Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Tuesday, May 09, 2006


Chicago---The Veterans Affairs Department has begun sending out letters to tens of thousands of disabled Illinois veterans explaining how they can open new claims and appeal decisions if they believe their own disability compensation isn't adequate.

The letters---addressed to more than 62,000 veterans around the state---also confirm that Illinois has received the lowest average disability compensation in the country, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's office said Monday.

"This is an important step towards righting the wrong by notifying veterans that they might not have received the benefits that they earned, and explaining to them their right to request a review of their claims," Obama (D-IL), said in a written statement.

Recent legislation requires that the department send out letters in states where the average annual disability compensation payment was less than $7,300. In 2003, the average payment in Illinois was $6,802, Obama's said.

A 2004 VA investigation revealed that Illinois veterans received the lowest disability payments in the nation. A report last year by the department's Office of the Inspector General concluded that staffing shortages and a World War II-era compensation plan were some of the reasons for the disparity.

Along with the letters, the VA will run advertisements explaining how veterans can try to receive proper compensation, and the department also launched a Web site to provide information about the issue.

"Our goal is to ensure that all veterans receive the benefits they have earned through their service to our nation," VA Secretary Jim Nicholson said in a written statement.

*Secretary Nicholson has lied to the veterans many, many times before. When he came to Chicago, he made promises that are on the record. The only promise kept is that they added 25 more caseworkers to the VA. But all they are is high school graduates and have no background regarding VA benefits. The veterans are starting to call Nicholson "chairbourne" instead of "airbourne." He's a Bush yes man and has proved that he does not care for veterans.

Washington (AP)---Sen. Russ Feingold, a potential anti-war candidate in the 2008 presidential field, urged fellow Democrats on Monday to show more backbone in challenging President Bush on Iraq.

"We must get out of our political foxholes and be willing to clearly and specifically point out what a strategic error the Iraq invasion has been," Feingold (D-WI), told a National Press Club audience.

He said some Democrats in Congress gave in to "intimidation" by the Bush administration when they voted to authorize the war in 2002, and warned: "If we do not show both a practical and emotional readiness to lead in the fight against terrorism, we will lose in '06 and we will lose in '08, just like we did in '02 and '04."

In March, Feingold called for the censure of Bush over the administration's warrantless surveillance program. So far, only two Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have signed on as co-sponsors.

Feingold, who also has proposed that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of the year, rejected criticism that such a move could lead to chaos.

"I believe that the situation would probably get better, if U.S. troops left," he said. "The lesson of insurgency is when the occupying power leaves, it tends to lessen, rather than increase, the level of violence."

White House spokesman Alex Conant responded: "We must defeat the terrorists by denying them safe haven and the president will continue to listen to our commanders for what troop levels are needed. The U.S. must stand with the brave citizens of Iraq as their new democracy grows."

Feingold, who insists he won't think about a presidential run after this year's congressional elections, nonetheless made a few joking references to a potential campaign.

Asked whether he and his campaign finance reform ally, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), have talked about their respective presidential ambitions, Feingold deadpanned, "I think he'd beat me in Wisconsin."
No, no, no, Senator Feingold! If Senator John McCain stays on the path that he is on, I doubt very highly if he could beat you in Wisconsin. He has become one of "them" ever since he has been meeting with G.W.s campaign financiers. Like I said in one of my other posts, he's starting to vote against the veterans. He's hanging around with the wrong crowd and it appears that he can be bought too! I never expected something like this from the Senator, but I guess power means everything to even a person like him. He is no longer the "straight talker" that he once was!

Article By: Frederic J. Frommer (AP)
Las Vegas SUN
May 8, 2006

A number of U.S. policymakers responded instantaneously to a Lyndon LaRouche's April 2006 document, with shocked recognition that their own timetable for a major, top-down shakeup of the Bush White House, was way off the mark. LaRouche's highlighting of the Weimar-style hyperinflationary spike in primary commodity prices over the past 16 months, and his forecast that the global financial system cannot survive the third quarter of 2006 without a major change in policy, suddenly pushed the issue of Vice President Dick Cheney to the top of the strategic agenda.

