Friday, November 10, 2006

Rep. John Dingell - 'No' To Fuel Efficient Cars


The new head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell, has voiced that increasing fuel efficiency in automobiles is not part of his agenda. From MSNBC:
Rep. John Dingell, who has been a U.S. lawmaker since 1955... gave a strong indication of what he did not plan to do: raise fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. automobiles.
“I’m not sure that there’s any urgent needs for us to address those questions,” Dingell told CNBC in an interview.
Is this part of the "New Direction for America"? It sounds an awful like the "Old Entrenched Paid For By Big Oil America" that we just threw out of Congress. Maybe Rep. Dingell didn't get the message. Please contact Rep. John Dingell to let him know your concerns regarding our current low fuel-efficiency standards and that we expect the new congress to enact tougher standards.




Molten Carbon

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Americans Voted Their Values - Senator Tester

From DailyKos:
It's about time the Senate has someone that looks like Montana.

Calling McCaskill, Tester, Webb

Molten Carbon is calling all three remaining senate races in favor of McCaskill, Tester, and Webb. The most likely fight will come from Allen's team and will include a very expensive all-star litigation team from RNC headquarters. That's our prediction anyway and we're sticking to it.




Calling McCaskill, Tester, Webb

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Sunday, November 05, 2006

1999 War Games Predicted Problems In Iraq

The Associated Press broke a story today about war games conducted in 1999 which were focused on overthrowing Saddam and the ensuing outcome. The following conclusions resulted, and were ignored for the subsequent real War in Iraq:

  • A change in regimes does not guarantee stability

  • A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability

  • Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments

  • Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq

  • The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad

  • The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development

  • Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government

  • A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners

This could be a copy from the pages of the Bush Administrations 'Lessons Learned' manual. Unfortunately for us, they aren't reading this manual and didn't bother to read the intelligence and assesments that had already been prepared. Why do we pay our intelligence agencies billions of dollars annually if the President isn't going to follow their advice?


Molten Carbon

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Republican Candidates 2006

--UT-Sen: Senator Hatch

--AZ-Sen: Jon Kyl

--AZ-01: Rick Renzi

--AZ-05: J.D. Hayworth

--CA-04: John Doolittle

--CA-11: Richard Pombo

--CA-50: Brian Bilbray

--CO-04: Marilyn Musgrave

--CO-05: Doug Lamborn

--CO-07: Rick O'Donnell

--CT-04: Christopher Shays

--FL-13: Vernon Buchanan

--FL-16: Joe Negron

--FL-22: Clay Shaw

--ID-01: Bill Sali

--IL-06: Peter Roskam

--IL-10: Mark Kirk

--IL-14: Dennis Hastert

--IN-02: Chris Chocola

--IN-08: John Hostettler

--IA-01: Mike Whalen

--KS-02: Jim Ryun

--KY-03: Anne Northup

--KY-04: Geoff Davis

--MD-Sen: Michael Steele

--MN-01: Gil Gutknecht

--MN-06: Michele Bachmann

--MO-Sen: Jim Talent

--MT-Sen: Conrad Burns

--NV-03: Jon Porter

--NH-02: Charlie Bass

--NJ-07: Mike Ferguson

--NM-01: Heather Wilson

--NY-03: Peter King

--NY-20: John Sweeney

--NY-26: Tom Reynolds

--NY-29: Randy Kuhl

--NC-08: Robin Hayes

--NC-11: Charles Taylor

--OH-01: Steve Chabot

--OH-02: Jean Schmidt

--OH-15: Deborah Pryce

--OH-18: Joy Padgett

--PA-04: Melissa Hart

--PA-07: Curt Weldon

--PA-08: Mike Fitzpatrick

--PA-10: Don Sherwood

--RI-Sen: Lincoln Chafee

--TN-Sen: Bob Corker

--VA-Sen: George Allen

--VA-10: Frank Wolf

--WA-Sen: Mike McGavick

--WA-08: Dave Reichert

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Darn Geneva Convention is Too Confusing

President Bush thinks Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention is too vague and needs to be clarified in order to prosecute the terrorists being held at Guantanamo. Well, here it is for your perusal, and I'm sorry if it confuses you. I'll try to help out:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

The reason Bush wants this changed?


Its also alot easier to convict people of terrorism if you don't have to actually produce evidence or if you accept hearsay, or better yet, if the suspect doesn't have access to the information his case is based upon:
NY Times: (T)rials at Guantánamo Bay in military tribunals...would allow evidence obtained by coercive interrogation and hearsay and deny suspects and their lawyers the right to see classified evidence used against them.
Now I see why President Bush thinks the Geneva Conventions need clarification: They bring humanity to the brutality of war.

Molten Carbon

Friday, September 15, 2006

America Comes First

This country is fractured and bleeding. We need to stop electing parties and start electing true American's, those who know that without our liberties we have nothing to fight for. That's the only thing that makes us America! Not our homes, our cars, our mountains or our cities, but our Bill of Rights, our Constitution, our families and our civic participation.

This isn't about party affiliation anymore, though they want you to believe it is. It isn't about the 'War on Terror' though that's how they scare us into giving away the liberties we are supposedly fighting for.

When the President acts contrary to established law, he is breaking the law no matter how much justification there seems to be. When Congress writes a law saying that his actions are now legal, it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

When our President wants to gut the Geneva Conventions in the name of 'clarification', you know he cares little for the welfare of our soldiers who fight relentlessly to protect our country.

