PittsburghThoughts

Thanks to BIll and Sue,
Funny Pictures

Today's America is a much less free place than the America of 2000. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has, by word and by deed, erected an edifice of repression here in the United States.

We've been living in it ever since. And it's not a comfortable place. The government is monitoring your phone calls and can read your e-mails and open your snail mail.

The government can access records of your large financial transactions, such as buying a house.

Law enforcement officers can bust into your home when you're not there, riffle through your belongings, plant a recording device on your computer, and leave without notifying you for at least thirty days -- and maybe a lot more.

You no longer have the right to protest where the president or vice president can see you, or at major public events when they aren't even present.

Law enforcement officers can now monitor you in public if you are merely exercising your political rights.

They can infiltrate your political organizations.

And they can keep track of you at your place of worship. The government can find out from bookstores and libraries the material you've been reading, and the bookstore owner and the librarian can't talk about it, except to their lawyers, for a whole year -- or more.

The government can hold you in preventive detention for months on end as a "material witness."

If you're not a citizen the government can deport you on a technicality or for mere political association.

If you're not a citizen the government can label you an "enemy combatant" and send you to secret prisons around the world, where you may never see the light of day again -- much less a lawyer or a judge. And even if you are a citizen, the government can label you an enemy combatant and hold you in solitary confinement here in the United States.

Under George W. Bush's interpretation of the president's powers during the so-called war on terror he can do just about whatever he wants. He cites the Authorization for Use of Military Force bill, which Congress passed on September 18, 2001, as the justification for this enormous leeway.

"Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn't prescribe the tactics,"Bush said in a speech at Kansas State University on January 23, 2006. Those tactics, he presumes, are totally up to him. Under this rationale Bush could send F-16s to attack a residential area in, say, Indianapolis if he thought Al Qaeda suspects were there.

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, check out the February 13, 2006, issue of Newsweek:

A Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the President might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States. ... Steven Bradbury, acting head of the department's office of Legal Counsel, went to a closed-door Senate Intelligence committee meeting last week to defend President George W. Bush's surveillance program. During the briefing, said Administration and Capitol Hill officials (who declined to be identified because the session was private), California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the ex- tent of Presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances.

*************************************

Recently I found myself arguing health care with some, "somewhat" successful people. They regularly visit Canada to fish and one of their main contentions was that in Canada you have to wait too long for health care and that the Canadian people don't even like their health care system.

Missing from the discussion was the person or persons with the greatest stake in it, the uninsured. Not one person there paid for their heath care 100%, by themselves, if they had, we would have been having a different discussion. Figures for last year show over 46 million Americans without health care, 8.3 million of who are children.

Mr. Middle class America, you can be smug in your, "I got mine, you get yours" stance, after all you've never missed a meal either, but if being an American use to mean anything, wasn't it about providing a society where no one had to live in fear of easily preventable, treatable diseases and maladies? Seeing to it that our people can thrive?

It's not a impossible goal, other countries are doing it. Why Mr. Middle class America do you always align yourself with the shamefully wealthy? Do you love them or just hate the poor?   Gene

Latest Bush Executive Order Outlaws Iraq War Dissent on Penalty of Full Asset Seizure. It must be overturned before Congress goes on their August recess which starts Aug. 4th in one week.

In an as yet un-numbered Executive Order (at least the number isn't published), president bush has decreed that your property - all of it - can be taken away at the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury at the mere suspicion that you may commit a crime in the future. You can view and read this latest executive atrocity at the White House website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

It is called "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" and is dated July 17.

An executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn't overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register.

If you own a business, this concerns you. Whether you own it as a sole proprietorship, as a sole shareholder, or even as a partial shareholder of a corporation, you stand to lose all of it if the Secretary thinks you may commit an "act of violence" that may disrupt the war effort in Iraq. Naturally, "act of violence" is not defined anywhere in this order.

Once this becomes law, he has all the tools Hitler and Stalin had to keep their respective populations in utter subjection to their will.

