... news... opinion... bush report... gorewatch... comedy... site map... us...

The Real Purpose Of The Bush Missile Plan Is The Military Domination Of Space "Any reasonably well-informed person would know that a missile defense shield is techincally impossible. Additionally, most people would agree that the world will become a much more dangerous place if the missile defense shield does not work as planned, since other countries will build up their missiles, and Russia will drop all non-proliferation treaties. However, it doesn't make sense to build a missile defense system that won't work and would reduce worldwide security. This is the part that is bothering Russia and China: they know that the missile defense shield won't work, and that there are easy ways of defeating any shield that America could ever set up, but they don't know why America is then wasting its money on it. Space-Based Lazer (SBL) "The current missile defense shield does not put lasers into space. However, Bush's defense proposal intends to eventually launch Space-Based Lazers (SBL) to shoot down missiles. Of course, these lazers would shoot down missiles, as they were designed, but they could also shoot at other things. Once America has lazers in space to shoot down missiles, it could easily convert them to shoot at enemy military installations, to shoot down satellites, or space launches. With this power, America would gain an enourmous military advantage over the rest of the world. In fact, it could fight entire wars without risking a single life. When wars cost less than the amount of money a middile-class person makes in a year, America would definitely be involved in more of them. Why Space is Important "Whoever controls space controls the planet. If a single country controls space, they could basically do whatever they want. They could kill all enemy satellites and prevent them from ever being replaced. They could shoot down any spaceship launch. They could shoot down any missile or plane. They could bombard any part of the world without risking any lives. This would give the US a huge military advantage, and considering previous US military actions (such as the 1954 overthrowing of the Democratically-elected leader of Guatemala, who was seizing the lands of wealthy [US] businesses and distributed them to poor, starving "middle class", so that they could have a better future), it is possible that this would do more harm than good. No single country should control the world, since it will always do what's best for its national interests, without considering the lives of people in other countries." --Area 51, 7/30/01 Fire On The Mountain "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriotgrave,to every living heart and hearth stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." --Abraham Lincoln A year ago today, I spent a hot and humid afternoon in downtown Boston with a clipboard in my hand. Attached to it was a petition to put Ralph Nader on the Presidential ballot in Massachusetts for the 2000 election. I camped out by the Park Street subway station at 5:00 pm one year ago today and asked people to sign it. Before I was finished that day, there were about 50 signatures on the petition. That summer, I took that clipboard to parties and got people to sign. I even took it to work and left it on my desk in plain view. I asked no one to sign it, but still collected three more signatures. The deadline approached, so I mailed it to the Massachusetts Green Party headquarters. Nader made it onto the Massachusetts ballot. My writing at that time was directed towards a website project called DarkHorse2000.com. DarkHorse was a clearinghouse for information about every single political party in America. There were 110 political parties and 235 Presidential candidates active in the 2000 election, and we had the goods on just about all of them. It was run by Robert Arnold, one of the truest and most brilliant renegades you will ever meet. A year ago today I was tired. The echoes of the impeachment still rang in my ears, and the campaign between Bush and Gore was simply agonizing to behold. My politics are far to the left of Al Gore or Bill Clinton. I knew the score - Gore would carry Massachusetts by a landslide. I wanted last year to vote for someone I could ideologically support without qualm or reservation. I wanted to make a statement with my vote without worrying about aiding and abetting the election of Bush. Nader felt like the perfect fit for those desires. I had my cake, and thought I could eat it. I was wrong. By late October, the shine had begun to come off my Green leanings. The race was agonizingly close, and the media had all but buried Gore's performance in the debates. It was close enough for me to abandon my support for Nader and begin thinking with my strategic pragmatist cap on. I began writing in support of Gore, and became active in the vote-swapping arrangements being made in states that Gore needed to win. Florida was one. I voted for Gore in 2000 with a sense of true fear. I had seen enough of George W. Bush to be deeply disturbed by the possibility that he might actually win. I stayed up all night on November 7th, and I was a raging news junkie inferno from then until December 12th. On December 13th I awoke to the new reality. A part of me felt deeply complicit in the catastrophe that had befallen us. Nader was an albatross around my neck. I wrote something just before the election called 'Requiem for a Voter.' In it, I predicted a Bush victory and summed up my Nader experience, and the aftermath I foresaw, this way: "Tonight I am faced with a dismal truth. I wanted a man whose ideas inspired me to become President, and by helping him I did my small part to ensure that a man who genuinely frightens me will be sworn in by Judge Renquhist this January. I am faced with the knowledge that the non-voting majority segment of the public cannot see George W. Bush for the nightmare he is, enough so that they participate. I am faced with the knowledge that a majority of those Americans who plan on voting seem to think Bush is capable of performing the job he seeks." The Creator has not blessed us with the ability to peer through the veil of time and see the future. She has however, cursed us with hindsight. Knowing what I know now, I say this: if Lord Satan Himself had risen from Hades and been nominated to the Democratic ticket in Los Angeles last summer, I would have gleefully supported Him if I knew He could defeat George W. Bush at the polls. Knowing what I know now, I would have shunned Nader, despite my ideological craving for a leader like him in Washington, D.C. I would have worked hammer and tong for Satan, at the expense of my very soul, to bar the kind of bargain-basement wretchedness that Bush brings to our national political existence. Satan, at least, would have advocated for