When the President can casually count off 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed to achieve his objectives in the 'War on Terror' and then stare us down and claim

It’s unacceptable to think there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
You can stare him right back in the eyes and say there is no difference. Does it matter the reason or moral authority on which those innocent women and children are killed? Does one reason make it right and the other reason make it wrong when the outcome is the same?

When the President and Congress sit idly by as the rest of the world struggles to find solutions to Global Warming, you know their pockets are lined by Big Business and their souls have been bought. The ice caps are melting faster than ever before, the summers are hotter than they have ever been and our elected officials hem and haw to protect the economy, an economy that won't be able to withstand the onslaught of more hurricanes like Katrina, inundated coast lines and new and ever virulent diseases.

What are we going to do? Are we going to be complacent and lazy? Are we waiting for the call to action? Have we become so confused and tired of the political rhetoric that we don't know which way to move or even how to proceed if we did know the way? Its time for new leadership. Its time to put our families and our country first.

We need leadership, we need a road map, we need moral direction. Most of all, we need to act as a united front. We shop at the same stores, we put our kids through the same schools, we drive on the same roads and watch the same TV shows. Its time to play to our strengths and ignore our differences. Our country depends on us depending on each other.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Domestic Espionage=Check Please

The only Congressional bill addressing the domestic espionage issue to receive much traction is one proposed by Senator Specter (R) which gives the President the option of having the program reviewed by the FISA court for its constitutionality. Senator Specter believes his bill will balance the need for judicial review of the program while honoring the Bush administration's need for secrecy. This reasoning is flawed for a number of reasons:

The FISA court has no precedent to form an arguable case for or against the legality of this program; They approve or deny wiretapping requests, they don't argue constitutional law. You may ask, what about the Supreme Court? This law and it's effects will be exempt from oversight by the Supreme Court as the FISA court will be the sole judiciary body responsible for oversight of
..any case before any court challenging the legality of classified communications intelligence activity relating to a foreign threat ... or in which the legality of any such activity or program is in issue.

Why the hoopla?
Not only is President Bush breaking established law by wiretapping American citizens, he is doing so under a flawed and unconstitutional premise of power. The NSA program in question violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and more importantly the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The President claims however that he has inherent and Congressionally mandated authority to bypass the FISA court (break the law) as a result of the theory of the 'Unitary Executive', a divergent view of the Executive Branch which vests all powers not delegated by Congress or the Constitution to the President, in direct violation of the 'All Powers' clause of the Constitution, which delegates these powers to the people, NOT the President.

By allowing the President to maintain a shroud of secrecy over this program, Senator Specter is giving in to the President's claim that the constitutional authority inherent in the Office of the President is enough to ignore, circumvent and deride Congressionally enacted law and our system of checks and balances.

Should this bill pass, Senator Specter and the rest of Congress will have given the President the authority to spy on the international phone calls and emails of American citizens without a warrant. This is a dangerous precedent that will come back to haunt us when President Bush next pushes for warrantless eavesdropping on domestic communications. The argument now is that if al-Qaeda is calling into the U.S., Bush wants to know who they are calling. The argument soon will be that if al-Qaeda is calling from within the U.S., Bush wants to know about it. We will see an increased focus on domestic terror cells in the coming months, with a push to erase all checks on the President's authority related to eavesdropping.

A quote from Senator Specter's bill:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.
Without a definition of 'foreign powers and agents of foreign powers' Senator Specter is creating an obvious loophole for future and increased domestic espionage by the Bush administration.

With a complicit Congress, President Bush is poised to realize the greatest coup of all time: the creation of a fascist America.
President Bush, 12/18/2000: If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.



Domestic Espionage=Check Please

Technorati Profile

Thursday, September 07, 2006

CIA Secret Prison Announcement: Dirty Politics

President Bush announced that the US has been keeping suspected terrorists at CIA run black sites in foreign countries. He said that some of the main players responsible for 9/11 will be moved to Guantanamo, as the CIA has extracted as much information from them as they are going to get. I've heard and read different reactions, ranging from finally President Bush is being honest to President Bush is being strong on terrorism.

The real reason for the sudden announcement? Dirty politics. By moving the people directly responsible for 9/11 to Guantanamo, President Bush is challenging Congress to now defy his requests for legislation authorizing him to prosecute using military tribunals. The Supreme Court already shot him down, and now he needs Congress to make it legal.

The scenario should play out this way: the Republican Bloc will create rubber-stamp legislation giving the President too much authority. The Dems won't go along with it and the Republicans will start in with their 'Democrats are soft on terror' tirade just in time for the November elections. He isn't being either honest or strong on terror, he is once again politicizing 9/11 and putting America last.

CIA Secret Prison Announcement: Dirty Politics

Monday, August 21, 2006

Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

Here's a short and incomplete comparison of various statements by President Bush and statements made by President Nixon during his November 3, 1969 televised speech. At least we know where he gets his talking points, and they aren't from Rove. I've highlighted some of the more egregious examples of plagiarism:


Nixon:

We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat ground forces, and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable. This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness. As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.


Bush:

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)


Nixon:

The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength. As a result they have been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.


Bush:

As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory.



Nixon:

We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at the time rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.


