Hannity to Obama: “Man up, stop blaming Bush.” Maybe Hannity should do the same.

Sean Hannity has a gross infuation with Bill Clinton.  You know, it’s inevitable that no matter the topic Bill Clinton’s name will be drug through the mud and into the realm of “No Spin”.  Mr. Hannity is fed up with Obama’s criticism of the Bush administration.  It’s true, Obama has been in office for two years and the problems of Bush are now his, and as I see it Obama isn’t making anything any better.

But where logical people see the true motive, and Sean Hannity apparently doesn’t, is that the whole “blame Bush thing” is just politics.  The Democrats know that they are in trouble, so the only logical political game is to remind the American people of just who started this mess – Bush.  But that’s not the true point, is it?  Admit it or not, Hannity plays the political games just like any other politician.  Here’s the message he had to Obama:

“I am sick and tired of this,” Hannity continued. “Barack Obama, you begged for this job… You campaigned for this job…. He’s had it for nearly two years. Stop whining about President Bush. You know what? Sit at the table, man up! Put your pants on! Make decisions, take responsibility… Stop with the whining. Bush, Bush, Bush! You’re president two years!”

But, as I have said, Sean Hannity has an infatuation with blaming Bill Clinton.

Leave Bush out of the debate…blame Bill Clinton…

In short – because Bill Clinton did not retaliate on the attack of the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000, Osama bin Laden did not think that the United States would retaliate despite such a terrible attack that cost more than three thousand American lives.  But, wait a minute, Bill Clinton to the 9/11 Commission report said that he did not retaliate because he did not have sufficient evidence that Al-Qaeda was responsible. 

Insuffecient evidence?  Where does that sound familiar?  Oh, yeah, like the lack of evidence that the FBI has linking bin Laden to September 11, 2001.  This of, course does, not get reported by the “fair and balanced” Sean Hannity and his Constitutional abolitioning partner in crime Oliver North.  By the way, here is a great article on the Constitution hater.

The Mark Foley scandal…

Do you remember this?  As for myself, it took me a long time to find out what the hell a “page” was.  But you know where this goes.  Hannity had on some guests who most of the time agree with him, and if they don’t they are liberal push-overs, and the conservatives were trying to do some damage control.  Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were mentioned:

   “You know something? I don’t want to bring Clinton into it. You’re gonna say, well, Monica was 19… Monica was a teenager and she was an intern (In fact, she was 22 when she started working at the White House). Bill Clinton, himself, gave – commuted the sentence of Mel Reynolds who DID have sex with a 16 year-old and when he thought he would have the possibility of sex with a 15 year-old, said he hit the lotto.” Hannity started pounding the desk. “Bill Clinton commuted his sentence!”

Ugh, this guy gets ratings.Hannity’s love of “blame the Clintons” gets so overdone that it caused Alan Colmes to sanap on air.

And he blames Clinton again!

My source: Newshounds.com


Cojones? Now what would Fox News say if someone said that about Bush?

Sarah Palin yet again made headlines by saying President Obama has no “cojones”. Now the only question I have is, what would Fox News and its great Americans say if someone had said that about Bush?

Afterall, this an administration that lied about Iraq, was riddled with scandal, and neglected Afghanistan. Bush didn’t have the cojones to admit he was wrong about Iraq. Bush didn’t the cojones to stand up to the CIA over there death and torture camps. When free thinking Americans argued against Iraq, torture, and Bushes secret government, we were labled “un-American”, “un-patriotic”, and we had “nothing nice to say about America.” It was Bush who used the arrogant “backbone” line.

She criticizes the President over his lack of interest in curbing illegal immigration and securing our southern border. What about John McCain (R) Arizona who worked with Senator Ted Kennedy on amnesty for illegals? Or George Bush who – let’s face it didn’t make any attempts to do what was necessary either. Do either of these men have cojones?

Her book Going Rogue wasn’t so much a stepping stone for her journey to office of the President, as it was a complaint on how bad she was treated by the McCain campaign, Catie Kouric, and the rest of the media. In keeping with her tune of flip-flopping and not being able to keep a straight story, 71% of Americans say they don’t want her to run for the presidency, much less be the commander-in-chief.