the constitutional separation of church and state. Tomorrow creeps in its petty pace, friends. My hyperbolic rant above should not deflect you from the fact that real evil, true evil, owns the government today. A democracy where votes do not count is evil. A nation that ignores the world, and spurns dire words of ecological warning, is evil. A nation that aggressively arms for war in a time of peace is evil. A nation that does not care for its own is evil. I did my tiny little part to help unleash this evil on all of us by assisting and supporting Ralph Nader. I was part of the rolling snowball that sucked up some 90,000 votes in Florida on November 7th. But I was not alone. The media's decision to cover the 2000 campaign as if it were a fashion and diction lesson by Emily Post did far more than I, or any Green, could ever have done. Gore himself did more than I or any other Green to hamstring his campaign, by allowing the media to cover his race the way they did. A true political fighter can grab an offending issue and choke it to death. Gore was unable to do this. Monica Lewinsky was still perched above the Gore In 2000 headquarters like the raven. I didn't put her there, nor did any Green. Finally, and most importantly, Gore won in Florida despite those 90,000 Nader votes. Plainly put, his victory was stolen by a crazy quilt of local officials, a few nationally renowned Republicans, a private corporation called DBT, a small army of agitators, and five black-robed judges in Washington, D.C. Blaming the Greens for what happened in Florida completely distracts from the truth of the matter. Ralph Nader and those who voted for him have become the Judas Goat for many Democrats enraged about the 2000 election. One sees this everywhere on the internet. A Green who sticks his head up in a left-leaning or anti-Bush chat forum and speaks his piece about Nader is rendered into fresh, bleeding meat in very short order. The time has come for this to stop. The time has come for us to heal this breach. Consider the words of Penny Kemp, author of 'A Green Manifesto for the 1990s': "How to be green? Many people have asked us this important question. It's really very simple and requires no expert knowledge or complex skills. Here's the answer. Consume less. Share more. Enjoy life." I know of no Democrat who would disagree with this credo. The Greens are the soul of the Democratic Party. They are ideologically zealous, aggressive in defense of the environment, and deeply wary of corporate hegemony. The Greens are the fire in our party's belly. We lost something of our true strength and purity when those voters fled to Nader in November. It is absolutely essential that we bring them back. Such a rapprochement requires effort from both sides. Those who went for Nader in November need to accept how fundamentally important it is that Bush and his minions be driven from office in 2002 and 2004. This time around, they must vote strategically instead of ideologically. That will be difficult, to be sure. In order to make it easier, the Democratic Party must make Nader voters welcome. The Party must allow the far Left to have a louder voice within the big tent. The Party and it's candidates must give ear to that voice. Lastly, Democrats and Greens must let go of the anger they have directed towards each other. They must forgo hard words and accusations. There must be peace and unity on the Left if we are to topple the foe that stands before us. We need everyone. One need only peruse the forums of conservative website FreeRepublic to witness the ugliness of inter-ideological warfare. Claim in that place to be a McCain supporter at your peril. We must be better than that to prevail. We are the ones on the mountaintop, Democrat and Green alike. Ours is the better way. We must be united in this cause. Nothing less than the future depends on it. I am certain this plea will not satisfy the hard core on either side of this rift. I am in for some flaming email after I offer this for publication. I hope, however, that enough people read this and decide to make amends. We have too much work to do for this to continue. --William Rivers Pitt, 7/25/01 BUSH IS OFFERING US A DARK, TECHNO-FASCIST FUTURE With the 225th celebration of the declaration of American independence comes a frightening glimpse into a dark techno-fascist future from the Bush regime. The Times of London on Saturday, June 30 reports that the military review being conducted by U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is considering what amounts to gutting U.S. conventional forces for the sake of Bush's so-called missile defense shield, the Republican 'Stars Wars' fantasy. But the implications of this radical shift would go much further than just changes in military tactics; it conceivably undercuts the very notions of freedom that we commemorate on the Fourth of July. According to the Times report: "Mr Rumsfeld's experts are seriously considering scrapping the decades-old two-wars strategy, under which America was supposed to be capable of handling two big conflicts simultaneously.... The result could be a reduction in land forces, ships and aircraft. Changes in strategy would also help to resolve the problem of how to replace aging equipment. Bases could also be closed. Since 1988, 95 significant military bases have been closed, saving $14 billion, and it has been estimated that up to a quarter of the surviving bases could also face closure under Mr Rumsfeld's review." And why are Bush and 'Secretary Strangelove' considering this radical move away from a military run by soldiers and sailors, generals and admirals to a military controlled by computer geeks and software engineers? Because 'Star Wars' is theology for the Bush-Reagan ultra-conservative world view. No matter how many 'missile defense' tests have been failures, and despite the rock-hard logic of the 'A-bomb in a suitcase' argument, the right-wing of the Republican party pushes on because of a mystical belief that God will make the technology work so that the United States can be the greatest empire the planet has ever known. While the devotees of the Bush dynasty may find it thrilling to contemplate a future world of corporate hegemony and global domination of fundamentalist Protestant values --- the rest of us recognize that such a vision means the end of individual freedom, privacy, and security as we now know it. Because, most importantly, the Times of London article says: "Also facing the axe is the idea that space should be free of offensive weapons to avoid an extraterrestrial arms race. Under the new thinking in Washington, space is likely to be viewed as a legitimate battleground, if only to ensure the protection of America's rapidly growing network of military and commercial satellites." The inspiring 1969 moon walk words "we came in peace for all mankind" are being supplanted