Bush: via Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman:

There should not be hard and fast timetables associated with our force adjustments..the commanders on the ground need the flexibility to be able to adjust the troop levels based on the conditions that exist.





Nixon:

I have not and do not intend to announce the timetable for our program. And there are obvious reasons for this decision which I am sure you will understand...an announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement. They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.


Bush:

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops, who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy, who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.





Nixon:

I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen. Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.

In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: "Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home."

Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.


Bush:

There are a lot of people in the Democratic Party who believe that the best course of action is to leave Iraq before the job is done. Period. And they're wrong.


I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me...this has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.



Bush's Talking Points are Nixonian

$230 Million = Chump Change

President Bush is playing big politics with the announcement that he will make available $230 million for the reconstruction efforts in Lebanon. One estimate puts the reconstruction costs at $3.6 billion and lost tourism revenue at $1.5 billion, with the Jiyahh power station oil spill clean up efforts alone to top $64 million.

What about other countries? How are they helping out? Kuwait has pledged almost 3.5 times as much as the US to the tune of $800 million. Saudi Arabia? 2 times with $500 million guaranteed. The interesting thing is that Lebanon was founded as an enclave for Christians who still make up 40 percent of the population, but these Arab countries don't seem to have any problem with that. From the Kuwaiti Times:
"We Kuwaitis support all the Lebanese people from Muslims to Christians and donating is the least we can do," said Abdullah, a Kuwaiti who owns a summer home in Lebanon.
We spend $250 million a DAY in Iraq, not to mention the $110 BILLION alloted to the Katrina cleanup efforts/scandal. Is $230 million really going to do anything? Its a strange and duplicitous person who gives political cover to one government as they destroy another country and then offers a consolance package worth a couple hundred million for the trouble.

$230 Million = Chump Change

Friday, August 11, 2006

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

I received an update on the liquid explosives debacle from a commenter on a diary post over at Kos' place. Here's how it starts, from the Associated Press:

Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved
WASHINGTON - While the British terror suspects were hatching their plot, the Bush administration was quietly seeking permission to divert $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new homeland explosives detection technology.

Congressional leaders rejected the idea, the latest in a series of steps by the
Homeland Security Department that has left lawmakers and some of the department's own experts questioning the commitment to create better anti-terror technologies.

Homeland Security's research arm, called the Sciences & Technology Directorate, is a "rudderless ship without a clear way to get back on course," Republican and Democratic senators on the Appropriations Committee declared recently.


Bush staff wanted bomb-detect cash moved

Who'd a Thunk?

How can it be that after spending billions of dollars on the 'War on Terror' that this week, 5 years after 9/11, we collectively as a nation found out that the Department of Homeland Security hasn't equipped a single airport with the technology to detect liquid explosives? It must have been a small threat, less likely than someone taking over a plane with nail clippers because while I've had my clippers confiscated, they've looked the other way when it came to my sun tan lotion or that big bottle of green Gatorade tucked into the outside pocket of my backpack. Do we really trust that it just wasn't on their radar? The first return from a Google search of the phrase 'liquid explosives' is a site with a recipe for:
Astrolite A-1-5, said to be the world's MOST POWERFUL NON-NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVE, and Astrolite-G, claimed to be the world's highest detonation-velocity liquid explosive
There are plenty of reports coming to the defense of DHS claiming that they knew about this risk and have been planning for it, but if so, why didn't they start confiscating liquids and gels prior to this week? Are we waiting on technology to protect us from a threat that now the DHS believes can be eliminated by asking people to voluntarily hand over the banned items? The only way to deal with this right is by using the Israeli method: hand search everything.

If the Bush administration is serious about defeating terrorists, then they'd better start getting serious about how they manage the problem. Throwing more money at Iraq to referee a centuries old grudge-match between Sunni and Shia isn't going to stop the real al-Qaeda threat, but then again it appears that neither will the current DHS strategies, or lack thereof.

Molten Carbon DailyKos Diary Entry

This clip, though funny, is actually about right>>

Taliban Democrats

In a commentary published by the Washington Times, Cal Thomas went on a name calling spree and actually coined a brand new, evil, divisive and childish phrase: "Taliban Democrats".

The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.

They used to be "San Francisco Democrats," a phrase coined by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. But they have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.

Mr. Lieberman's one "sin," in the eyes of the Taliban Democrats, was that he supported the effort to defeat the insurgent-terrorists in Iraq. As a Jew, Mr. Lieberman is particularly sensitive to those who have targeted the Jewish people for extinction. But even if he weren't Jewish, he would still "get it," because he understands what's at stake in the region and has correctly concluded that the consequences of American failure in Iraq would be catastrophic. [...]

Taliban Democrats have effectively issued a political "fatwa" that warns all Democrats not to deviate from their narrow line, or else face the end of their careers through a political jihad. Perhaps the few remaining rational Democrats should put on their burkas now and submit to the will of the party mullahs.


The Republican Bloc is facetiously overwhelmed that the Democratic voters in Connecticut decided to oust Joe Lieberman for a simple and selfish reason: They are losing their war footing, and along with that they will actually have to hold themselves accountable for the billions of dollars wasted and fraudulently spent on a war that has only brought about more chaos, justify why tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens were killed for an American war, and tell our children how we let thousands of American soldiers die to build a nation that quite possibly the people living there didn't even want, and not least of all explain why they allowed the President to selectively ignore and violate the The Constitution and the rule of law.