But that’s not what this is about , is it? While to label the President as having no cojones, Sarah Palin is not the only one to use the term. It’s party politics at its worst, and Fox News and their viewers don’t want to admit it, they have nothing nice to say about the man sitting in the executive chair.

Now there’s a flood of people parrotting Palin’s words because they look at her as a GOP savior, which she isn’t. She left in the middle of here second term a lame duck governor for a variety of reasons. Moving on to monetary greener pastures, Sarah Palin is now in a position to snipe at the President and his lack of cojones.

In quitting her state and her voters Sarah Palin has lost political ground and has allienated a lot of people, myself included.

If Sarah Palin cared so much about her country and her Constitution, why does she make $50,000 a speech? Likewise, why did she quit her state? She could have stuck it out like any other American who busts their asses for little to nothing.

Any politician (should she run for President) who doesn’t hammer this home is not worth their pay.

Sarah Palin may very well be like all the pundits at Fox News, someone with an opinion, and if she’s not careful, she’ll wind up with blood poisoning with all the crib notes she writes on her hand.

War is fought for profit, not freedom.

I think most Americans would agree that war is big business.  It doesn’t serve the interest of the public only those of speacial corporations.  In the documentary Iraq for sale the filmmakers focus on the fact that special interrogation companies took part in the prisoner abuse scandal.

Earlier this year the Congressional Research Service reported that at least 55,000 private armed security forces are in Iraq and Afghanistan – maybe up to 70,000 in Afghanistan alone.  In 2008 defense contractors were given contracts amounting to the sums of $150 billion dollars.  Someone’s getting rich.  But war is big business.  Taken from a British website, here are the top three defense contractors:

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin is the largest military contractor in the world with 140,000 employees, taking in over $40 billion annually, over $35 billion of which comes from the U.S. government. Lockheed Martin boasts that they have increased their dividend payments by more than 10 percent for the seventh consecutive year – perfectly in line with the increase in war spending by the US. Its chairman, Robert Stevens, received over $72 million in compensation over the past three years.

Lockheed’s board of directors includes a former Under Secretary of Defense, a former U.S. Air Force Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, a former Deputy Director of Homeland Security, and a former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. These board members receive over $200,000 a year in compensation. Its political action committee gave over a million dollars a year to federal candidates in 2009, and is consistently one of the top spending PACs in the U.S. They appeal to all members of Congress because they strategically have operations in all fifty states. And, since 1998, Lockheed has spent over $125 million to lobby Congress.

Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman is a $33 billion company with 120,000 employees. In 2008, it received nearly $25 billion in federal contracts. Its chairman, Ronald Sugar, received over $54 million in compensation over the past three years.

Northrop’s Board includes a former Admiral of the Navy, a former 20 year member of Congress, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former commissioner of the Security and Exchange Commission and a former U.S. Naval officer. The members of its board of directors received over $200,000 each in 2009. Its PAC is listed as making over $700,000 in federal campaign donations in 2009. Since 1998, it has spent over $147 million lobbying Congress.


Boeing has 150,000 employees and took in over $23 billion in federal contracts in 2008. With revenues of $68 billion in 2009, its chair, James McNerney, was paid over $51 million over the past three years. Its board members are paid well over $200,000 a year. Boeing’s directors include a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, a former White House chief of staff, a former vice chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a former U.S. Ambassador and U.S. Trade Representative. It hosts the 10th largest political action committee, giving away more than one million dollars to federal candidates in 2009. Since 1998, it has spent $125 million lobbying Congress.

Notice how these companies are comprised of former defense secretaries, politicians, soldiers.  These men have everything to gain from war, and everything to lose from not fighting it.  Why hasn’t the honest and upright Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck talked about this?

Central Banks

In 1913 the power and soveriegnty of the United States over our own economy was arrested from us with the creation of the Federal Reserve.  Leap forward ninety-seven years and you see the havoc that they have reaked on our economy.  The have overseen one depression, twelve recessions, and numerous wars.  They inflated our system and destroyed our currency.  Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right when he said that a central bank is more threatening to a nation than a standing army.