The executive order states in Section 1(a) that "all property and interests in property" of "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of - blah, blah, blah (followed by a laundry list of "purposes or effects").

This means that the triggering factor underlying any such blocking order is a mere "determination" by the Secretary of the Treasury that you pose a "significant risk" of committing an act of violence in the future that has any of the listed purposes or effects. All the Secretary then has to do is to "consult" with the secretaries of state and defense. There is not even a requirement that these two agree with the Treasury Secretary's "determination"(!)

In other words, if the Secretary of the Treasury says that you "pose a significant risk" of committing an act of violence with the purpose or effect of "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people", then the 'bushprez' can block you from accessing your bank account, retirement account, credit cards, or "any property or interest in property" that you may own.

That technically includes your house, whether owned or rented, your car or other means of transportation, whether owned or rented, your business, all the way down to your cell phone, toothpaste and underwear, as well as the twenty bucks you loaned your buddy that he hasn't paid you back yet.

What is there to keep the Secretary of the Treasury from "determining" that you, because you oppose the war in Iraq, are probably one of those extremist hooligans who protested the WTO in Seattle a few years back, or that you are likely to act like one of them even though you haven't even participated in those riots? War protesters do these things, don't they? They are all the same, aren't they?

If the Secretary "determines" that you probably are one of them and that you "pose a significant risk of committing" an act of violence intended to frustrate the war (or even the peace effort) in Iraq, all of your stuff can be taken away from you - or you can be "blocked" from accessing it, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

You have no legal recourse under this order. No remedy at law. The order does not provide for compensation to you for the taking of your property. There is no due process requirement that will guarantee you a fair hearing in a court of law.

Unconstitutional? You bet!

But you can't complain about it.

Why is that?

The president has declared a state of emergency back in 2003 (as he recites in this executive order at the end of the paragraph that starts with "I, GEORGE W. BUSH"). That state of emergency has not been rescinded, to this date.

In a state of emergency, the president has the power to do whatever he wants, and you can't complain - or else.

If the president can launch a war against another country in order to prevent a potential, as yet unrealized future attack, then he can also prosecute a potential criminal at home - or confiscate ALL of his property - for acts that the prez (or his Secretary) simply "determine" might be committed in the future.

We are talking about the imposition, by executive order, of absolute, unrestricted tyranny and despotism in the name of "national security."

Does this mean he will take your property away from you?

Not necessarily.

But you just gave him (or any future president) the power to do so at any time in the future if he (or she) think it may be a good idea!

Yes, it is you who gave him that power - because you didn't do anything about it.

No point in blaming anybody else. It's you who is at fault. If you sit back and wait for somebody else to act on your behalf, you have just given up any legitimate claim to your own right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Please act?

An executive order only becomes law if Congress doesn't overturn it within thirty days after it is published in the Federal Register.

 YOU must act NOW - or it's all too late.

Call your two Senators. Call your Congressman. Call other key people in Congress. Ask what they are doing to stop this from becoming law. Try to have a conversation and make the person you speak to get concerned.

I also called Senate Majority Leader Reid, House leader Pelosi, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.  Conyers' office connected me to the office of the Judiciary committee where I was told they were researching it. I explained that congress only has one week to overturn it.  They need to hear from thousands more.

 You could ask them to support impeachment at the same time. Ask Representatives to Cosponsor HR 333 for impeachment of Cheney.

Send fax and email too. Please ask others to help.

You can call the Capital Hill Switchboard at these toll free numbers and ask to be connected or give your zip code to be connected to the correct office. Messages can be left with many of them, 24 hours a day.

1 (800) 828 - 0498

1 (800) 459 - 1887

1 (800) 614 - 2803

1 (866) 340 - 9281

1 (866) 338 - 1015

1 (877) 851 - 6437

*******************************

July 27, 2007

Dear Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D PA),
Dear Sen. Arlen Specter (R PA),
Dear Rep. Jason Altmire (D PA-4),

Please preserve our fundamental traditions of due process and the rule of law by overturning "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" dated July 17.

