American Citizens News Network

July 10, 2008

The Facts

That’s right; it’s TRILLION, with a capital “T”. If you have watched any news at all for the past three or four days you will know that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored mortgage lenders, are in very serious financial trouble. It’s been quietly building for quite some time now with just an occasional mention by the media. Bloomberg published this article on the impending disaster today, July 10, 2008. Their woes are a direct result of the mortgage melt down that claimed Bear Stearns, and what will probably be many more before it is finished. The biggest problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is that they have about $12 trillion in outstanding home loans (debt), and they are responsible for about half of that, or $6 trillion.

My View

First, let’s point out that the current total US debt is well above $9 trillion. Even the best estimates is that it will take us about 75 years to pay that off, and that’s only if we start balancing our federal budget by 2010 (we all know that won’t happen) and raise our tax burden by a substantial margin; otherwise it’s anybody’s guess how long it will take. Now; if we have to add another $6 trillion to that to cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government will have little choice but to declare bankruptcy. In fact, there are many experts in the field that say we are already bankrupt, we just won’t admit it. If not bankruptcy, we will have to find some sucker country to loan us the money, in which case will eventually cost us as much as $20 trillion with interest, etc.

Second, let me debunk all those out there that are going to say the federal government and us taxpayers will not be held responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even Wikipedia implies the government is not responsible.  That’s a bunch of crock. Yes, I am aware that in 1968 they were converted into a private corporation with share holders. But the two are still government sponsored companies, which means the federal government basically stands behind them. And don’t think for one moment that the corporate management and share holders don’t know that. Otherwise, why would they ever fund $12 trillion of debt? No fat chance. You can find plenty of supporting documentation on line to confirm that we taxpayers will foot the bill, and “What Do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Do” is one of them. Under “Do I have anything at stake in this issue”, you will find the following paragraph; “As a taxpayer, on the other hand, you have a cause for concern. The low borrowing costs of the GSEs is based on implicit Government backing for their $3+ trillion of debt and guarantees. If the GSEs ever have a financial disaster, the Government will have to bail them out and you and I will be on the hook for the cost”. GSE stands for “Government Sponsored Enterprises”. And I should point out that in 2003 (when this article was published) the two mortgage companies were only $3 trillion in debt. What private company would ever allow even that much debt to accumulate if they knew the government was not going to bail them out?

One thing we can all bet on; a lot of people have become extremely wealthy with the raping and pillaging of these two companies. And you can also bet they will not pay their fair share of the tax dollars that will be used to bail out the two companies. That’s the way the “supply-sider” politicians have set it up. And we, the real taxpayers of this country, have greatly aided them by saying “I don’t care, they are my political party and anything they do is OK with me!” Congratulations supply-sider supporters; you have helped put the last nail in our coffin.

UPDATE: I had prepared this post for earlier publication, but updated it this morning, July 11, 2008. This brief report, and others, are saying The New York Times is reporting that the government is considering “taking over” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A senior Bush administration official has said Bush is considering a plan for the takeover. Anyone care to “debunk” me now that we middle class and lower class taxpayers will not be saddled with the bill created by the supply-siders?

July 8, 2008

The Facts

Henry Waxman, Democratic Representative, is considering legislation that would ban federal money to pay for positions in the White House such as the one that Carl Rove held during President Bush’s first term in office. Waxman says Rove was in charge of campaign politics for the Bush administration, and taxpayers should not have to pay for this kind of position. Waxman said “can you imagine the reaction if each member of Congress had a campaign person paid for with taxpayer dollars?”

My View

Only George Bush and other radical extremist Republicans would have the gall to place a position like that in the White House paid for by taxpayer money. I use to think the Democrats were an underhanded political party, but they are angels now compared to what the radical extremist Republicans have pulled over the past fifteen plus years. Rove’s position was tagged as an “aide”; therefore it could be passed off as a necessary position paid with tax money. But I noticed he left the job after Bush was reelected. I guess he wasn’t needed anymore.

Karl Rove has redefined dirty politics to its lowest form and set a new standard of just how low people will stoop to obtain a goal. We should all be very proud of that. Political office, especially the oval office, has so much uncontrolled power that the likes of Karl Rove will stop at nothing to get elected. If history is honestly written it’s not going to be very kind to Rove. He has had more than his 15 minutes of fame, and he has basked in that glory. Somehow, he has managed to convince himself that the lie’s he spreads is ok, as long as “it’s in the best interest of the country” (which really means in the best interest of the party). When the time comes for his life to end, if he is aware that his time is near, he is going to have a miserable death. However, I say that on the basis that he has a conscious, and it’s hard for me to believe he has one. But most people who live a life without one seem to suddenly acquire a conscious when they are on their death bed.