Even with a party-majority Congress is only slightly more effective at legislating than AG Alberto Gonzalez, but with a smaller ideological majority they will be on even shakier ground, by which I mean legal ground. Mr. Thomas' cowardly, divisive and evil statements may only reflect his point of view, but he isn't the first or last to demonize the Democratic party for doing what they do best: understand and follow the will of the American public, which, last time I checked, is what our representatives are supposed to do.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lieberman vs Lamont - Real Time Results

To view real-time results for the Lieberman-Lamont primary challenge, go here or for a graph go here

Monday, August 07, 2006

You Can Lead a Sunni to a Shiite, But You Can't Make Him Blink

Since the early 1900's, and arguably as early as the 1600's, Western powers have conquered, shaped and divided the Middle East in the search for oil and influence, with a casual disregard for autonomous governence.

The failed British occupation of Mesopotamia in the 1900's was undertaken to gain control of the known oil fields, especially Mosul, and was ratified by the League of Nations under the pretext that the British would stand down as the new Iraqi's stood up, to use modern rhetoric.

Britain controlled and framed the new nation of Iraq according to the needs of the British Empire with little regard for the disparate tribes and religious groups that occupied the arid land. In 1920 the Iraqi's decided it was time to stand up against the British occupation in what is now called The Great Iraqi Revolution.

For a great read regarding the Revolution and a chilling feeling of "this sounds so familiar" go here and go here

Friday, August 04, 2006

The Weekend Break

If President Bush is going on vacation we are too! Not really, but we are starting a new tradition at Molten Carbon. Every weekend we are going to post something NOT related to politics in an effort to reduce 'activist fatique'. Feel free to comment or add your own material, but remember, come Monday, we are all about politics. Have a great weekend!

The Constitution in Crisis - Rep. John Conyers

Rep. John Conyers has released a 'must read' 350 page report 'The Constitution in Crisis'. His report is a compilation and examination of the Bush administration's willful disregard for the rule of law and our Constitution. Here is an excerpt of Representative Conyers blog-release from The Huffington Post:

Today, I am releasing the final version of my report, the "Constitution in Crisis." The report, which is some 350 pages in length and is supported by more than 1,400 footnotes, compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush Administration has thumbed its nose at our nation's laws, and the Constitution itself. Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this Administration's misconduct.

Please Do Not Disturb

The Middle East is coming closer every day to an all out regional catastrophe with Iraq on the brink of civil war, the Israeli-Hezbollah and Israel-Palestine wars threaten to draw in Syria and further involve Iran while a humanitarian crisis is reaching critical mass.

General John Abizaid had this to say to the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 3, 2006:
"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it...If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."(The Seattle Times)
Tony Blair, just about to go on vacation, decided that things were too grave to take time off:
"British Prime Minister Tony Blair will delay the start of his holiday to work on a U.N. deal for a cease-fire in Lebanon, his office says...Basically he's delayed to try and do further work to try and get this U.N. deal together. And he thinks the next few days will be critical, a spokesman said, adding he expected Blair to delay his departure by several days".(CNN)
While we know President Bush is deeply concerned with the situation, he still decided to go on vacation and even stopped by a Texas Border Patrol station before heading off to his ranch for a week and a half:
"He got an up close look at several tools the Border Patrol uses to catch people sneaking across — helicopters, a boat and a small plane — and he stopped to pet some horses that are used on old-fashioned patrols." (MSNBC)

Molten Carbon

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Straight Talk from the Troops

We wanted to share a link to a story from the Washington Post that knocked us out of our seats.

Here's a sample:

"But some soldiers in the 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division -- interviewed over four days on base and on patrols -- say they have grown increasingly disillusioned about their ability to quell the violence and their reason for fighting."

"It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we're driving around waiting to get blown up, that's the most honest answer I could give you," said Spec. Tim Ivey, 28, of San Antonio, a muscular former backup fullback for Baylor University. "You lose a couple friends and it gets hard".

...he wished "somebody would explain to us, 'Hey, this is what we're working for.' " With a stream of expletives, he said he could not care less "if Iraq's free" or "if they're a democracy."

"The first time somebody you know dies, the first thing you ask yourself is, 'Well, what did he die for?'"

"They say we're here and we've given them freedom, but really what is that? You know, what is freedom? You've got kids here who can't go to school. You've got people here who don't have jobs anymore. You've got people here who don't have power," he said. "You know, so yeah, they've got freedom now, but when they didn't have freedom, everybody had a job."
Full article: Frustration Grows in Iraq

Molten Carbon

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

New Plan for Baghdad = Same Old Rhetoric

On 7/26/06, President Bush laid out a brand new plan for stabilizing the deteriorating situation in Baghdad:
"Under the prime minister's leadership, coalition and Iraqi leaders are modifying their operational concept to bring greater security to the Iraqi capital. Coalition and Iraqi forces will secure individual neighborhoods, will ensure the existence of an Iraqi security presence in the neighborhoods, and gradually expand the security presence as Iraqi citizens help them root out those who instigate violence. This plan will involve embedding more U.S. military police with Iraqi police units to make them more effective."

Wait, wasn't this the old plan? Here's an excerpt from the 2005 'National Strategy for Victory in Iraq':
"Efforts on the security track include offensive operations against the enemy, protection of key communication and infrastructure nodes, post-conflict stabilization operations, and the training, equipping, and mentoring of Iraqi Security Forces. Coalition transition teams are embedded in all Iraqi Army battalions to provide assistance and guidance when needed."