in the Bush era with "...space is likely to be viewed as a legitimate battleground." Bush and 'Strangelove' may have daydreams of Wookies flying starships battling the evil empire of Saddam's rogue rockets, but the reality is Hitleresque in its devotion to the same kind of techno-militaristic mechanization that produced the blitzkrieg and V-2. Consider a world orbited by lasers, nuclear weapons, and super-surveillance satellites. Think about the value of national sovereignty for other countries 'shielded' under an American umbrella of space weapons. The rational for this 'protection' may be terrorist threats or rogue nations, but in the Bush New World Order who will decide who constitutes a terrorist or what defines a 'rogue' nation? Will some Bush family loyalist in the Pentagon, CIA, or State Department conclude that anti-globalist demonstrators in Toronto are dangerous enough to be monitored by U.S. satellites? Will continued French opposition to 'Star Wars' make them a nuclear-capable rogue nation? Can the FBI decide that environmental activists in the U.S. practicing civil disobedience are sufficiently terrorist to warrant surveillance from space? Will any and all rocket launches by the space programs of China, Russia, France, Britain, and India be subject to U.S. review to determine whether or not they should be blasted into pieces during boost phase? In January 1933 Adolph Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. In December 2000 George W. Bush was appointed to the presidency by the U.S. Supreme Court. Like Hitler, Bush's primary support comes from corporations and fanatic ideologues of the right. It is a fact that neither Hitler nor Bush obtained a clear mandate from the people. It is furthermore historically evident that lacking the constraints (as the Declaration of Independence puts it) of "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," leaders inevitably go their own way or the way that rewards their political benefactors. Bush with his unilateral disregard for the internationally conceived Kyoto treaty and his disdain for the 1972 ABM treaty walks the world down the same path as Hitler, a blind ally walled by conceit and arrogance. The so-called missile defense shield, better named Star Wars, is a scheme cloaked in the propaganda of national security and 'world peace' that threatens to expand warfare into outer space and the reach of big government and huge corporations into every aspect of our social and political lives. While finding historical parallels with the Nazi era can be helpful in warning us of the repetition of history, the common sense and determination to defend liberty by freedom-loving citizens can stop this Bush slide into totalitarianism. A Democratic U.S. Senate is presently in position to protect representative government and the primacy of the will of the people. Now, we must let those senators understand that we will not accede to the radical subversion of that will to this most un-American of White House occupants. --Dave Chandler, 1/2/01 What Lies Beneath The Judiciary Is Just Another Political Institution, Let's Treat It As Such In this brave new world of 2001, only a fool would believe that the judicial branch of our American government, established by Article III of the Constitution, is free from the taint of political influence. Nominees to the Federal bench come almost exclusively from the ranks of those who wear out shoe leather for one of the two dominant political parties. Nominations are part of the political patronage system, a device used to dispense rewards to the faithful after victory at the polls is achieved. It is an arrangement as old as Jefferson's quill, practiced aggressively on both sides of the aisle. Look no further than the august heights of our Supreme Court for proof of this. Each of the Justices has at one time spent blood and sweat for the advancement of either the Democratic or Republican ideological agenda. When one joins the ranks of a party and dedicates a portion of their life to the advancement of that party, it stands to reason that loyalty to that party and its core ideologies are not stripped away upon the donning of a black robe. Political ideology, therefore, must be considered by the Senate as a part of its advise and consent role in the process of approving judicial nominees. It must be as much a part of the process as the analysis of a nominees' education, rulings, public statements, and financial background. This nation is ruled by the Judiciary at the end of the day, as was incontrovertibly proven on December 13, 2000. The President may propose or veto legislation, and new laws are created in Congress by the hour. The Judicial branch, however, is the proving ground. One judge may, with the pounding of a gavel, undo years of Presidential or Congressional brickwork. Thus, or entire system lives and dies within the walls of our courtrooms on the words and deeds of those who wear the robe. A judicial nominee must therefore be placed squarely under the Senate microscope, to ensure that we the people are given the opportunity to fully and completely know who it is that stands to represent the ideals of American law and justice. No questions must be spared, and no areas must be ignored in this pursuit. Such things can not be left to chance, a crossing of fingers, or a hope that a judge will suddenly become "independent" of such considerations upon their rise to the bench. Such things have happened, of course. But it is better, far better, that we know exactly what we are getting into. The questioning of ideology has always been part of the process, of course. Such mean considerations are never spoken of publicly, however. Senators, flush with the responsibility of deciding who will rise to that all-important branch, speak earnestly of reviewing nominees on the merits of their rulings and education alone. This leads to abuses of power, distortions of judicial or financial records, defamation, hard feelings, and strife. As Senator Charles Schumer said in a Washington Post article published on June 26, 2001, "It's just that we don't talk about it openly. This unwillingness to openly examine ideology has sometimes led senators who oppose a nominee to seek out non-ideological disqualifying factors, such as small financial improprieties from long ago, to justify their opposition." There are legal experts who claim that lowering the examination of judicial nominees to rank political inquisition will cause the American people to view the Judiciary as just another political institution. These well-educated scholars, sadly, are the Pollyannas of legal society. They seek to avert damage that has already been done. They are trying to protect an ideal that has been on life support for generations, an ideal that was murdered outright last winter in the swamps of Florida and in the chambers of our