Over the past six years I have paid close attention to the disinformation and outright lies put out by both major political parties, and the Republican Party and their spokespersons can take great pride in the fact they have won hands down by such a large margin it is immeasurable. They come in form of emails, letters, ads, and in live forums with friendly host who will not challenge them. As much as I despise the people who make up the Democratic Party, I find myself asking if I really want a party in power that has published so many lies. Let’s face it; if they will tell that many lies about their own party and their opponents party in order to get elected, just how honest can I expect them to be once in office; enter George Bush.

June 30, 2008

The Facts

Last year President Bush convinced the Democratic controlled congress to authorize sending Special Ops forces into Iran to “gather information”, according to the latest issue of The New Yorker Magazine. Most top military leaders are concerned about this, in that they are afraid Bush will use this opportunity to authorize an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates warns of the consequences if Bush stages a preemptive strike. He said “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America”.

My View

In a post I wrote back in May of this year, I said I believed Bush is intent on destroying America before he leaves office. And the more I learn about this man, the more convinced I become that he is willing to do so. He is the scariest President this country has ever had, and although that isn’t limited to just his stance on war, it certainly is the worst.

Not even his most dedicated supporters are agreeing with him on the way he is handling Iran. Typically we think of the military as being the one who wants to shoot first then talk, and for this reason they are kept in check by the President. That’s how our democracy was set up. But in this case, it’s the military that’s advocating taking the diplomatic approach. It’s Bush and Cheney who are beating the drums of war, and it has been their policy to fire any military leader who disagrees with them. However, all we have to do is take an unbiased look at who has (and still is) benefiting from the Iraqi war, and it’s easy to see why Bush and Cheney like going to war.

Bush has the lowest approval rating of any President in the history of the United States, and it’s obvious that there is no hope of him salvaging any kind of positive legacy. Therefore, I have no doubt he will do whatever he wants no matter what the cost is to our country and it’s citizens, just as long as it benefits those who are profiting from the war in Iraq.

June 6, 2008

The Facts

During the two day period of June 3rd and June 4th, crude oil prices dropped more than $6. Then over the last two days prices jumped about $16, to more than $138 per barrel. Every news source in the country is talking about this today. On top of all this, the jobs report for last week came out this morning with 49,000 jobs lost last week. That contributed mightily to the Dow dropping nearly 400 points today.

My View

So much for the “supply & demand” excuses for rising oil prices. But that hasn’t stopped the propaganda experts; they know there are still millions out here that are still their puppets and gladly mimic the notion that supply & demand is driving the prices up. Then there’s the scare tactics. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel made some off-handed comment today that “bombing Iran’s nuclear sites was unavoidable” and the disinformation experts grabbed onto that as an excuse of rising oil prices. Next I expect to hear the night cleaning lady in the UN building being quoted on the shortage of petroleum related cleaning products as the reason for a huge price increase.

There are a few in the media that is starting to question these excuses. However, some are being careful. One female reporter on CNBC today had a slip of the tongue when she used the word “accelerated” in reference to the price increases, but very quickly corrected herself and substituted the word “upsurge”. Not a whole lot of difference in the definitions of the words, but “accelerated” has more of a sinister sound. And she made it even more suspicious by being so quick to change the words (sure, then there’s the teleprompter). But other reporters such as Mark Haines of CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” is becoming even more skeptical. He doesn’t seem to buy all this “justification” crap. He’s always been one to raise an eyebrow at many of the questionable reports, and he seems to be the only one on that network that isn’t a big business puppet. He often questions some of the things businesses are reporting, and challenges many of the other CNBC reporters.

One CNBC guest this morning, Thomas Higgins of Payden & Rygel, said that for the first time in several years the demand for oil imports have fallen. That doesn’t support the supply & demand theory. He also said that he certainly believes we are in a recession, which doesn’t set too well with the current administration. (Of course, if the Democrats win the White House in November, I fully expect to see the Republican machine come out within the first month or so of 2009 and declare that we are in a recession.)

Another report today put the capacity of oil refineries at only 87%. That can be viewed two ways; either there is not enough oil to refine or there is not a big enough demand for gasoline. I’m sure those who support the supply & demand theory will use the first, and those who say that supply & demand is not the problem will use the latter. But with the nearly 5% drop in the demand for gasoline in the past two to three months, it is easier to believe the latter.

