Americans have more trust in the Democrats in 10 of 10, this must be crushing news to the American hating Republicans.

Rasmussen Reports new poll reports that Americans now trust the Democrats in “National Security”, moving ahead of the Republicans 42% to 40%. This means that the Democrats are considered more trusted on ALL 10 of the key issues Rasmussen tracks. (bolds are mine)

When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters’ trust of the two major parties.

In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue.

Republicans had enjoyed an historic advantage on National Security for several decades but are burdened by the unpopular War in Iraq. Last year’s Dubai Ports debacle also hurt perceptions of the GOP on national security.

The others issues tracked are also very important, and Democrats poll higher than Republicans in all of them.

Immigration 40% to the GOP’s mear 30%, we beat them on Government Ethics and Corruption, the Economy, Taxes, Health Care, Social Security and more… All 10 the Democrats are more trusted than the Corrupt GOP.

I understand that in America we have the concept of “innocent until proven guilty,” or least we used to, but I think the Democrats need to separate themselves from the utterly corrupt Republican Party by dismissing Representative William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, from the halls of Congress now. Today grand jury indicted Jeffersonon 16 counts, including racketeering, openly soliciting for bribes, wire fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and violating several acts specifically in place to stop corruption in our government.

For the record, I believe that there is a special expectation from our representatives and senators, and while “innocent until proven guilty” is a wonderful concept that keeps innocent people out of prison while their fates are decided by a jury of their peers, I do not think it is asking too much of our representatives to be held to a higher standard.

in a world where there are no less than for Republicans currently under investigation for very much the same crimes, a multitude of Republicans in prison for very much the same crimes, it is the duty of the Democrats to show that they are holier than the Republican culture of corruption.

As far as I’m concerned the far left of American politics is dead wrong about any control. I own a gun, I might own more than one, but it’s really none of your business. And that’s my point, I am a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner. That being said the NRA cannot be serious with their objection of a bill that would permit the Department of Justice to deny suspected terrorists the ability to buy a gun. This week the Democratically led House of Representatives introduced a bill that would prevent the Attorney General to deny those on the terrorist watch list access to guns. Chris Cox Executive Director of the National Rifle Association said, “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere suspicion of a terrorist threat.”

I appreciate the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and at one point in my life I even appreciated the NRA’s defense of said Second Amendment, but they are really advocating to allow suspected terrorists to mass an armory than they have truly lost a grip on reality.

From the AP

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ’suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.”

As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ’suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,” Cox wrote.

This administration just can’t stop lying about everything. They lie even when the truth is a much easer route. FBI used to detain American war protesters, said never happened… but that is a lie.

From the Washington Post

A secret FBI intelligence unit helped detain a group of war protesters in a downtown Washington parking garage in April 2002 and interrogated some of them on videotape about their political and religious beliefs, newly uncovered documents and interviews show.

For years, law enforcement authorities suggested it never happened. The FBI and D.C. police said they had no records of such an incident. And police told a federal court that no FBI agents were present when officers arrested more than 20 protesters that afternoon for trespassing; police viewed them as suspicious for milling around the parking garage entrance.

But a civil lawsuit, filed by the protesters, recently unearthed D.C. police logs that confirm the FBI's role in the incident. Lawyers for the demonstrators said the logs, which police say they just found, bolster their allegations of civil rights violations.

The probable cause to arrest the protesters as they retrieved food from their parked van? They were wearing black — a color choice the FBI and police associated with anarchists, according to the police records.

FBI agents dressed in street clothes separated members to question them one by one about protests they attended, whom they had spent time with recently, what political views they espoused and the significance of their tattoos and slogans, according to interviews and court records.

The revelations, combined with protester accounts, provide the first public evidence that Washington-based FBI personnel used their intelligence-gathering powers in the District to collect purely political intelligence. Ultimately, the protesters were not prosecuted because there wasn't sufficient evidence of trespassing, and their arrest records were expunged.

ThinkProgress has a great story on how the White House started using NON-White House email systems so that they could avoid the law.

From ThinkProgress

U.S. News reported recently that several White House aides “said that they stopped using the White House system except for purely professional correspondence. … ‘We knew E-mails could be subpoenaed,’” said one aide.