LaRouche zeroed in on Cheney at the start of one of his April 2006 international webcasts. After walking the audience through the documentation of the strategic commodities price explosion, LaRouche declared: "This means that the present system is finished! And it's finished this year, unless dramatic interventions to radically change the situation are made by the U.S. government. Which means you've got to get the nerd out of the White House and Cheney first."

LaRouche continued: Cheney, I understand, could be in deep trouble this week, or next week. It's already in process. There's no chance this nation would survive, number one, unless we change the composition of the Presidency. Because this President will never do what's required. He hasn't got the brains to do it, and he'd be 'agin it'---sort of like the Mortimer Snerd of the White House.

"And if Cheney's not out, it's not possible to make the kind of changes that are required, which are changes that are consistent with what Franklin Roosevelt began to do in early March of 1933, at the time of his inauguration. Unless we go back to Franklin Roosevelt, and do it this year, this nation is not going to make it. We're going to Hell---and we're going to take the rest of the world with us."

Fortunately, there are some signs that there is renewed momentum to dump the Vice President. For the first time, senior Washington sources report that a faction inside the Bush White House itself is pressing for Cheney's ouster. There is some speculation that Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political strategist, has now joined the "Demp Cheney" bandwagon. If that proves true, the consequences for the Veep could be politically deadly.


On April 26, Rove made his fifth appearance before the Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Alexandria, Va. grand jury investigation of the "outing" of CIA official Valerie Plame. According to news accounts and government sources, Rove's attorney recently received a "target" letter from Fitzgerald, indicating that the senior Presidential aide is likely to be indicted---for perjury and/or obstruction of justice. Government sources have told the EIR that Rove's testimony could be vital, in shaping whether the Independent Counsel probe remains focussed on the Vice President and his top aides, or whether it broadens to include top Oval Office and National Security Council personnel. These sources indicate that the pace of the Fitzgerald probe was greatly accelerated, as the result of recent court filings by attorneys for indicted former Cheney chief-of-staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Libby's lawyers indicated that they intend to call Rove as a defense witness when the case goes to trial early next year.

Other well-placed Washington sources indicate that there has been a significant rift between Rove and Cheney, since early in the 2004 re-election campaign, When Rove floated the idea of dumping Cheney from the ticket, due to the Vice President's growing unpopularity. These sources suggest that Rove has already provided the Independent Counsel with damning evidence about Cheney's personal role in leaking the identity of Plame, who in addition to being a CIA official, is the wife of former Ambassador Jospeh Wilson IV.

The Rove-Cheney-Fitzgerald drama took on even greater significance on April 27, when Federal Judge Reggie Walton issued a 31-page opinion, denying Libby's motion to dismiss the indictment. Libby's lawyers had argued that the appointment of Fitzgerald as Independent Counsel had been unconstitutional. Judge Walton's ruling shot down all of Libby's arguments, in stark language: "The integrity of the rule of law," Judge Walton wrote, "which is a core ingredient of the American system of government, is challenged to the greatest degree when high-level government officials come under suspicion for violating the law...For obvious reasons, the Attorney General recused himself and the Deputy Attorney General concluded that someone removed from the hierarchy of the Department of Justice should investigate individuals holding some of the country's highest executive brach offices."


Further fueling the "Dump Cheney" momentum, the Los Angeles Times published a lead editorial on Sunday, April 23, bluntly demanding that Cheney be fired. "If President Bush hopes the 'shake-up' of his administration initiated last week will re-energize his listless presidency, he's bound to be disappointed," the editorial began. "A far more audacious makeover is needed---one that sends Vice President Dick Cheney into early retirement."

After reviewing the collapse of the Bush Presidency, the Times editorial warned, "The remaking of the president in the public eye likely will require more than last week's game of musical chairs." After demanding the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the editors concluded: "Suppose Bush didn't stop there. Suppose he also asked Cheney, his mentor and friend but an even more polarizing figure than Rumsfeld, to step down...Having changed his tune, the president should also think about changing the company he keeps---big time, as Dick Cheney would say."

On April 24, the New York Times ran a puff piece on former Secretary of State and Bush family confidant James Baker III, whom the President has recently anointed to head a Congressionally-funded Iraq Study Group. The article compared Baker's potential role with that of Dean Acheson, another former Secretary of State, who played a pivotal role in convincing President Lyndon Johnson not to seek re-election in 1968. Republican Party sources told EIR that Baker, an old, bitter political adversary of Cheney, would like nothing better than to deliver the bad news to the Veep: It's time to go.