Right along with the increase in the price of oil today, and as mentioned earlier, the Dow dropped nearly 400 points. There were lots of folks willing to offer there opinion today on why that happened. The most popular opinion was the jobs lost report that came out this morning. With the 49,000 jobs lost last week, that brought the total job looses for 2008 to 325,000. With this latest report, this means we have lost jobs every single month for the past two years. And when you take into account that just about all the jobs experts tell us that we need an increase of 100,000 jobs each month just to break even, some might say we have “lost” over 800,000 jobs this year. This brought the unemployment up to 5.5%, which is the highest since 1987. Let’s see now, who had been in the White House for several years in 1987?

I think it’s time to change the “official” definition of recession (and maybe even depression) if we are going to continue to rely on the current definition to determine if we are in a recession or not. Of course, even if that did happen, I wouldn’t expect the Bush White House to acknowledge it. No President, Republican or Democrat, likes to admit to a recession during their watch. But it seems this current Republican President and his diehard supporters are worse than any before.

June 4, 2008

The Facts

Scott McClellan, ex-White House Press Secretary to George Bush, recently released his memoires in a new book entitled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”. The book does not speak too favorable of President Bush and many of his insiders. Among other things, McClellan said that “the administration relied on propaganda to sell the Iraqi war”. The radical extremist Republican machine immediately went into action and labeled McClellan as a “disgruntled employee”.

My View

Three friends of mine were recently engaged in a conversation about the current presidential Democratic primary. As each of them expressed their views on the subject, the other two were very attentive to what the other was saying and considered each having excellent views and meaningful comments. At one point, one of them made the comment that had Barack Obama not been getting so many votes from many blacks simply because he was black, Clinton would win the primary. The other two immediately looked at him in amazement. Then one of them declared that he was a racist. From that point on, anything the latter had to say was considered unimportant and not worthy of listening to. He had been tagged as a racist and the other two were going to have nothing to do with that.

It didn’t matter to my other two friends that what the third had said was factual; and that it was based on several credible reports from polls that had been taken during the course of the primary. To them, it only mattered that in their eyes he had made what they considered a racist comment. The ousted friend acknowledged that not all blacks who voted for Obama voted for him just because he was black, but that made no difference. So it is with Scott McClellan. He is now tagged as a “disgruntled employee”, therefore anything he said in his book or anything he has to say now is considered untrue and not worthy of listening to. The justification for it not being true lies in the “fact” that he is disgruntled. The real truth doesn’t matter; the truth has now been labeled as a lie. And with that “fact”, Bush and his ardent supporters have relieved themselves of having to address any questions on the matter.

The fact that these radical extremist Republicans have taken this stand is of no surprise to me; it’s exactly what everyone expected. But what does matter is that there are millions of good Republican voters who will automatically accept this radical extremist explanation and begin quoting this lie as fact. And so once again, “truth becomes a lie simply because I want it to be a lie”.

May 2, 2008

The Facts

Time, in partnership with CNN, has published an article entitled “How Much Did Rumsfeld Know?”. The article is an exert from a book that Army General Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote entitled “Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story”. Sanchez says that Rumsfeld showed him a memo in April of 2006 that Rumsfeld had written which said that he, Rumsfeld, has absolutely no knowledge that CENTCOM (Central Command) and CFLCC (Coalition Forces Land Component Command) was to be withdrawn from Iraq in May & June 2003, or that he knew that Sanchez was in charge after the withdrawal. The memo went on to say that neither he, Rumsfeld, nor anyone higher in the administration knew these withdrawal orders had been issued, and that he was dumbfounded when he learned that Gen McKiernan was out of the country and in Kuwait, and that the forces would be drawn down to a level of about 30,000 by September. In the same memo, Rumsfeld admits the withdrawal was one of the biggest strategist mistakes of the war. Sanchez says the memo was nothing more than Rumsfeld trying to cover his own butt, along with President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, Colin Powell, and Vice President Dick Cheney. Rumsfeld wanted Sanchez to sign off on the memo and even tried to bribe Sanchez by suggesting that there was a big job waiting for him immediately after his forced (added) retirement from the Army. Sanchez refused to agree with the memo, and the civilian job was never offered again.