The definition of insanity: Repeatedly performing the same action while continuing to expect different results.

Domestic Espionage: Check Please

The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and more importantly the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The FISA Act is a law that requires any wiretapping of American citizens to be authorized by the FISA Court. The President claims however that he has inherent and Congressionally mandated authority to bypass the FISA court as a result of the theory of the 'Unitary Executive', a divergent view of the Executive Branch which vests all powers not delegated by Congress or the Constitution to the President, in direct violation of the 'All Powers' clause of the Constitution, which delegates these powers to the people, NOT the President. Not only is President Bush breaking established law by wiretapping American citizens, he is doing so under a flawed and unconstitutional premise of power.

The only Congressional bill addressing this issue to receive much traction is one proposed by Senator Specter (R) which gives the President the option of having the program reviewed by the FISA court for its constitutionality. Senator Specter believes his bill will balance the need for judicial review of the program while honoring the Bush administration's need for secrecy. This reasoning is flawed for two reason:

It's wishful and contrived thinking that the Bush administration will agree to submit this program for review; they barely follow established law as is, let alone laws that don't actually require them to do anything.

The FISA court has no precedent to form an arguable case for or against the legality of this program; They approve or deny wiretapping requests, they don't argue constitutional law. By allowing the President to maintain a shroud of secrecy over this program, Senator Specter is giving in to the President's claim that the constitutional authority inherent in the Office of the President is enough to ignore, circumvent and deride Congressionally enacted law and our system of checks and balances.

(updated 8/4/06)

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush

**Please call Senator Specter's office and let him know that you support this legislation:
(202-224-4254)
online: Senator Specter

Please read my review of President Bush's use of signing statements to bypass congressionally enacted laws, 'Over, Above & Beyond: Bush Disregards Law'. My argument was that President Bush was ignoring Article 1, sect; 7 of the Constitution which requires the President to either accept or veto a congressional bill.
The American Bar Association released a bipartisan report on July 24, 2006 finding that President Bush's use of signing statements "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers". Read the full ABA report(PDF)
Today, Senator Arlen Specter (R) announced that he is seeking legislation to allow Congress to sue President Bush over the signing statements:
"We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president's acts declared unconstitutional".
Go here for the full article:Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush

Molten Carbon

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Talking About Iraq

For a very interesting read and perspective on Iraq, see Talking About Iraq. Written from Iraq by a person who gives the name 'Nadia', her insight into the daily life, aspirations and frustrations of the average Iraqi is startling.

She laments that the US is fighting its war on terror in her country, killing her neighbors and fellow citizens.
"Since US politicians and their supporters want their war, I demand of them to take their war out of Iraq, show some courage and invite your enemies to your country instead, fight your war inside your own borders.

They have no right to scarify [sic] Iraqis this way. Iraqis mission [sic] in life is NOT to die for the American people. The war on terror is a war that should be fought on the US mainland.

This is a vicious crime against the Iraqi people and one of the many proofs that in the eyes of US politicians and their supporters Iraqis lives are worth nothing to them. Its an even bigger proof of how spineless these U.S politicians and their supporters really are."

Molten Carbon

Letter to President Bush

We are pleased to repost a letter in its entirety written by a number of Congress-persons to President Bush condeming the illegality of the NSA domestic espionage. The response from the White House was that they should really worry about what matters: who leaked the program to the press.

Dear Mr. President:

We urge you to immediately direct Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to exercise his authority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510 and 515 to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate recent reports that the National Security Agency may have conducted warrantless surveillance on U.S. persons in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We know that the security of the American people depend on our law enforcement and intelligence agencies’ interception of communications between terrorist agents. We believe that this surveillance can and must be performed according to the rule of law.

The public, along with most Members of Congress, first learned of this wiretapping program when it was reported by the New York Times.[i] With no oversight activities being conducted by the House related to the program, and no clear information coming from your Administration, we have continued to rely primarily on press reports for information. As described in those reports, the program appears to violate the rights of U.S. persons both under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Section 1802(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a), permits electronic surveillance of communications without a court order only if the Attorney General certifies that (1) these communications are exclusively between or among foreign powers; and (2) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[ii] Consistent with the Constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, FISA also requires a showing of probable cause in order to conduct wiretapping of U.S. persons.[iii] According to the report in the New York Times, the NSA appears to have violated these prohibitions by conducting surveillance on at least 500 and possibly thousands of individuals located in the United States, “including American citizens [and] permanent legal residents”[iv] who are United States persons within the meaning of FISA.[v]

We have carefully reviewed the Attorney General’s recent memorandum describing the legal basis for conducting this domestic surveillance program.[vi] The power the Attorney General asserts of inherent Presidential authority to conduct surveillance on U.S. persons in a time of war appears to be constrained neither by Congressional authority to regulate intelligence collection nor by Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable warrantless searches. This is not an assertion we find sound. We also take strong exception to the view that our Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), P.L. 107-40, inherently or implicitly authorized surveillance of U.S. persons as part of the war effort.