highest court. Too often in history, we have been wounded in the pursuit of a dead dream. Best we leave this one where it was slain, and move on to the business of the people. It is time to openly accept the facts of our political landscape. At the end of the day, ideology is everything. Everyone knows this. Most nominees make it through the Senate out of deference to whatever administration currently resides in the White House. It cannot be denied, however, that the brimstone stench of ideological war stained the air during the nomination brawls of Robert Bork and Ronnie White. The idea that ideology deserves to be considered has finally clawed its way into daylight with the sudden defection of James Jeffords and the subsequent delivery of majority Senate control to the Democrats. Senate Republicans, stung by the wrenching realization that their clear path towards the unencumbered nomination of conservative judges is now strewn with obstructions, have begun to howl in dismay that ideological considerations be part of the process. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, speaking on the subject of ideological considerations, said in the same Post article quoted above, "The Senate's responsibility to provide advice and consent does not include an ideological litmus test. A nominee's personal opinions are largely irrelevant so long as the nominee can set those opinions aside and follow the law fairly and impartially as a judge." This is an interesting perspective when compared to recent history. The 1996 Republican National Platform had this to say about the Judiciary: "The American people have lost faith in their courts, and for good reason. Some members of the federal judiciary threaten the safety, the values, and the freedom of law-abiding citizens." One is forced to wonder whose values the Republicans were referring to when they issued this indictment. Are values not a matter of personal opinion, faith, and ideology? It seems clear from this that the GOP had no problem in 1996 with the idea that the Judiciary should and could be remade according to their own ideological view of America. Concepts of judicial impartiality do not seem to be important here. Consider, as well, this quote attributed to John Czwartacki, spokesman for Republican Senator Trent Lott, published in 'The Legal Intelligencer' on February 28th, 2000: "The majority leader was also opposed to confirming any judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals whom he felt would not return the panel 'to the mainstream.'" No definition of 'the mainstream' was forthcoming, but one must assume that Mr. Lott's concept of the mainstream depends largely upon his own conservative political ideology, and the ideology of those to whom he is loyal. Mr. Lott was comfortable, however, with determining what was not ideologically 'mainstream'. Until Jeffords awoke on the left side of the bed, Mr. Lott held considerable sway over the establishment of his own personal definition of 'mainstream' within the judiciary. I doubt this troubled him at the time. Bald-faced hypocrisy is nothing new in American politics. The simple fact is that the GOP, faced with the hard truth that they are not in control of the judicial nomination process anymore, are raising this hue and cry in an attempt to shame the Democratic majority into letting them have whatever they want. Lott and his compatriots fear, with good reason, that if the American people are informed of the fealty many of these GOP nominees hold for ultra-conservative ideologies, those nominations will die a swift death. Frankly, Trent Lott would not know the political mainstream if he were submerged in it up to his toupee. A Judiciary that best represents the true American political perspective would dwell somewhere in the Center. This does not serve the conservative GOP agenda, and it is clear from his rantings that Lott has far more loyalty to that agenda than he does to the American people as a whole. If it is not Right, in Lott's view, it is wrong. It therefore makes perfect sense for him to rail against the dying light of his majority control in any way he can. Decrying the consideration of political ideology is today's way, and never mind the hypocrisy. Tomorrow it will be something else. This sudden argument over the consideration of the ideology of judicial nominees, augmented to cacophony by the outraged howls of thwarted Republicans, serves to help us turn a political corner. Charles Schumer, with his power as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, should ask the tough questions. Let us see our nominees for who they are, and give ear to what they believe in the inner chambers of their political hearts. The Judicial branch is political in its foundation, made so by those who choose who shall be nominated, and by those who advise on and consent to that nomination. It is, and has always been, the high ground of our endless political battlefield. It would be nice if it were otherwise, if that all-important branch were free of the scandalous shadow of politics. But it is not, and we should stop fooling ourselves. Open consideration of such things is, at the bottom, a more honest way of doing business. Ask the tough questions, Chuck. The Republic will endure. --William Pitt, 6/28/01 Bush Talks "Compassion" As He Uses The GASER Clinton's sexual misbehavior in the Oval Office is symptomatic. Jenna and Barb Bush's behavior in skirting drinking laws is symptomatic. Pez bush's arrogance toward the environment, Europe, and people at large is symptomatic. Symptomatic of the alienation of people from the responsibilities we have toward one another. Symptomatic of the alienation from the joy of relating to one another and the world in which we live. The alienation itself arises from the globalization of markets - the increasing physical distance between producers and consumers. I don't see the face of someone who is using something I made with my own hands. I don't see their annoyance at it not working right or the glow of admiration and appreciation at a product well made and functional. The alienation arises from dominance of corporate interests globally over the social interests represented by governments originally established to ameliorate the oppression of the unfettered free markets the Pez acts solely on behalf of. The alienation arises from use of the greed amplification by stimulated emission of rubbish (GASER). The GASER is a device that is constructed on the global communications infrastructure as a delivery vehicle for ideas about 'who we are if we buy this' and 'who we can be if we subscribe to that.' These ideas - marketing speak, spin, slogans of the moment - are rubbish. They do not inform. They devalue and confuse. The individual's tendencies toward greed are stimulated and amplified by the forces of advertising on behalf of the transnational