Before Iraqi Freedom Iraq had no central bank.  They did, however, have one thing – debt.  In 2004 a number of countries came together to forgive Iraqi debt incured und Saddam.  There’s just one catch, read the following…Iraq will surrender its economic sovereignty to global financial institutions.

This leads me to believe that not only were we going to war in Iraq because the – and I hate to say it, Nate – military industrial complex profits from it, but the global elite wanted a central bank in Iraq to enslave their people to debt just as we have been enslaved to the likes of the Federal Reserve.

Is there any other reason why Bush would constantly say “stay the course”?  Is there any other reason why the mainstream media ( Fox News) helped the Bush administration shift the Middle Eastern debate from WMDs to “we can’t leave it like this now”?  All the while polaring those of us who are opposed to the conflicts as left-wing liberal nutjobs who blame America.

The arrest, trial and quick execution fo Saddam Hussein was nothing more than a Mafia style rubout.  Meant to hide the fact that the United States in the 1980’s gave Hussein biological weapons.  Iraq and Afghanistan are nothing more than objectiveless procedures.  Gen. Casey recently said that the U.S. will need to remain in the conflicts for at least another decade for economic help.

Now I know why.

“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” G.W. Bush, 9/13/01


“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”
– G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Did Bush & Co. do Medical Research on Detainees?

By Sheldon Richman

As time goes by, the record of the Bush administration gets worse and worse. It could turn out that the most egregious offense of the Bush-esque Obama administration will be that its Justice Department let Bush-Cheney & Co. off scot-free.

It’s not enough that the last gang to occupy the Executive Branch got us into two illegal wars, accumulated autocratic powers, violated our civil liberties, and tortured suspects. Now it appears that it kicked things up a notch.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) says it has unearthed “evidence that indicates the Bush administration apparently conducted illegal and unethical human experimentation and research on detainees in CIA custody.”

Why would the U.S. government do this?

“The apparent experimentation and research appear to have been performed to provide legal cover for torture, as well as to help justify and shape future procedures and policies governing the use of the ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques.”

PHR says its report is “the first to provide evidence that CIA medical personnel engaged in the crime of illegal experimentation after 9/11, in addition to the previously disclosed crime of torture.”

The organization demands that the Justice Department investigate the charges. It is also particularly concerned that health professionals participated to “calibrate and study the infliction of harm.” That, PHR says, “disgraces the health profession and makes a mockery of the practice of medicine.” The program violated “the Geneva Conventions, The Common Rule, the Nuremberg Code and other international and domestic prohibitions against illegal human subject research and experimentation,” the PHR news release states.

PHR says that declassified documents show, first, that “Research and medical experimentation on detainees was used to measure the effects of large-volume waterboarding and adjust the procedure according to the results.” As a result, saline was added “to prevent putting detainees in a coma or killing them through over-ingestion of large amounts of plain water.”

Second, “Health professionals monitored sleep deprivation on more than a dozen detainees in 48-, 96- and 180-hour increments. This research was apparently used to monitor and assess the effects of varying levels of sleep deprivation to support legal definitions of torture and to plan future sleep deprivation techniques.”

Third, “Health professionals appear to have analyzed data, based on their observations of 25 detainees who were subjected to individual and combined applications of ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques, to determine whether one type of application over another would increase the subject’s ‘susceptibility to severe pain.’ The alleged research appears to have been undertaken only to assess the legality of the ‘enhanced’ interrogation tactics and to guide future application of the techniques.”

PHR called on Congress to amend the War Crimes Act (WCA) “to remove changes made to the WCA in 2006 by the Bush Administration that allow a more permissive definition of the crime of illegal experimentation on detainees in US custody. The more lenient 2006 language of the WCA was made retroactive to all acts committed by US personnel since 1997.” Legal authorities say that other U.S. statutes besides the WCA make such experimentation illegal.

After the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration ignored proven nontorture techniques for obtaining information from detainees in favor of techniques long regarded as torture. Cognizant of the illegality, administration legal personnel strained to justify “enhanced interrogation techniques” as something other than torture. Hence the famous “torture memos” from the Office of Legal Counsel. The monitoring of techniques by physicians was apparently to determine which were and were not susceptible to charges of torture. This is indistinguishable from medical research on nonconsenting persons. Of course it is not the first time in history that supposed healers have lent their skills to government torturers.