My View

So the Secretary of Defense is trying to tell us that he was not aware that 103,000 troops (71%) of the 133,000 were going to be withdrawn from Iraq? Talk about the epitome of “if you believe that, I’ve got some water front property in Arizona for sale”. But this shouldn’t come as any surprise to us about Rumsfeld. His entire political career has been based on one lie after another, and him finding scapegoats to blame for his failures. That fits right in with his president. Of course, those above him would have been very happy if Rumsfeld could have gotten Sanchez to sign off on the memo.

There have been hundreds of articles written that say that Bush will go down in history as the worse president this country has ever had. I have no doubt that many in his administration will also be included. Those that saw this fact materializing years ago, like Colin Powell, were smart enough to get out.

As of April 21, 2008, Bush had a 22% overall approval level, the lowest of any president in history; even lower than Richard Nixon after Watergate and Jimmy Carter after the Iranian hostage crisis. The vast majority of elected Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush. Over the past three months or so it’s been hard to even find Fox News touting Bush and his administration, although they are still promoting the Republican Party. The silence from the pro-Bush group has been deafening. Even Ed Rollins, famous Republican strategist, said that Bush was the most irrelevant president in his life time.

Bush may be stupid, but he is no dummy, although the latter may be arguable. He’s still out trying to push his agenda for his failed policies. I think he knows his legacy is already engraved in stone as a failure, therefore he’s given up on trying to build a positive one; or he thinks the Republican spin machine will take care of fabricating a positive legacy for him after he leaves office. In either case, each time he speaks in public, he furthers the conviction that he’s an utter fool. And “the Rumsfeld story” is just another chapter to support that.

April 25, 2008

The Facts

Christiane Amanpour of CNN has filed a report that suggests that the Bush administration may be trying to scuttle talks between the United States and North Korea. This question comes as a result of the administration just now releasing the pictures and information on the nuclear site in Syria that was bombed by the Israeli’s last September, and purported to be built with the help of North Korea. Many are wondering why this information was not released last year right after it happened.

My View

The problem here is that George Bush and his administration has completely lost the confidence of the majority of the American people. We have a very hard time believing anything Bush says, and for good reason. To many it seems that Bush wants to start another war with someone, and it doesn’t seem to matter with him who it is. However, most of those same people are worried about North Korea, Iran, Syria, and others. There is no doubt that they can not be ignored, but because of his poor record of being honest with us and other countries around the world, it is hard to believe anything that comes out of the Bush White House. The sad thing here is that if Bush is right and we do nothing, we will have to pay the consequences’. And it won’t be the American people who are to blame; it will be George Walker Bush.

April 15, 2008

The Facts

George Bush continues to make references to the economy, but he absolutely refuses to use the “R” word. In fact, he denies that we are in a recession. He uses words like “slowdown” and “downturn”, etc.

My View

No President wants to admit that a recession occurs under his watch. But with Bush and his unrelenting supporters, they will never admit it no matter how bad it gets. Bush has never accepted responsibility for his failures, which have been many, even before he was President. Bush and those same supports blamed the Clinton administration for Bush’s failures for the first seven years of the Bush presidency. But I’m afraid that he will now have to face up to our recession. We are in it and it is going to last a long time. Even the economic experts are saying so, and many of them are part of the Bush administration. Here is just one report on what those experts are saying. They are saying there is little debate about whether the U.S. economy is in a recession. The question is how painful and long the downturn will be. “We just can’t believe it’s going to be short. The question is how bad can it get? The situation is moving more towards severe than towards mild,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist for Decision Economics.

April 15, 2008

The Facts

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified last week before the House Armed Services committee. He was asked a lot of questions in an effort for the committee to get some feedback from the military side of how things were going in Iraq. When asked about the moral of the troops relative to being short-handed thereby having to spend 3-4 tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Admiral Mullen said “the soldiers are happy with what they are doing”.

My View

I suppose you could find some soldiers that would say they are happy with what they are doing. However, that statement by Admiral Mullen does not agree with many of the soldiers that have spoken up and many of the military leaders that have left the armed services. It also does not agree with some of the current military leaders. Once again, you have to question what is being said by some military leaders. Is Mullen being pressured by an arrogant President who will never admit that things are not going well in Iraq? Admiral William Fallon resigned in March of this year because there were “ongoing ‘misperceptions’ about differences between his ideas and U.S. policy are making it too difficult for him to operate”. Most people know the real definition of that is “Fallon pissed Bush off so he was fired”.

March 29, 2008 

The Facts 

On Monday, March 31, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will announce a proposal that would ‘give the Federal Reserve the power to regulate virtually the entire financial industry’. The proposal will require Congressional approval. Supposedly this is an attempt to give the Treasury Department authority to oversee financial institutes in an effort to ward off the kinds of problems the industry has had over the past year. 