corporate interests of planet earth. Scarcity of the things that greed seeks, scarcity of the money needed to acquire the things that greed seeks, scarcity of the jobs needed to obtain the money needed to acquire the things that greed seeks, and scarcity of a satisfying quality of life from acquiring what greed seeks all lead to dissatisfaction, anger, hatred and violence among people. The Pez's use of the word "compassion" is indicative of how out of touch many people are with being human. These words themselves aren't particularly compassionate. They are meant to 'point out'. To pierce to the heart of the matter. To shake loose the veil that surrounds our perception of ourselves and our culture. There is no conspiracy here. There is the time honored cycle of ignorance breeding ignorance. The Pez, as most of us, is ignorant. Ignorant of the impact of the policies that he and his advisors espouse. Ignorant of the poisons that are unleashed by the exercise of the free market for the sole pure and complete sake of profit. It's all in the name of shareholders, owners, stakeholders. We are "just fulfilling our fiduciary responsibilities" while all the time ignoring the responsibilities that we have to build and establish the possibility of life in the future for our children and their children. Perhaps there is some compassion in recognizing these issues and then in taking action individually to cut off at the root the sources of greed, anger and ignorance. STOP supporting consumption for the sake of consumption - consume what you need and what will help you to accomplish actions that cut off the source of greed, anger and ignorance. STOP wasting energy - use what you need to accomplish actions that cut off the sources of greed, anger, and ignorance. STOP the co-dependency of your kids getting games or sneakers that don't promote their understanding of their worth to themselves and the future. --Christine, 6/18/01 Honor and dignity? Try graft and sleaze "WASN'T this supposed to be the team that brought "honor and dignity" back to the White House? Now that the honeymoon is over and the country is well past the getting-to-know-you stage with the White House's new occupants, the sleaze is piling up pretty fast. The latest sordid tale concerns Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist and presumably a man who had something to do with Bush's honor-and-dignity campaign theme. Details emerged yesterday of a March meeting between Rove and top executives of Intel Corp., in which the execs pushed for approval of a merger between one of their U.S. suppliers and a Dutch company. Soon after the meeting, Intel got the government's OK. Here's the sleaze: Rove held more than $100,000 of Intel stock at the time of the meeting and stood to gain financially from the merger. Rove insists he did nothing wrong. But he could not remember if he spoke to the president about the merger, and Intel's top lobbyist, who probably hadn't received the official talking points yet, characterized the meeting as "quite useful." "The Rove flap comes on the heels of a recent story by Salon about Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who may have made millions in the last few months from White House-initiated increases in the value of his Alcoa stock. O'Neill, a former Alcoa exec, publicly promised in late March that he would divest himself of the stock to avoid potential conflicts of interest, which he acknowledged existed because President Bush had drawn him into issues involving not just the Treasury but "almost every other issue the government is involved in." Shortly after O'Neill's high-minded promise, the U.S. Department of Energy directed several western aluminum suppliers to halt production to conserve energy. The new policy reduced the worldwide aluminum supply by five percent. It also caused a run on Alcoa stock -- it jumped about 30 percent in the weeks after O'Neill's divestiture announcement. There was only one problem: O'Neill never got rid of the stock, despite his public promise. As a result, he may have made as much as $60 million from Alcoa's increased market value. In both cases, top White House officials stood to add to their private wealth by virtue of their connection to public policy-making. Honor and dignity? Sounds more like a bunch of rich guys -- just getting richer." --San Francisco Examiner, 6/15/01 God Sees The Freepers There was a striking moment during the interregnum last November/December that has stayed with me ever since. 'Inside Politics' was running 24 hours a day on CNN, you will recall. I was watching one evening, several days into the theft, and there was Judy Woodruff interviewing conservative columnist Bob Novak. The question of the hour was whether Al Gore should just quit and go home. On this night, Novak was pointing to a public poll that had been running on CNN.com. You know these polls. Log on to a news site and you can vote your opinion on whatever happens to be the headline of the day. The poll Novak referred to asked the question: "Should Al Gore concede?" The results showed that some 89% of the American population who found their way onto CNN.com voted "Yes" to this question. The count of those who voted numbered in the tens of thousands. Novak flapped this poll all around the studio as indisputable proof that a large majority of the American people saw Gore as a thief and a usurper and a sore loser who should just go away. Soon enough, Gore did. I never forgot that night, and never lost the sneaking suspicion that something shady had occurred. Somehow, someone had flooded that poll with "Yes" votes to skew the results. I had no proof, and the theme song to 'X-Files' was sounding in my head, but I was mortally sure that something was rotten in Denmark. Now, after all these months, I have figured out what happened that night. That CNN.com poll was 'Freeped'. What does it mean when something gets 'Freeped'? Aim your browser to http://www.FreeRepublic.com, join the conversations in the forums, and you will find out. FreeRepublic.com is a website which describes its cause thusly: "We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America." This seems innocent enough. I am a particular fan of governmental largesse, but respect coherent arguments against it. I believe my work against the illegitimacy of Bush proves my dedication to rooting out political fraud and corruption. And while I am no conservative, I have met many conservatives whom I admire for their intellect, ability to articulate a message, and integrity in the truest definition of that word: "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code." My grandfather was a conservative of great integrity from the old school, and I never once found cause to look down on him, even when we disagreed on a principle. My grandfather was the ideal conservative, in my opinion. A part of me