The Obama administration could do something constructive for a change by investigating PHR’s charges and, if they are borne out, bringing the offenders to justice — no matter how high up the chain of command. Let’s not forget that George W. Bush boasts of having approved water-boarding for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

If for no other reason, the Bush administration’s legerdemain over torture put a stain on America that will not soon be erased. At least we can make a start.

The ‘tenthers’ are right!

By Anthony Gregory

Oakland, Calif. – Many liberals lambasted the Bush administration on detention policy and warrantless surveillance, often arguing that they violated the Constitution. Now the Obama administration is pushing ahead with plans to require every American to purchase health insurance.

Doesn’t that also violate the Constitution?

The Constitution created a federal government limited to its enumerated powers. Everything Congress is allowed to do is spelled out in Article I. The 10th Amendment makes it explicit: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any federal involvement in healthcare – yet Congress may soon require everyone in America to buy insurance.

Admittedly, the Supreme Court has ruled that the language empowering Congress to “regulate Commerce … among the several States” applies to an ever-broadening range of activity. The “commerce” clause was originally intended to prohibit interstate tariffs, a supposed problem under the Articles of Confederation.

Ironically, consumers today cannot freely buy health insurance from across state lines. If there’s any legitimate application of the “commerce” clause, it would be to overturn such restrictions. But the framers never gave Congress the general power to regulate industry.

In the 1935 case Schecter v. United States, involving farming regulations, the court unanimously struck down parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act for overstepping Congress’s commerce power. Liberal Justice Louis Brandeis informed one of President Franklin Roosevelt’s aides to “tell the president that we’re not going to let this government centralize everything.”

The next year, the court ruled in Butler v. United States that elements of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which inflated food prices by restricting supply, violated the 10th Amendment.

After FDR threatened to pack the court with additional judges friendly to the New Deal, the court lost its spine. In 1937, it upheld the National Labor Relations Act – which greatly expanded the power of labor unions and greatly diminished the freedom of contract – under the “commerce” clause.

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the justices even upheld the conviction of a man for growing too much wheat on his farm. The court reasoned that even wheat grown solely for private consumption ultimately had an impact on the economy, turning the “commerce” clause into a regulatory rubber stamp.

The “commerce” clause is now interpreted very broadly. Although in United States v. Lopez (1995) the court struck down a firearms law that exceeded Congress’s commerce power, it ruled 10 years later in Gonzales v. Raich that federal drug policy overrode California’s medical marijuana laws, despite the 10th Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented: “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers … have no meaningful limits.” Indeed, practically nothing is beyond the pale anymore.

Then there is the privacy issue. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the court found reproductive freedom to be guaranteed as an implicit right to privacy. In Casey, the court reasoned that abortion entailed “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy,” and that such choices are “central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment.”

Why wouldn’t this apply to the right to decide whether to buy health insurance?

Other constitutional concerns emerge. The mass collection of medical data likely to occur under proposed reforms threatens the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Making it a crime not to buy insurance, and then forcing people to show they have not bought it, arguably clashes with the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

The Ninth Amendment reserves to individuals all rights not expressly denied by the Constitution. Nothing in the document curtails our right not to purchase health insurance. And being forced to fill out forms to apply for insurance is in tension with the 13th Amendment’s prohibition of “involuntary servitude.”

The quality we could expect from government care may also raise constitutional questions. In early August, a federal panel ordered California to release 40,000 inmates because the health services were so strained, causing one unnecessary prisoner death per week, so as to render the treatment “unconstitutional.” If we all become captive consumers under federal mandate, could we not similarly argue that any shoddiness in our mandated health services is an unconstitutional burden?

Those who find such constitutional arguments unconvincing are often quick to invoke them against policies they oppose. Similarly, some of today’s critics of President Obama and national healthcare brandish the Constitution as a holy document, but were silent when President George W.Bush trampled its many limitations on executive power, and even signed an expansion of Medicare.

A newfound, consistent, and lasting respect for the Constitution, across the ideological spectrum, would renew the health of our republic like nothing else.