The Los Angeles Times editorial appeared the same day that The Sunday Times, the semi-official voice of the City of London financier establishment, also called for Cheney's ouster, citing a wide range of Republican Party officials. Writing from Washington, Sunday Times correspondent Sarah Baxter reported that "Republicans are urging President George W. Bush to dump Dick Cheney as Vice President and replace him with Condoleeza Rice if he is serious about presenting a new face to the jaded American public. They believe that only the sacrifice of one or more of the big beasts of the jungle, such as Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary, will convince voters that Bush understands the need for a fresh start."
*Replacing Cheney with Condoleeza Rice is one of the most absurd things I have heard yet. Yes, Cheney needs to be gone as well as Rumsfeld. But as an observer of the Court of Public Opinion, Condoleeza Rice needs to be replaced too! She was also involved with all of the lies that came out of the White House when Bush was planning on going to war in Iraq. She helped Bush along. The best thing for Condoleeza Rice is to resign and just disappear. She carries a lot of baggage with her that the American Public doesn't even know about yet. I think that Bush is going to try to change the face of his administration by putting someone like Senator McCain either in Cheney or Rumsfeld's place. But if you haven't noticed, McCain is getting to be just like the rest of the Republicans. He's been meeting with Bush's contributor's. It looks like McCain could be bought too! He's already started voting against the veterans!!!!!!! And the only reason the congressional Republicans are asking that Cheney be taken out of office now is because they think it will save their re-elections. But I can remember how happy their faces were on the floor of the Senate and The House when they voted against "the people!" Our Republican legislators made their own problems and shouldn't be blaming their problems on someone else. They are the ones who voted! DO NOT LET THESE PEOPLE FOOL YOU AGAIN THIS ELECTION SEASON!

Baxter even quoted Fred Barnes, of the neo-con Weekly Standard, calling for Cheney's departure. Barnes called for Bush to announce that "Dick Cheney will be around as an outside advisor and I can call him on the phone, but I'd like to annoint somebody who I think will be the next leader of the United States." As silly as the prospect of a Condi Rice appointment as Cheney's replacement is, the Times article ended on a deadly serious note, directed personally at George W. Bush: "Only one two-term victor has been more unpopular than Bush at a similar six-year stage in his presidency---Richard Nixon in the months before he was impeached."


Bush's own impeachment is also on the the political agenda, along with the calls for Cheney's ouster. As of this writing, three state legislatures are deliberating on impeachment resolutions against President Bush---California, Illinois and Vermont. The California resolution, introduced by Assemblyman Paul Kortez, a Los Angeles area democrat, names both Bush and Cheney, and mandates the California delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to "cause to be instituted in the Congress proper proceedings for the investigation of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from office."
It's a shame that J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), speaker of the House of Representatives probably won't allow this to come to the floor of the House. He's the one that needs to go! It was his decision to bring all of the radical changes that have happened to the American People, to the floor of the House, just like it was Senator Frist(R-TN), who allowed them to come to the floor of the Senate.

All three of the impeachment initiatives cite Section 603 of Thomas Jefferson's Manual of the House of Representatives as the basis for a state legislature initiating an impeachment proceeding. Between 1797 and 1801, then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson prepared a Manual of Parliamentary Practice, to guide him in his capacity as President Pro Tem of the U.S. Senate. In 1837, the U.S. House of Representatives formally adopted the Jefferson rules to "govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and orders of the House and joint rules of the Senate and House of Representatives."

Section 603, "Inception of impeachment proceedings," specifically states that impeachment proceedings can be initiated "by changes transmitted from the legislature of a state or territory, or from a grand jury."


Did you get a $1 million cut in your taxes?

Taxpayers with incomes above $10 million saved on average $1 million on their 2003 taxes, according to the latest available IRS data, thanks to tax changes under President George W. Bush. Tax breaks will be bigger this year.

It would take about 29 years for a full-time worker to make a million bucks at today's average hourly wage, which is falling behind inflation.

Taxpayers with incomes above $10 million "paid about the same share of their income in income taxes as those making $200,000 to $500,000 because of the lowered rates on investment income," reports tax expert David Cay Johnston in The New York Times. At the state and local level, low-income taxpayers pay a greater share of their income in taxes than wealthy taxpayers.