In a new letter to White House counsel Fred Fielding, House Government and Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman reveals new e-mail communications that provide further evidence that White House employees were trying to circumvent the archives system:

New Scott Jennings E-Mails. Scott Jennings, the deputy director of political affairs in the White House, and his assistant used “gwb43.com” e-mail accounts to communicate with the General Services Administration about a partisan briefing that Mr. Jennings gave to political appointees at GSA on January 26, 2007. When Mr. Jennings’s assistant emailed the PowerPoint presentation to GSA, she wrote: “It is a close hold and we’re not supposed to be emailing it around.”

New Job Appointment E-Mails. Mr. Jennings also appears to have used his “gwb43.com” account to recruit applicants for official government positions through the “Kentucky Republican Voice,” an internet site that describes itself as “the best source for Kentucky Republican grassroots information.” One posting from May 2005 advertised 17 vacancies on assorted presidential boards and commissions. A second posting from May 2006 sought applicants for various boards within the Small Business Administration. In each case, these postings encouraged applicants to contact Mr. Jennings at his “gwb43.com” address.

New Abramoff E-Mails. Susan Ralston, who was Karl Rove’s executive assistant, invited two lobbyists working for Jack Abramoff to use her RNC e-mail account to avoid “security issues” with the White House e-mail system, writing: “I now have an RNC blackbeny which you can use to e-mail me at any time. No security issues like my WH email.” Ms. Ralston similarly wrote Mr. Abramoff: “I know [sic] have an RNC laptop at the office for political use. I can access my AOL email when necessary so if you need to send me something that I need to read, you can send to my AOL email and then call or page me to check it.”

Asked about White House policy and procedures regarding use of e-mail accounts, spokeswoman Dana Perino did not cite any specific policy or guidance issued to White House staff for the preservation of presidential records, and she acknowledged that certain officials in the White House have been given access to political e-mail accounts. In his letter to Fielding, Waxman requests “all policies, guidance, and other communications provided to White House officials regarding appropriate use of nongovernmental e-mail accounts.”

The White House e-mail system has been crafted to comply with the Presidential Records Act. Ordering White House employees to use the in-house e-mail system “is intended to establish procedures for former and incumbent Presidents to make privilege determinations.”

The irony — as Kevin Drum writes — is that by not using the White House system, staffers “using private accounts specifically to evade legitimate congressional oversight” might lose their claim to executive privilege.

I wrote about this the other day, it is good to see it is gaining traction in the rest of the press. Whashington Post was the lead on this whole mess. Remember, the Republicans are the ones that sent them over there, and the Republicans are the ones that did not give them what they needed to live, much less win…

ThinkPrgress has put together a great post, with lots of good links.
As White House Plays Anti-Military Card, Troops Go Without Guns, Supplies, Armor
The Bush administration claims that any congressional resolution opposing escalation would hurt the morale of U.S. troops. “It would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops,” Vice President Cheney said last week.

Cheney should spend less time on non-binding resolutions and more on equipping our forces. An audit by the Pentagon’s Inspector General released to Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) shows that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn’t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to “effectively complete their missions” and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General’s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

“As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,” reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

More bombshells are likely to come soon. Following a letter last year from Slaughter to the Pentagon, the Inspector General’s office reported two ongoing audits into the procurement of armored vehicles and body armor for American soldiers. “The results of those studies will be available in July and October of 2007, respectively,” Slaughter’s office says.

This administration, and the Republican shitheads that protect him created a total mess in Iraq, and it looks like it will never ever end.

AP via Yahoo

The U.S. Army has plans to keep the current level of soldiers in Iraq through 2010, the top Army officer said Wednesday, a later date than Bush administration or Pentagon officials have mentioned thus far.

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, cautioned against reading too much into the planning, saying troops levels could be adjusted to actual conditions in Iraq. He said it is easier to hold back forces scheduled to go there than to prepare and deploy units at the last minute.

"This is not a prediction that things are going poorly or better," Schoomaker told reporters. "It’s just that I have to have enough ammo in the magazine that I can continue to shoot as long as they want us to shoot."

Even so, his comments were the latest acknowledgment by Pentagon officials that a significant withdrawal of troops from Iraq is not likely in the immediate future.

Currently there are 141,000 troops in Iraq, including 120,000 Army soldiers. Those soldiers are divided among 15 Army combat brigades plus other support units.