In addition to serious questions about the legal bases you have offered, we continue to have significant factual questions about this program. You stated that this program captures only international calls,[vii] but press reports indicate that the domestic surveillance program also captured purely domestic calls within the United States.[viii] You told the public that this program only captured calls “in which intelligence professionals have reason to believe that at least one person is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a related terrorist organization.”[ix] And yet the Attorney General stated that “This remains a highly classified program. It remains an important tool in protecting America. So my remarks today speak only to those activities confirmed publicly by the President, and not to other purported activities described in press reports.”[x] Mr. Gonzales’ remarks imply that domestic surveillance activities beyond those described in your public statements are taking place. Although Mr. Gonzales characterized press reports describing domestic surveillance beyond what you have confirmed as “misinformed, confusing, or wrong,” he did not state that the activities described in those press reports were not occurring at all, potentially including surveillance of purely domestic communications and communications not involving suspected members of al Qaeda.[xi] These inconsistent statements leave serious questions about this program that have yet to be answered.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gonzales’ recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee did little to answer our questions or dispel our concerns. Rather, the Attorney General’s opaque testimony simply left us with even more questions about this program. Mr. Gonzales repeatedly refused to discuss what he called the “operational details” of this program, refusing to inform the Committee of such “operational details” as whether the Department discloses to the FISA court its use of information garnered from this program in obtaining warrants from the court – in other words, whether the Department was pursuing prosecutions based on evidence gathered in possible violation of FISA and the 4th Amendment. Press reports indicate that, in fact, evidence gathered under this program may have been used improperly to obtain warrants from the FISA court.[xii] Mr. Gonzales refused to provide “operational details” such as whether the Administration has conducted warrantless physical searches of Americans in reliance on the authority it claims under the AUMF. Mr. Gonzales gave no explanation for the president’s decision to limit this program (assuming it is in fact so limited) to international calls, vaguely citing the “circumstances” in which the Administration found itself as the basis for this decision. He also failed to confirm that he was “fully, totally informed” about the program, and could not provide assurances that Americans unconnected to Al Qaeda were not being spied upon. He failed to provide assurances that purely domestic calls were never captured by this program. He refused to commit to the program’s review by the FISA court. He declined to answer when asked what other activities you have authorized relying upon the power as Commander-in-Chief used to authorize this surveillance program. The Attorney General offered contradictory testimony on whether surveillance conducted under this program would meet the 4th Amendment’s probable cause standard. The Attorney General’s testimony raised serious questions that previous Congressional testimony by Department officials about the Administration’s surveillance programs was misleading. Far from providing additional information to Congress, the Attorney General’s testimony simply created more serious questions about the legality and constitutionality of the activities you authorized.

At every juncture, our efforts to seek investigations to answer questions such as these have been stymied, generally based on the feeblest of excuses. More than a month ago, several members of Congress wrote to the Inspector Generals of the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice asking them to begin investigating these reports.[xiii] The Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Mr. Glenn Fine, responded that he lacked jurisdiction to begin an investigation because the matter involved the Attorney General’s provision of “legal advice.”[xiv] The same members wrote back to Mr. Fine, explaining that the official actions for which they sought investigation appeared to go far beyond the mere provision of legal advice, and that he lacked any basis to conclude otherwise in the absence of an investigation. Yet, despite that response, Mr. Fine has steadfastly refused to investigate. The office within the Department of Justice to which he referred our request for investigation failed to respond to our request. Although recent press reports indicate that this office has begun a review, the Department has also made clear that this review will not examine the lawfulness of any Justice Department officials’ actions under this program.[xv]

The Department of Defense’s Acting Inspector General, Mr. Thomas F. Gimble, has refused requests by members of Congress that he investigate this program. Mr. Gimble referred those requests to the Inspector General of the NSA, who he claimed was already actively reviewing this program.[xvi] Yet, in subsequent news reports, it was revealed that the NSA review to which Mr. Gimble so swiftly deferred was not a new review but a long-standing audit, which would not review the legality of NSA’s activities.[xvii] Furthermore, you yourself have indicated that the Inspector General of the NSA has long known of this program without apparently questioning its legality.[xviii] We fail to see how the Inspector General of NSA can review potential deficiencies in his own advice. Despite these deficiencies, Mr. Gimble has steadfastly refused to begin any investigation of his own. Moreover, we have received no response from the Inspector General of NSA, to whom Mr. Gimble referred our request for investigation.

The Government Accountability Office has also informed us that it will decline our request for investigation. In explaining its decision, GAO in part has cited its expectation that your Administration will designate the agency records it seeks as foreign intelligence or counterintelligence materials, limiting GAO’s statutory access to these records through the courts.[xix]

Unfortunately, a pattern of resistance to investigation is emerging from the Executive branch agencies implicated by these allegations. Both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice may have vested interests in blocking investigation of their activities supporting NSA’s alleged unauthorized surveillance. If the effort to prevent vigorous and appropriate investigation succeeds, we fear the inexorable conclusion will be that these Executive Branch agencies hold themselves above the law and accountable to no one. Clearly, these are extraordinary circumstances calling for an extraordinary remedy. Mr. President, the only sufficient remedy is for Attorney General Gonzales to appoint a Special Counsel empowered to investigate these allegations thoroughly and without impediment.