My View 

OK, let’s first take a quick look at a few facts on how this proposal is being announced in the news media. The CNN article about this announcement credits Paulson for proposing these changes, and that “the proposal has been in the works since last June”. CNN goes on to say “the financial industry’s initial response was positive”, and quotes Tim Ryan, president and CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, as saying “Paulson’s proposals is a thoughtful and sweeping plan”. In other words, this article is giving Paulson credit for coming up with this idea. (Naturally the industry would go for a Republican plan, but this angle is not my point here.) Let’s take a look at Fox News’ announcement about this proposal.  

On Fox’s home page, the articles introductory headline reads “Bush Proposes Financial Overhaul”. Then you click on that headline which takes you to the actual article about this and the headline says “Bush Administration Proposes Sweeping Overhaul of Financial Regulation”.  

So whose idea is this? If this was Bush’s idea, why haven’t we heard from the White House before now that this was in the works? It seems to me this would have given the public some encouragement that our government was trying to do something about the mess our financial institutes has gotten the country into over the past several months & years. You don’t suppose Bush, with the help of Fox News, is just grabbing onto someone else’s idea that he knows the public would be generally in favor of in an effort to bolster his low approval ratings and help establish his legacy, do you? Yes, I know Paulson is part of the “Bush Administration” and is a Bush appointee, but this is something Bush could have got some good mileage from had he announced that they were working on this about two or three months ago. And to top all this off, the Democratic Congress is also working on a similar program. Boy, we should really come out of this with a simple, efficient, working plan, huh?  

But here’s the real scary part; don’t overlook this. The Fox News article says “The plan would shut down the Office of Thrift Supervision, which supervises thrift institutions, and transfer its functions to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates banks”. Now this really makes me feel good about the proposed changes. Do you know who the OCC is and how they operate? Try going to one of my earlier postand check out OCC. They are so ‘efficient, cooperative, and fair minded’! Oh, yea! I really trust them to oversee the financial institutions.

March 27, 2008  

The Facts 

Tuesday night, March 25, 2008, PBS Houston Texas aired a two-hour special documentary on the Iraqi war. The documentary is entitled “Bush’s War”, and was in two parts on PBS’s series “Front Line”. The documentary talks about things such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet squaring off against Vice President Dick Cheney and his longtime ally, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; and how Richard Armitage and Colin Powell concluded that they were being shut out of key decisions by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The documentary points out that when it became obvious that a quick withdrawal was out of reach the administration sent American administrator L. Paul Bremer to find a political solution to a rapidly deteriorating situation. Bremer’s first moves were to disband the Iraqi military and remove members of Saddam Hussein’s party from the government. These were decisions that the original head of reconstruction, Gen. Jay Garner (Ret.), begged Bremer to reconsider at the time. Now they are seen by others as one of the first in a series of missteps that would lead Iraq into a full-blown insurgency. The results of dismissing the Iraqi Army was putting 300,000 ex-Iraqi soldiers, with weapons, out of work, and they were so mad at the Americans that most of them became insurgents.  

Further into the report, they told how senior officials complained about inattention at the top. General Tommy Franks and his deputy, General Michael DeLong — the generals who had planned the war — found that decisions were being made without them as well. “All the recommendations that we were making now in the Phase IV part weren’t being taken by Bremer or Rumsfeld.” That’s when Franks said, ‘I’m done.’” Someone said, “Well, you’ll be chief of staff of the Army.” Tommy Franks replied, “No, I’m done.” 

After all this, there became a lot of infighting inside the Bush administration. No rational decisions were being made except to suppress a lot of facts from the public during the campaigning and presidential elections of 2004.  

My View 

If you recall, one of the major reasons we won both wars against Saddam Hussein so quickly was he refused to listen to his top generals and decided all the strategy himself. It was also reported that was the major reason Hussein couldn’t win the ten-year war with Iraq. This sounds like something our own administration could learn from, but like Hussein, the current administration is filled with unequaled arrogance.  

I realize that those who refuse to open their eyes and minds to the truth about the Bush administration are not interested in this post, or the documentary. However, those that see them for what they are, which includes all moderate Republicans and some far-right Republicans, will find this documentary extremely enlightening. This should be required viewing for all of America. So if you are interested, you should take the time to watch Bush’s War.