This comes from ThinkProgess, It needs to be posted everywhere…

The National Intelligence Estimate — “the most authoritative document[] that the intelligence community produces” — was delivered to President Bush and Vice President Cheney in April 2006. It was declassified today. Here’s a key excerpt:

The Iraq conflict has become the ’cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

President Bush, August 21 2006:

Vice President Cheney, September 10, 2006:

Transcripts:

Clip 1

BUSH: You know, I’ve heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of “we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest” theory. It just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Clip 2

RUSSERT: Here’s what the American people said in a recent poll. Is the U.S. involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan creating more terrorists or eliminating terrorists? And look at that. Overwhelmingly, 54 percent, clear majority, believe we are creating more terrorists.

TEXT:

U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN

CREATING MORE TERRORISTS 54%

ELIMINATING TERRORISTS 15%

The New York Times CBS/Poll

CHENEY: I, I, I can’t buy that.

Yah, for the first time in a long time the Republicans voted to protect America, not hurting it.

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defying President George W. Bush, a U.S. Senate committee on Thursday approved legislation setting up trials for foreign terrorism suspects that Bush says could compromise the war on terrorism.

Voting 15-9, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill they said would provide suspects more legal rights than Bush wanted and resisted his attempt to more narrowly define the Geneva Conventions’ standards for humane treatment of prisoners.

CNN is reporting…

The U.S. Marine Corps said Tuesday it has been authorized to recall thousands of Marines to active duty, primarily because of a shortage of volunteers for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Up to 2,500 Marines will be brought back at any one time, but there is no cap on the total number of Marines who may be forced back into service in the coming years. The call-ups will begin in the next several months.

This is the first time the Marines have had to use the involuntary recall since the early days of the Iraq combat. The Army has ordered back about 14,000 soldiers since the start of the war.

Marine Col. Guy A. Stratton, head of the manpower mobilization section, estimated that there is a shortfall of about 1,200 Marines needed to fill positions in upcoming unit deployments.

Hey the Crazy Evangelicals always see everything as a sign from god, so what does this mean?

 A Elm tree uprooted itself and flung itself at the door step of the White House, could this tree be stopping ol’ George Bush from leaving the White House, or re-entering it? Could mother Earth be exacting her revenge on the President that has distroyed more of the enviroment than ever before. Or could it be a sign from god that she is not happy with him… If Bush acts like Bush, he will take the next 3 months off to recover and pray.

Now the question is, did he know he was signing a bill that did not pass?

RawStory picks it up.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.

 

Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The full text of the letter follows:

March 15, 2006

The Honorable Andrew Card

Chief of Staff

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Card:

On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.

I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.

Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]

I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.

I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member

Enclosure

[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).

[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).

[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, ? 7.

I want to have Molly Ivins babies, she has captured for me what I feel about the current stable of democrats. While the president is on one leg, they do nothing, as Americans look to them for direction, they do little, and as the Republicans trip over their own corruption, they quiver like a trapped rat.

From The Progressive

ah fellow progressives, now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of the party. I don’t know about you, but I have had it with the D.C. Democrats, had it with the DLC Democrats, had it with every calculating, equivocating, triangulating, straddling, hair-splitting son of a bitch up there, and that includes Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I will not be supporting Senator Clinton because: a) she has no clear stand on the war and b) Terri Schiavo and flag-burning are not issues where you reach out to the other side and try to split the difference. You want to talk about lowering abortion rates through cooperation on sex education and contraception, fine, but don’t jack with stuff that is pure rightwing firewater.

I can’t see a damn soul in D.C. except Russ Feingold who is even worth considering for President. The rest of them seem to me so poisonously in hock to this system of legalized bribery they can’t even see straight.

Look at their reaction to this Abramoff scandal. They’re talking about “a lobby reform package.” We don’t need a lobby reform package, you dimwits, we need full public financing of campaigns, and every single one of you who spends half your time whoring after special interest contributions knows it. The Abramoff scandal is a once in a lifetime gift—a perfect lesson on what’s wrong with the system being laid out for people to see. Run with it, don’t mess around with little patches, and fix the system.