is glad he died before I could tell him about the Freepers. A Freeper is a member of FreeRepublic.com. Freepers speak to each other on the forums of this website, discussing all varieties of topic. Purportedly, they support the ideals espoused above. In actuality, there is a yawning moral chasm between word and deed. Take the CNN.com poll I discussed above, for example. A common Freeper tactic is to post on the FreeRepublic forums a notice that a poll exists somewhere which asks a question dear to the conservative heart: "Should the Congress pass more gun control legislation?" or "Is Bill Clinton the illegitimate spawn of Satan and Baal?" The URL to this poll is provided, and the Freeper legions swarm to vote.say, "no" on the first and "yes" on the second. There are a lot of Freepers, and many of them will vote multiple times. This, obviously skews the result. This is how a poll is 'Freeped.' Novak and CNN used the 'Freeped' CNN.com poll to convince the public that 89% of them wanted Al Gore to quit before the votes were counted. This helped to push the rising tidewater that allowed the Supreme Court to get away with stealing the election. Is this not political corruption? Does such a disruption skew information that is provided to the public via the media? Does this not pervert the truth? Of course, there are liberals out there who organize the same kind of coordinated mugging of public internet polls. It can be argued that such things are no more than political gamesmanship. Dig a little deeper into the Freeper phenomenon, however, and you will find a darkness where true morality dares not show its face. As we all know, Jenna Bush was recently busted for attempting to purchase booze at a restaurant named Chuy's in Austin, Texas. The manager of the establishment, named Mia Lawrence, called 911 when she saw what was happening. The Freepers took this personally, believing the Jenna fiasco to be part of some liberal conspiracy to humiliate Bush and the daughters. They called for a 'Freeping' of Chuy's restaurant. Salon.com recently wrote a story about the Freeper reaction to the Chuy's situation. ("The jihad against Chuy's" by Anthony York) I quote it in part below: 'The attacks against Mia Lawrence, the bar manager, are being orchestrated on the Internet. Her address, date of birth, drivers license and registration information, physical description, and even birth information about her infant child have been posted on Freerepublic.com, along with calls for punitive actions. Freerepublic.com Web site's sysop pulled some of the information as it was called to his attention -- to his credit -- but the info has circulated and been posted to other Internet forums to spread the "Get Lawrence" frenzy.' I felt a chill in my spine when I first read these words. The manager, Mia Lawrence, was in all likelihood seeking to save her restaurant from breaking Texas' punitive underage drinking laws, signed by Governor Bush, which would have cost Chuy's its liquor license. She earned for her trouble a legion of stalkers who speak openly of loving guns. Her personal information, along with maps providing driving directions to her home, were posted on FreeRepublic. I am confident in my prediction that she has not slept since dialing 911. I did some research regarding this topic on FreeRepublic. Entering the word "Chuy" into the search engine provided, I found the following Freeper commentary: "The manager, (aka 'Mia the Liberal DemonRat'), tried to cause as much trouble for the Bush twins and their dad as possible and now might get it returned back on her own head in spades!!! This is sweet!" - Truth_Eagle "Hell! Surround Chuy's with tanks and set the place on fire while fully occupied." - olustee "Let's turn that TEXMEX joint into a BARBECUE!" - makoman I read comments, since removed by the moderators of FreeRepublic, which suggested that someone should go into Chuy's and smear acid on the tables. To be fair, a fellow Freeper posted the following dissent: "Every thread that had Mia's addy posted on it got pulled. Every one. It's NOT OK. Printing a map to the house, and having the addy on the map, is arguably worse." - CyberLiberty CyberLiberty is proof positive that not all Freepers are violent psychopaths. Still, there were far more posts in the vein of olustee's than of CyberEagle's. By all means, seek out the site and investigate for yourself. I am forced to wonder how posting the name, address and physical description of a restaurant manager from Austin, as well as the description of her infant child, furthers the conservative cause in America. I am reminded of the words of art critic and author, Harold Rosenberg: "The values to which the conservative appeals are inevitably caricatured by the individuals designated to put them into practice." Clearly, the purported targeting of the daughter of the President is mortally offensive to the average Freeper. I decided to do a search using the words "Chelsea Clinton." I found the following: (question asked) "I really do wonder what perversions Chelsea participates in." (response) "THAT is something I would rather NOT wonder about. Animals, plants, the elderly...echh. The girl is a walking STD." - AntiChris "If people didnt know that hillary was an ugly assed dyke - they must have been blind - she just put up with old dumb ass so she could run the white house - just look at the bizarre bunch she put in office - the female version of frankenstein - which is janet reno - and this could go on and on - halfbright looks just like broomhilda - weirdest looking bunch ever to defile any government - and all courtesy of mr hillary - and then she supported all the fags in hollywood and along with her fat assed dyke buddy rosie - they all look like something from a sideshow at a circus - everyone of them has the coyote rating." - candyman34 In these two short entries, the daughter of a President is accused of carnal knowledge of animals and plants. She is accused of being a spreader of STDs. Senator Hillary Clinton is called a "dyke." The very notion of balance or fair play is conspicuously absent here. The hatred is palpable. Which brings me to yet another favorite Freeper topic. A singular characteristic of the average Freeper is an abiding love and respect for Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Many Freepers use Christ as the shield with which they defend their views. Sometimes, they use him as their sword. If I remember my Sunday School classes, Jesus said in the Book of John, chapter 15 verse 12, " This is my commandment, that ye love one another." I entered the word "homosexual" into the FreeRepublic search engine, and found the following. Keep the Bible quote I provided in mind as you read: "The spread of infectious diseases... oral and anal cancer... death from HIV infections...Just some of the ways GOD gets even with the queers and faggots." - upchuck "In another time, and in another place, they burned people like this." - East Bay Patriot "I will tell you that the Lord God has at least 7000 righteous in the USA that have not bowed their knee to baal = and these flames of fire are going to rise up soon and speak the Living Word of a Holy God to these frog-demon-freaks and ban them from our land. I will NOT let this country be over-run by Communist/Socialist/Globalist/Abortionist/Feminist Sodomites." - jdhmichigan "DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT shake hands with any homosexuals." - Mr. K. I have been a Christian all my life. My understanding of the teachings of Jesus directs me to love my enemies, and accept everyone - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist - as a child of God. Jesus was the son of God, but was also a revolutionary seeking freedom from Roman persecution. Therefore, as a Christian and a freedom-loving American, I respect and love those who do not bend a knee to any religion. Jesus died so all of us could live, and the American Revolution was fought so that all people in this nation could live as they wish. These two events are connected intimately. I do not pretend, as a card-carrying heterosexual, to understand how one man can look with lust upon another man. But after being friends with, and after sharing apartment space with, a number of homosexual men and women, I know in my heart that such things exist for a reason and are not wrong. God loves everyone equally, as He sees the smallest sparrow fall. I love everyone, too. Perhaps, like gay men and women, I was born that way. I have never espoused the burning at the stake of any human being, be they gay or conservative. I know of no 'liberal' who has espoused such action. How such a statement falls within the yardsticks of Christianity or true conservatism is a mystery which I may never solve. I do know this, however: were Jesus to log on to FreeRepublic and read the perversion His message has undergone in 2,000 years, He would beg to be crucified again, so as to be spared exposure to such hatred. I suppose it is easy for the average Freeper to post such virulent messages on a public forum. After all, they dare not use their real names. Names like Truth_Eagle, upchuck and AntiChris are shields behind which cowards hide. It is easy to speak when no one can see your face. A veteran of many email flame wars, I know well how brave a person can be when shielded by the anonymity of a computer keyboard. Those who sexually stalk teenage girls in internet chat rooms use similar tactics. It is very effective. My screen name, on each and every board I post to, is WilliamPitt. I am easy to find. I do not hide, and I never will. The glaring fact of the cowardice of the average Freeper should not in any way diminish the effectiveness of their actions. They pervert public polls. They call and email congressional representatives en masse, thus creating the illusion of massive public pressure that twists the actions of elected officials who seek only respond to the legitimate concerns of constituents. They bombard media outlets with prurient stories to discredit respectable Democratic officeholders. They are the bedrock base of the entity we know as the GOP. They are very, very powerful. Keep these things in mind when you find yourself shocked by the results of a poll on MSNBC, or when a Senator refuses to support reasonable gun control laws, or when the press decides to spend two years covering a consensual sex act between adults. Robert Kennedy described Richard Nixon as being a symbol of "the dark side of the American Dream." Were he alive today, he would described FreeRepublic in the same terms. The Freepers are out there. --William Rivers Pitt, 6/11/01 We Must Do Something About The Supreme Court I believe the time has come for those of us who believe George W. Bush illegitimately gained the White House through the scurrilous and politically motivated actions of the Supreme Court to speak now about cures, constructive plans, reforms, bulwarks against such events ever taking place again. I have heard precious little of this from my brothers and sisters so courageously shouting down the usurper. I deign now to speak for them, and I hope my words do justice to their greatest hopes and boundless energies. I believe the time has come for those of us who believe George W. Bush illegitimately gained the White House through the scurrilous and politically motivated actions of the Supreme Court to speak now about initiating a recall of the five judges who allowed their political fealty to interfere with their sworn duties as defenders of the law. First, let us speak of responsibility. There shall be those among you who will be surprised to know that Justice Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by a unanimous vote in the Senate. Not one Senator stood to oppose him. Because the Justices are appointed by people whom we vote into office, they are by proxy a reflection of our political will. We elected the politicians who appointed these judges, and so they belong to us. I shall hazard to say that they are our fault, to a degree, because we failed to speak to our representatives about them, and failed further to agitate effectively enough to thwart their appointments. We must take responsibility for them. The workings of the Senate are not magic. It is the people's business that happens there, and we the people must make a concerted effort to involve and inform ourselves regarding the actions which take place there. We must never again allow our Senators to stand in unanimity for a Judicial nominee who holds a hollow respect for the laws he or she would uphold. We must learn all there is to know about these appointees by analyzing the history of their careers on the bench, and investigate where and how they worked in politics. We must paint this information across the sky for all to see and understand, and we must let our Senators know exactly what we know about what is going on. Senators function best for us when in daylight. Let's resolve to work hard and pull the curtains aside. Second, let us speak of reform. I propose a sweeping reform regarding the very individuals who are nominated to the bench. Seats in the Federal courts are, sadly, part of the political patronage system. This is the root of our woe: * Chief Justice Rehnquist actively campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964, and worked as an on-site legal advisor for Republicans seeking to challenge voter credentials at a Phoenix polling place in 1962. * Sandra Day O'Connor was the co-chairperson for the Arizona state committee to elect Richard Nixon, was vice-president of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, and served three terms in the Arizona State senate as a Republican. For a time she was the majority leader there. * Antonin