Taxpayers with incomes less than $50,000---the great majority---saved an average of $435 in 2003. It would take 2,300 years to match a million-dollar tax cut.

And tax payers lost much more than $435 to deepening budget cuts and rising fees for services that taxes once funded.

Why are millionaires getting big tax breaks:

*while Congress cuts tuition aid for students whose families can't afford to pay for college?

*while soldiers are killed and maimed in Iraq for lack of adequate armor?

*while vital levees are shortchanged from New Orleans to California?

*while 46 million Americans have no health insurance, as the Institute of Medicine documents, lack of health insurance causes thousands of needless deaths a year?

Taxpayers with incomes above $1 million will see their after-tax income grow by about 6 percent in 2006 because of tax cuts the nation can't afford.

And the worst is yet to come. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, current and proposed tax cuts for households with incomes above $1 million would cost more than the combined cuts planned over the next five years for education, veterans health benefits, medical research, environmental protection and programs such as housing, energy, child care and nutrition assistance for families living in poverty.

President Bush has given away so much revenue in tax breaks that he has already racked up more new debt than all the presidents before 1990 combined. We are in record-breaking debt to foreign countries. And without a change in course, Bush will nearly double the national debt during his presidency. Borrowing money from economic competitors to pay for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires is more stupid than borrowing money from Tony Soprano to gamble.

Tax expert Robert McIntyre says, in the last fiscal year, "One of every four dollars in federal spending outside of Social Security was paid for with borrowed money. That $501 billion shortfall occurred mostly because personal income-tax revenues as a share of the economy were 29 percent lower than they were in fiscal 2000, the year before Bush took office."

"Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would add $3.3 trillion (including interest) to deficits over the next decade," reports the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

"Each year the tax cuts would cost as much as the annual budgets of all these federal departments combined:


*Veterans Affairs

*Homeland Security



*Housing and Urban Development

*and the Environmental Protection Agency.

It's madness.

Tax cuts are boosting the super-rich and sales of "giga-yachts" longer than football fields, but they aren't boosting the economy. The current economic recovery has had weaker growth in:


*Wage and salary

*Gross domestic product

*Consumption and investment than typical post-World War II recovery.

Taxes are our dues for democracy. Taxes are how we pool our money for:

*Public health and safety


*Research and services-from the development of vaccines and the Internet to public schools and universities




*Parks and safe drinking water

Without fair and adequate taxes, we cannot repair the public infrastructure inherited from past generations or meet the challenge of global warming. We cannot invest in the research and education vital to future progress.

Tax froms should come with a warning: Tax cuts for the rich are hazardous to the nation's health, economy and security.

It's time to change course!

*Like I always say: "Do not judge the candidates up for re-election by what they tell you on the campaign trail this voting season. Judge them for what they have done in the past." In this case, a majority of the Republicans must go, along with some of the Democrats that have voted along with the Republicans.

Article By: Holly Sklar
San Gabriel Valley Tribune
May 8, 2006

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

In November 2005, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Axt.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the sh*t that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney Generl Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
*How can the Constitution be an outdated document? It is a living document that is being changed all of the time. That's what amendments are for! Our forefathers knew this. That is why they made it a living document. They had the common sense to realize that the United States would grow into something great and our laws would have to change right along with the growth of this country. It's this administration that can't see past tomorrow. That's why our country is on the verge of becoming a failed government!

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion of Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine---in the end---if something is legal or right.
*That's right, and until this untraditional administration came along, the United States was able to define itself as "we are who we were." But not anymore! Instead of our country changing, maybe "we" should change the ones who are running it and put somebody with a "traditional" mindset in their place. If we stay where we are now, Cheney will go on with his "perpetual war footing." Bush isn't running the country because he's not smart enough! And I guarantee you that this next bunch that he's appointing, is going to be far worse than the first bunch that everyone opposed. The ones that need to go are Cheney and Rove. That's just a start!

Every federal official---including the President---who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."
*Well I hope that he is cringing reading this post, because the Constitution "is" a "LIVING DOCUMENT!"

"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have---a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and a woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."
*It's power driven people like this guy that the American people need to ask to resign. And they are just so bold when they say things like this! Is this a threat?

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

Article By: Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
December 2005