March 23, 2008  

The Facts  

Mickey Edwards, retired Republican congressman from Oklahoma, has abandon defending Dick Cheney over Cheney’s “So?” comment. The one-word comment was made in response to Cheney being reminded that the majority of the public disapproved of the war in Iraq. At the time of the comment, Cheney was being interviewed by Martha Raddatz of ABC. Edwards said he had been defending Cheney for years even though he was increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration’s betrayal of the constitutional and conservative principles.  

My View 

Whether you believe in Iraqi war or not, you should be very upset & worried about this kind of arrogant attitude coming from the Vice-President of the United States; and it should not matter what political party you belong to or believe in. This kind of attitude just about says it all in describing the on-going arrogance of the current administration and their lack of concern about the American people. However, this is exactly what happens when leaders start to believe they are so powerful that nothing or no one can touch them. This administration has been aggressively defended by a small number of people, but the latter are so powerful that they carry an awful lot of convincing power, thus the reason so many ordinary people have been defending them and/or turning their heads.  

In one of my post several months ago I mentioned that the fall of all great nations always begin with arrogant leaders who feel they are invincible and didn’t care what the people wanted or needed. No matter what the final blow was that felled the nation, it always begins with those leaders. I went on to ask why the people allowed this to happen, and one of the reasons I surmised was that the people has allowed themselves to become so blinded by loyalty they could not see the truth. I sometimes see this same kind of blind loyalty here in America.  

Read the entire article by Mickey Edwards in the Washington Post.

March 11, 2008  

The Facts 

Dick Cheney is on his way to Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Turkey to ask them to do something that will lower the price of oil. Presumably the fix will to be to increase production, something that only OPEC can do.  

My View  

You have got to be kidding me!! Our Dick Cheney, Vice-President of the United States? The one man who is more responsible for the current price of crude oil than any other single individual on planet earth? Surely the report is talking about a different Dick Cheney.  

I could write a whole volume on what Cheney has done for the oil & gas industry before and after he became Vice-President. Hell, he was the person who headed the energy task force in secret. This was the group that put together our current energy policy, the one that oil executives wrote after being invited to do so by Dick Cheney. You might find it interesting to see what oil and gasoline sold for when Cheney and Bush went into the White House versus what it is today. Shucks, Cheney could succeed in getting the prices lowered considerably and there would still be a huge wind fall for the oil companies. But wouldn’t it look good for his and Bush’s legacy during their last year as Emperor?  

One article about his trip is here. If you like, you can read Jack Cafferty’s comments at his blog here.

January 6, 2008 

The Facts 

A lot of people and several organizations are advocating the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Now the latest to join that group is George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for President against Richard Nixon. McGovern said “the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than it was against Nixon”.  

My View 

Presidential oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  

Using the exact letter of the Constitution without making concessions, absolutely no one could make a valid argument against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney. And I am not just referring to the war in Iraq. There is a host of Constitutional laws they have broken. It is not a personal opinion that they have broken several Constitutional laws since 2002, it is a documented fact that this has happened. Over my life time I have read and heard so many times that the only thing that makes us and our country different from so many other’s is our honorable respect for our Constitution, and our other written laws. For the first time in my life, I now find it meaningless that the Presidential oath includes “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.  

In reading the article that quotes George McGovern, I have to agree with him about why impeachment proceedings are not going forward. He said there is a “superficial partisanship among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians.” In the end, what this means to us as a country and a people is a definite beginning to the end. Any President after Bush and Cheney will now know that there are few limits to what they can do and still be punished. Read up on your history, both recent and ancient, and see if any of this sounds familiar.

January 6, 2008 

The Facts 

Karl Rove has been a primary defender of George Bush for a couple of decades now. Any time Bush is attacked, you will hear from Rove shortly thereafter if the attack has any validity in it.  

My View 

Over the past couple of months I have written about Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee being chastised by other Republican candidates about speaking out against some of George Bush’s policies. I also pointed out that the Republican Party will ostracize any candidate who does so. Now Karl Rove has confirmed that. The interview with Rove is about a month old, but it is most informative. He makes it clear that any Republican candidate that criticizes Bush will “pay a price”.  

In one of the post I wrote on this point, I believe I mentioned that the threats to Huckabee sounded much like the threats that citizens got in countries that were ruled by vicious dictators. In such, citizens were not allowed to voice their opinion without harsh, and sometimes deadly, punishment. Obviously, I don’t think Huckabee’s life is in danger because of this, but this administration and it’s strong supporters leave no doubt that anyone within their party will be punished if they criticize Bush.  

The article is very informative. You may want to read it.