Scalia was an attorney in the Nixon and Ford administrations. * Anthony Kennedy was a Sacramento power-lobbyist who worked hammer and tong for Reagan's anti-tax initiatives, and represented such clients as the GRT Corporation and the National Association of Alcoholic Beverage Importers before being elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals. * Clarence Thomas was a legislative assistant to Republican Senator James Danforth of Missouri. During his confirmation hearings, he admitted to never debating once, with anyone, the merits of Roe v. Wade. In the interest of balance, I point out that John Paul Stevens was a counsel for a House of Representatives subcommittee during the Truman administration, and Stephen Breyer was chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Carter administration. The glaring similarities between all these Justices is their obvious fealty to a political party for whom they have actively labored. It is no stretch to understand that, when a person dedicates a part of their professional life to the success of a political party, their objective view of that party's actions can become badly skewed. This is one area where bipartisanship truly reigns. We must put an end to the idea that a seat on the Federal bench is a proper reward for someone who has spent their life working for a political party. It became clear on December 12, 2000, that a black robe cannot elevate a person above acting out of rank political motivation. The Supreme Court chose to accept Bush v. Gore in the face of years of states-rights rulings. They went on to rule in favor of one candidate before all the votes were counted, abusing the wide latitude we entrust our judges with by cobbling together a ruling that favored a man who shared a political connection with the majority on that court. I believe there are men and women working within the confines of our judicial system who would make fine Supreme Court Justices, men and women who have never stepped foot into the corrupting arena of politics. We must choose our Justices from among these people, so as to better ensure that political considerations will never again soil a decision by our highest court. They may be Republican or Democrat; it would be nearly impossible to find someone without fealty to either party. But they must never have worked for those parties in any way. No human soul is pure, and self-interest is our common curse. Were we to choose our Justices from the ranks of those mentioned above, we would go a long way towards purifying our system. Finally, let us speak of recalls. Article III of the Constitution of the United States reads, in part, as follows: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and embellish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." The Federal Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, Canon I, reads as follows: "A judicial employee should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and of the judicial employee's office. An independent and honorable Judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judicial employee should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the Judiciary are preserved and the judicial employee's office reflects a devotion to serving the public." The Federal Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees, Canon II, reads as follows: "A judicial employee should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. A judicial employee should not engage in any activities that would put into question the propriety of the judicial employee's conduct in carrying out the duties of the office. A judicial employee should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment. A judicial employee should not lend the prestige of the office to advance or appear to advance the private interests of others. A judicial employee should not use public office for private gain." The United States Federal Code, 18 USC 211, reads as follows: "Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office: Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Whoever solicits or receives any thing of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain employment under the United States either by referring his name to an executive department or agency of the United States or by requiring the payment of a fee because such person has secured such employment shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." It is my firm belief that Supreme Court Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Kennedy and Thomas violated Canons I and II of the Federal Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. They failed to uphold the honor and independence of their offices. They allowed "other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment" in their ruling of December 12, 2000. Furthermore, they "lent the prestige of the office to advance or appear to advance the private interests of others." Because of these violations, these five Justices violated Article III of the Constitution. Article III clearly stipulates that judges may hold their seats "during good Behavior." Clearly, violations of the Canons of Ethics for Judicial Employees does not fall under this definition. The five Justices must be recalled and/or impeached, so such violations cannot happen again. Pursuit of such actions may fall under the umbrella of 18 USC 211, which clearly states that, "Whoever solicits or receives, either as a political contribution, or for personal emolument, any money or thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." I do not necessarily want to see these Justices imprisoned or fined, though that would be nice. Simply removing them from the bench will satisfy me. Again, violation of 18 USC 211 clearly constitutes an abrogation of Article III. I am not a man of means. I cannot hire an attorney with enough background in judicial/constitutional law to pursue this properly. I have painted here a picture in three parts, the last of which will cost money and time. Petitions, though valuable as a rallying cry, will not do enough in the end. It is no small thing to chop down a Supreme Court Justice. But if the reforms I listed above are to begin, if they are to have teeth, the reasons for such reforms must be made examples of. Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, O'Connor and Thomas must be brought low, and then the reforms can begin in earnest. The first part, responsibility, falls to all of us. --William Rivers Pitt, 6/4/01 Previous Rants for the industrial strength version... Bush Watch is a non-advocacy site paid for by Politex, a non-affiliated U.S. citizen. Editorial Policy: All entries are dated and documented as needed. Text (c) Politex. Permission of author required for reprinting. Duration of working link not under our control. Updated daily at various times. Send all e-mail to Politex.