I received the following description of this deeply disturbing Executive Order. It may be hyped a little, but if that's what it takes to get people to pay attention, so be it. I can't believe either party would want the other party's leaders to have this sort of unlimited power, so there should be a bipartisan effort to overturn this easily-abused authority grab by the executive branch:

(Bill recounts the above analysis).

* * *


Unconstitutional? You bet!  (Bill)

**************************

“Free-Speech Zone”

The Denver Post - Assault arrest followed word to Cheney  

*Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone : PittsburghThoughts:

In the meantime, there's been news on top of news. Mostly bad, mostly indicative of the sorry state of the United States today. There was an item that I heard on Thom Hartmann's radio show that I haven't seen appear anywhere else yet. Oddly, anymore, the main stream media is the last place I look for this kind of news. They won't print it until it's been verified by several hundred arrests, but it seems Bush has issued another Presidential Directive condemning anyone in this country that undermines our war in Iraq. It's sort of like a standing Fatwa, it has some kind of legal consequences and punishments if anyone makes Bush cry by pointing out that his war isn't making the word safer.

Maybe, in anticipation of harsher tactics, a Bush administration official, named *Eric Edelton, wrote Hillary a hate letter because she asked if we had a withdrawal plan for Iraq...

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world,



As you may have noticed, I haven't had the time nor inclination to blog lately. Using my best metaphorical memory to bring forth my most salient metaphor, I've been busier that a one-armed paper hanger with the crabs, or, as Frank Zappa once sang, I've been, "whizzing, pasting and pooting through the day". Of course, he followed that with, "Kenny helping Ronnie burn the poots away" which always sounded a little creepy.

Bob Menendez on the Levin-Reed Amendment



More info: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=214732

I found this on one of my favorite sites, http://krupsjustsayin.blogspot.com/. There are more details about the band there.

 The following Democratic Senators have still not signed up to cosponsor the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007:

• Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
• Max Baucus (D-MT)
• Evan Bayh (D-IN)
• Robert Casey (D-PA)
• Kent Conrad (D-ND)
• Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
• Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
• Tim Johnson (D-SD)
• Herb Kohl (D-WI)
• Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
• Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
• Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Ben Nelson (D-NE)
• Mark Pryor (D-AR)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Charles Schumer (D-NY)
• Jon Tester (D-MT)
• James Webb (D-VA)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

P.S. For their address and phone: U.S. Senate: Senators Home    Gene

To my friend Bill,   Beatles - Happy Birthday.mp3

Today, what a glorious day to be born! On this day, the Olson twins were born along with Julius Ceasa, Cheech Marin, Patrick Stewart and rapper, Monoxide Child, aka, E.X.P., Lil' Poot, Foe Foe, Hektik, Monox-boogie, Mono, Pauly and Paul Monoxide. How can you lose with that combination??

On turning 50:

 "At age 50, everyone has the face he deserves." -George Orwell

"The man who views the world at fifty the same as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life."-Muhammad Ali

"If wrinkles must be written upon our brows, let them not be written upon the heart. The spirit should never grow old." -James A. Garfield 
  
And, my favorite by Sterling Hayden, the actor that played Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove and the crooked cop that punched Michael Corleone in face.

What does a man need - really need? A few pounds of food each day, heat and shelter, six feet to lie down in - and some form of working activity that will yield a sense of accomplishment. That's all - in the material sense, and we know it. But we are brainwashed by our economic system until we end up in a tomb beneath a pyramid of time payments, mortgages, preposterous gadgetry, playthings that divert our attention for the sheer idiocy of the charade. The years thunder by, The dreams of youth grow dim where they lie caked in dust on the shelves of patience. Before we know it, the tomb is sealed. Where, then, lies the answer? In choice. Which shall it be: bankruptcy of purse or bankruptcy of life?"

P.S. Regardless of the date in the corner, this was written on your Birthday, BIll.