As usual, the Democrats have forty good issues on their side and want to run on thirty-nine of them. Here are three they should stick to:

1. Iraq is making terrorism worse; it’s a breeding ground. We need to extricate ourselves as soon as possible. We are not helping the Iraqis by staying.
2. Full public financing of campaigns so as to drive the moneylenders from the halls of Washington.
3. Single-payer health insurance.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has put out it’s preliminary analysis of today’s "I Hate Americans" Budget that Bush released, and all I can say is, I am glad I am not poor or old (Yet and Yet), here are some great highlights.

Program Terminations:  For example, among the domestic discretionary programs that would be terminated are: (There are my comments)

• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritional food packages for less than $20 a month to more than 400,000 low-income elderly people, one-third of whom are over age 75; Message to old people from Bush, I would rather give my rich friends a tax cut, shut-up and die!
  

• The Preventative Care Block Grant, which is operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and provides grants to states for preventative health services for underserved populations; Yah, screw those backwater hill-billys, They may vote Republican, but they are to sick and dumb for us to care.
  

• The TRIO Talent Search program, under which colleges and universities — and in many cases, Historically Black Colleges and Universities — assist disadvantaged secondary school students (two-thirds of whom are minority) by providing them with academic, career, and financial counseling so that they will be better be able to finish high school and attend college; Hello, this is Bush and the Republicans we are talking, they hate the blacks, if they could get away with it, they would go back to "colored" water fountains.
  

• The Community Services Block Grant, which provides funding for a range of social services and other types of assistance to low-income families and elderly and disabled individuals.More proff that Bush and the Republicans hate Americans, they hate the old, the disabled and the poor, Bush as a message for you, Hurry-up and die!

Other programs that would be terminated include:  the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Graduation, and Safe and Drug Free Schools Grants.

• Deep Program Cuts:  Among the domestic discretionary programs that would be cut deeply are:

• Section 202 housing for the low-income elderly — cut 26 percent in 2007 below the 2006 level, even without adjustment for inflation. Shocker Cuts to the poor.
  

• Section 811 housing for low-income people with disabilities — cut 50 percent in 2007. Again, Republicans hate the poor, in fact they hate almost all Americans, their love does not kick in until arounf $250,000 a year.
  

• The Community Development Block Grant formula grant program — cut 30 percent in 2007. These go to poor areas, and because it is for poor, it can go to hell
  

• Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) — which promotes community policing, primarily by putting police on the streets, would be cut 79 percent. We will not need community policing, the soon to be established "National Police and Reform Centers" will fix all that
  

• The Child Care and Development Block Grant — The President’s budget calls for cuts in discretionary child care funding totaling $1.03 billion over the next five years as compared to FY 2006 funding levels adjusted for inflation (funding levels also would fall without adjusting for inflation).  Data from the President’s budget show that the funding levels proposed would mean that the number of children receiving child care assistance in 2011 would drop by more than 400,000 as compared to the number receiving assistance in 2005 and by more than 650,000 as compared to 2000 levels. So much for the "Culture of Life", proof that they only care about you until you pass the vaginal opening, from there, you can kiss the Republicans and Bush’s ass.
  

Guys there is alot more, Please go and read, this is worth it.

Iraq Déjà Vu: Cheney Already Undermining State Department Efforts on Iran - As debate over Iran’s nuclear program swells, it appears that Vice President Cheney is already trying to undermine diplomatic efforts being led by his administration’s own State Department. Iran will likely soon be referred to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department’s stated hope is that this move will coalesce world opinion leading into a new […] [ThinkProgress.org]

Here we go again, this President is going to now take us to war with Iran. Do we have the troops, Nope, does he care, Nope, do we have the money Nope, does he care, Nope. Does Americans want to go to war with Iran, Nope, does he care, hell no.

I would bet $10 that the following phrase has been said by someone in this failed administration, “If Iran wants Nukes, we will give them nukes…”

I call on Americans for the love of god to start paying attention, it is about to get very ugly in America. When he goes to war with Iran you are going to see a political crisis in this nation, and Bush has only one way to deal with political crisis, jail everyone.

Wake up, people, it is time to stop being good Germans, We have invaded 2 countries so far, a 3^rd and we are going to start looking like, oh, I don’t know, Hitler’s Germany? The ramifications of this will be spectacular. Our allies will turn on us, we will become the enemy to all the world.