deem a "terrist".

What do we wait for? A Night of Long Knives?

Oh come on, we're all thinking it. Who's going to fire the first shot? Who is going to tip the balance and begin the Second American Revolution? It will come, you know. This center cannot hold. Things are falling apart. It's just a matter of how much we're willing to give up before we take it back.

I've learned the most bitter of lesson, my dear friends. I am willing to sacrifice liberty for security. I am unwilling to do as those patriots of old did and risk everything for freedom.
I am afraid, and I am unwilling to give up my little corner of happiness for a chance to end the growing tyranny. Mine will not be the hand that fires the shot heard 'round the world, nor will these hands carry a battle flag over the ramparts.

When it comes to placing those I love so much and yes, I suppose even my creature comforts at risk, I am a coward.

This is the lesson I have learned. Talk is cheap. It's easy to be an armchair revolutionary. Easy to threaten from the safety of my keyboard.

This is the most bitter lesson I have ever learned. How could they do it? I once said to myself. How could human beings, educated German citizens, sit by and allow their country to be slowly and incrementally taken over by the Nazis?

What an arrogant fool. How easy to judge from a distance.

Green September is here. Our place to meet and greet and I love it so. You are so much in my heart.

But I hope to avoid my own foolish rhetoric from now on. If I'm not willing to put up, I will shut up.

I am not a leader of the opposition. I am not any sort of leader.

I am a scared citizen in the eye of a storm trying to get by as best I can and protect those that I love.

Your papers please


From Yahoo news:

A bill on Gov. Bob Taft's desk right now is drawing a lot of criticism, NewsChannel5 reported.

One state representative said it resembles Gestapo-style tactics of government, and there could be changes coming on the streets of Ohio's small towns and big cities.

The Ohio Patriot Act has made it to the Taft's desk, and with the stroke of a pen, it would most likely become the toughest terrorism bill in the country. The lengthy piece of legislation would let police arrest people in public places who will not give their names, address and birth dates, even if they are not doing anything wrong.

WEWS reported it would also pave the way for everyone entering critical transportation sites such as, train stations, airports and bus stations to show ID.

"It brings us frighteningly close to a show me your papers society," said Carrie Davis of the ACLU, which opposes the Ohio Patriot Act.

There are many others who oppose the bill as well.

"The variety of people who opposed to this is not just a group of the usual suspects. We have people far right to the left opposing the bill who think it is a bad idea," said Al McGinty, NewsChannel5?s terrorism expert.

McGinty said he isn't sure the law would do what it's intended to do.

"I think anything we do to enhance security and give power to protect the public to police officers is a good idea," he said. "It is a good law in the wrong direction."

Gov. Bob Taft will make the ultimate decision on whether to sign the bill.

WEWS was told that Taft is expected to sign the bill into law, but legal experts expect that it will be challenged in courts.


I looked around some more on what is coming to be known as the Ohio Patriot Act, turns out it's worse than I thought. If it passes, to be able to get a drivers license in Ohio you will have to answer questions about what kind of groups you donate money to!


What a great year it wasn't


Barry Crimmins has a wonderful year-end roundup. Make sure you catch the sidebar at the bottom. It may have the best take on Bill O'Reilly's "War on Christmas" bullshit that I've heard yet:

Even if the FOX News host has things he'd much rather be doing with a marital aid, his anus, his leprechaunic Irish penis, a speaker phone, a loofa, some falafel, and an unwilling employee, he found the time to speak up for the vast majority of Americans: the oft-overlooked Christians. Christians who had become much too lax with department-store employees' godless use of phrases such as "Happy Holidays."

Put that one in your stocking Bill.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Truth and Lies


Q Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of it's powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

Jesus Christ Serial Killer


Joe Bageant says it in a way I've tried to for some time. Sometimes living here in the Red State Bible Belt feels like being alone behind enemy lines. My friends here at Green September keep me sane knowing there is intelligent life out there.

I can't even say how much this article touched me. From surviving ex-fundies everywhere, thanks Joe.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Artist- JMF

Click for larger version that would make a kick ass bumper sticker

UPDATE: For Mohamed and others who wanted a smaller banner

Stroke of Luck


My favorite headline of today from Yahoo news:


It seems Ariel Sharon has had a small stroke. Nobody leaves the Likud party.


If Santa will now arrange for Bush to contract a rare form of flesh-eating genital Herpes, my holiday wishes will be granted.

Apparently Sharon is much improved. According to Haaretz, a nurse was taking his vital signs and Sharon unhinged his jaw and swallowed her whole.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Illegal and unconstitutional


He's finished.

The Democratic leadership needs to call for:

A. The NSA to release the names of every American that they spied on.

B. The immediate resignation of the President.

Bad joke

Please disregard the previous post with the big shiny rifle in it. I've taken it down, it was a bit inappropriate. It was not meant as anything other than black humor.

Friday, December 16, 2005

I'm waiting for an apology from every damned right-wing blog out there



Thursday, December 15, 2005

Home Again

Hi kids. Very sorry about frightening anyone with my silence. My description of upcoming vacation wasn't very accurate. We were in Orlando for a week. Then we hopped over to Charleston to visit some friends and just returned on Tuesday. Didn't mean to worry anybody. I'm back now, very tired and working to catch up on all of I've missed political wise. Thanks everybody for their concern. More on the fun later and some pics soon as I can get 'em loaded.