We request that you direct Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate these allegations. The Special Counsel should be empowered to exercise his or her authority independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department of Justice. In addition to any powers available under 28 C.F.R. Part 600 of the Department’s rules, the Special Counsel should be delegated all the plenary authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into these allegations, including the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue. There is ample precedent for such an appointment in the Department’s appointment of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate the alleged unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a CIA employee.[xx] Indeed, the allegation of a secret NSA spying program conducting warrantless domestic surveillance of U.S. persons is at least as serious as the matter for which the Attorney General appointed Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

The circumstances surrounding these allegations necessitate the appointment of a Special Counsel under the Justice Department’s own rules. Those rules require the appointment of an outside special counsel when (1) criminal investigation of a matter is warranted; (2) the investigation of that matter presents a conflict of interest for the Department; and (3) the appointment of a Special Counsel is in the public interest.[xxi] Under the FISA statute, surveillance of U.S. persons without a warrant would be a crime punishable by imprisonment. Given Attorney General Gonzales’ potential authorization of surveillance under this program and his highly public defense of it, Justice Department officials under his supervisory control clearly would have a conflict of interest in investigating this program. Furthermore, it is unquestionably in the public interest for a Special Counsel to investigate this program and finally shed some light on it for Congress and for the public.

Mr. President, we strongly support the safeguarding of our homeland from terrorist threats. We know that the safety and security of the American people depend on the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to determine with whom terrorists are talking and what they are planning together. We believe it is essential that our surveillance of terrorists and their accomplices is performed within the bounds of the rule of law. If U.S. persons are indeed conspiring with suspected agents of a foreign terrorist organization such as al Qaeda, we want our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to have the ability to eavesdrop on their communications – as warrants obtained under the “probable cause” standard in FISA would allow. If existing laws including FISA are insufficient to conduct vital counter-terror intelligence activities, then we should have the opportunity to amend those laws within recognized processes under the rule of law. Mr. President, as you yourself have said, the heart of al Qaeda’s terrorist campaign is the vision of a “totalitarian empire,” opposed to our own nation’s foundations in democracy and the rule of law. We must not now abandon democracy and the rule of law in the name of safeguarding them. We urgently ask that you agree to our request for a Special Counsel, so that these serious allegations can be finally investigated. Our constitutional system of government demands no less.

Sincerely,



Zoe Lofgren (D-CA
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
George Miller (D-CA)
David Price (D-NC)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Bennie Thompson (D-MS)



Molten Carbon

Protest Bush = Arrested

The Bush administration has been facilitating the arrest of protestors at public and private venues. Not wanting someone to voice dissent is one thing, but violating freedom of assemby and freedom of speech is another. How much is too much for these guys?

Remember, we don't hate Republicans, we don't hate Democrats. We're standing up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Right now it seems the Bush administration (BA) is doing a particularly good job of not standing up for the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Here's the Associated Press Article:
Arrested Bush dissenters seek help from courts

Molten Carbon

Friday, July 21, 2006

Operation Northwoods (Part 2)

I know this has gone around the net a couple of times, but I think it's relevant to America today, and we shouldn't forget what almost happened back in the '60's: the Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted a plan to wage a war of terror inside the US to pursuade America that Cuba was an imminent threat. Our goverment was planning to attack American targets inside and outside the country. Scary and real. Did the plan finally get off the ground on 9/11? Watch 'Loose Change' to learn more about what might have happened on that fateful day.

Here's an excerpt from Operation Northwoods:

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.

Molten Carbon

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Victory for Civil Liberties (for now)

The Judge in the NSA spying trial Hepting v. AT&T Inc., 06-0672 dismissed the Bush administration claim that to proceed with the case would be a detriment to national security.

The Judge determined that since so much about the NSA spying is in the public domain, the state secret claim doesn't hold water.

It will be interesting to see how the Bush camp spins this. Watch for a legislative spectacle or some other bid to end the trial.

Follow the link to read the AP article on MSNBC:
Judge rules against Bush in spying lawsuit

Congressman Barney Frank

Congressman Barney Frank delivered an insightful and much needed speech on July 13, 2006 regarding the power grab under way by the Bush administration and a constitutionally negligent Congress.

"I believe we have seen an overreaching by the President. I believe we have seen a seizing of power that should not have been seized by the executive branch. But executive overreaching could not have succeeded as much as it has without congressional dereliction of duty. I hope that some of the signs I am now seeing of resistance finally in Congress to that will take seed. But I do not see that yet".


Go here for the complete article

Lou Dobbs Commentary

CNN correspondant Lou Dobbs wrote an engaging commentary on the crisis in the Middle East and duplicity of American middle-east foreign policy.
Go Here

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

General Election November 7, 2006

Last day to register to vote: October 10

2006 Congressional Primary Election Dates

State by State 2006 Congressional Primary Election Dates

State Congressional Primary Date
Alabama June 6, 2006
Alaska August 22, 2006
American Samoa November 7, 2006
Arizona September 12, 2006
Arkansas May 23, 2006
California June 6, 2006
Colorado August 8, 2006
Connecticut August 8, 2006
Delaware September 12, 2006
District of Columbia September 9, 2006
Florida September 5, 2006
Georgia July 18, 2006
Guam September 2, 2006
Hawaii September 23, 2006
Idaho May 23, 2006
Illinois March 21, 2006
Indiana May 2, 2006
Iowa June 6, 2006
Kansas August 1, 2006
Kentucky May 16, 2006
Louisiana* September 30, 2006
Maine June 13, 2006
Maryland September 12, 2006
Massachusetts September 19, 2006
Michigan August 8, 2006
Minnesota September 12, 2006
Mississippi June 6, 2006
Missouri August 8, 2006
Montana June 6, 2006
Nebraska May 9, 2006
Nevada August 15, 2006
New Hampshire September 12, 2006
New Jersey June 6, 2006
New Mexico June 6, 2006
New York September 12, 2006
North Carolina May 2, 2006
North Dakota June 13, 2006
Ohio May 2, 2006
Oklahoma July 25, 2006
Oregon May 16, 2006
Pennsylvania May 16, 2006
Puerto Rico n/a
Rhode Island September 12, 2006
South Carolina June 13, 2006
South Dakota June 6, 2006
Tennessee August 3, 2006
Texas March 7, 2006
Utah June 27, 2006
Vermont September 12, 2006
Virgin Islands September 9, 2006
Virginia June 13, 2006
Washington September 19, 2006
West Virginia May 9, 2006
Wisconsin September 12, 2006
Wyoming August 22, 2006

From League of Women Voters

Saturday Night Massacre (Part 2)

AG Gonzalez let slip during Congressional testimony that President Bush personally blocked an investigation into the NSA domestic spying scandal. President Bush gave the order that the investigating DOJ attorneys be denied the required security clearance, effectively ending the investigation. Note the previous post 'Over, Above & Beyond' where I explain that we are closer and closer to an Elective Dictatorship with a Republican controlled Congress rubber-stamping every move, switch and bait.

How many major newspapers reported this on the front page? At last count: 0.

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Freedom to Question

Support freedom of speech, buy advance tickets to the following movies:

The War Tapes


The US Vs. John Lennon


Road to Guantanamo


Who Killed the Electric Car


Freedom to Fascism

Parallel Wars

The parallels between this administration and the Nixon administration are incredible. This post will examine them in further detail. For now here's a quote that might sound familiar:

George W. Bush -
"As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down"

Richard Nixon -
"As South Vietnamese forces become stronger,
the rate of American withdrawal can become greater"

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Giving Up the Ghost

According to an AP article, al-Zarqawi's wife gave an interview to the Italian paper La Repubblica where "she said al-Qaida leaders sold out al-Zarqawi to the U.S. in exchange for a promise to let up in the search for bin Laden". Seems pretty far-fetched, right? Maybe not.

Here is the Reuters headline for an article that came out on July 4th: "CIA disbands unit set up to hunt for bin Laden". Its notable that al-Qaida may have given up Zarqawi to the US for a slow down in the hunt for bin Laden, and even more so that the US would give up bin Laden for Zarqawi.

Obviously bin Laden is more important to al-Qaida than Zarqawi, so why should Zarqawi turn out to be more valuable to the Bush administration? The reason is two-fold.

1. Zarqawi was supposedly making life in Iraq very difficult for Iraqis and the coalition forces, though with his death not much has changed. To the average American the situation in Iraq is spinning out of control and with the White House blaming Zarqawi for much of the chaos, it could only improve polls and standings if he was eliminated.

2. If the US really does get rid of bin Laden, the 'War on Terror' would in most American's eyes be over or over enough to call it a day and bring the troops home. This would create a domestic and foreign policy vacuum for the Bush administration and the Republican bloc ramping up for the November elections.

Its arguable how much traction the Bush administration received in the polls for finally delivering some 'good news' from the frontlines - Zarqawi's death - but it was supposedly important enough that it may come at the cost of not getting the criminal responsible for 9/11, and who knows how much that may cost us in the years to come. Trading long term security for short term gains is a failed, dangerous and immoral policy every time.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Over, Above & Beyond: Bush Disregards Law

According to an AP story seen on MSNBC.com President Bush has been very liberal with his use of 'signing statements' to ignore, change or limit sections of signed law as he sees fit. President Bush is blatantly and dangerously disregarding 'the rule of law' to further his very partisan and unconstitutional agenda. Congress is distracted by every bone the Bush administration throws their way. Flag burning? Not important. Has anyone been down to the gulf coast lately? Very important. An aside, but our Government hasn't done the job, so they're bringing in Chinese firms.

President Bush knows he can get away with breaking the law because he enforces the law. That's why this is so important. Once the branch of the government that enforces the law is above the law, the other branches are irrelevant. Once they are irrelevant, the structure of the government shifts from a democratic system involving checks and balances to, in our case an elective dictatorship, which writes, interprets and executes the law. Congress is so embroiled in its own ethics issues and pointless partisan bickering that it has ignored the fundamental constitutional responsibility of holding the Executive Branch accountable to the American people. While Congress is away (unconscious), the President will play.

This brings to bear the Supreme Court decision in 'Clinton vs. City of New York' which found the line item veto power granted to President Clinton by Congress unconstitutional as it allowed the President to change law to fit his political agenda - surely this is a similar situation. Here is an excerpt from that Supreme Court decision:

In contrast, the Act at issue authorizes the President himself to effect the repeal of laws, for his own policy reasons, without observing Article I, sect;7 procedures. Second, the contention that the cancellation authority is no greater than the President's traditional statutory authority to decline to spend appropriated funds or to implement specified tax measures fails because this Act, unlike the earlier laws, gives the President the unilateral power to change the text of duly enacted statutes.


And here is Article 1, sect; 7

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.


Go here full a full transcript of the Constitution from Cornell Law