Home

SHOE THROWING AT THE WHITE HOUSE

3 Comments

bush_worstdisaster

http://shoebush.org/

JOIN US IN WASHINGTON, DC ON PRESIDENT BUSH’S LAST DAY IN OFFICE FOR A SHOE HURLING ACTION

MONDAY, JANUARY 19th
11:00am CONVERGENCE followed by SHOE THROWING AT THE WHITE HOUSE

Why Shoe Bush?
Our president stood in a nation he had illegally invaded and occupied, where his actions had caused over 1.2 million deaths, 5 million people forced out of their homes, millions more deprived of electricity or clean water and afraid to walk the streets.  He stood smiling in a nation he had transformed into a living hell, a place where everyone had seen loved ones and neighbors killed.  And when Muntadar Al-Zeidi threw two shoes at him, our president remarked “I don’t know what his beef is.”

But billions of people around the world believed that the pretended obliviousness of George W. Bush to the pain and suffering he was inflicting had gone on as long as they could stand if not much longer, and Al-Zeidi became a hero overnight.  His two shoes punctured the Bush veil of separation, the distance Bush pretends to imagine exists between his decisions and the human limbs scattered in the sand of his colony.  And while the U.S. media pretended to wonder whether the water torture was “really” torture, the United States and its puppet government in Iraq inflicted on Al-Zeidi one of the more commonly employed torture techniques of the Bush regime: they beat him and broke his bones.

In an ideal world, it would be enough to present the evidence of crimes for Bush, Cheney, and their criminal subordinates to be prosecuted and convicted.  In this world, we’ve presented that evidence ( http://afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments ) for years, and we are still in a climate in which Bush and Cheney blissfully admit their crimes, apparently believing that they render prosecution less likely by declaring their own crimes acceptable.  While lies may take hold more easily the bigger they are, big lies also collapse quickly, as when a child points to a naked emperor, or a journalist throws his shoes.

We have a president-elect who can save himself from engaging in criminal wars and occupations, in torture and other war crimes, in warrantless spying and other violations of our Constitution, only by prosecuting the actions of his predecessor.  Not to prosecute is itself a crime.  If we are going to persuade the president elect, we must first persuade the U.S. media, and the U.S. media is not attracted by facts and information.  The U.S. media is attracted by throwing shoes.

Bush’s last act is expected to be the unprecedented pardoning of crimes he authorized.  This has never before been done, and to do so is to drop all claim to being a nation of laws.  Thanks to the example set by Al-Zeidi, since emulated by people all over the world, we will know exactly how to make our response visible when those pardons come.

–David Swanson

To receive updates from After Downing Street register at   http://afterdowningstreet.org/user/register

He say’s…..”At least Bush had the balls”…..

Leave a comment

bushbombs_dees

 

It seems not a day goes by anymore that at some point I am not butting heads with another person…usually a man….who thinks he knows how things are, how things work…..but who in reality seems to know very little about much of anything.  In almost every instance, the source of information for Mr. Know-it-all is someone like Limbaugh, Hannity or some other noxious right wing gasbag who makes their living spewing disinformation or outright garbage into the public arena.  How anyone can tolerate listening to these blowhards without feeling vomit rise in their throats is a mystery. 

 

My most recent encounter was with a ‘gentleman’ who insisted that “At least Bush had the balls to go after Iraq!”.  ‘S’cuse me?  My first thought was, “whose balls were they?”.  Bush certainly has none of his own.  That aside, I asked Mr. Know-it-all what he based this on?  I pointed out that Iraq was nearly defenseless, had no WMD, had not threatened us and was not in a position to threaten anyone.  I also pointed out that between us and Britain, we had the upper one third and lower one third of his country under a no-fly surveillance zone, and that Hussein only had control of the middle one-third of his country.  I added that not only did we have the entire country under surveillance, we had stopped any humanitarian aid including food, clean water and medical supplies and had done so for at least ten years.  Where was this threat?

 

Mr. Know-it-all then claimed that Hussein had been responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and that’s why Bush had to go after them.  [At this point I was tempted to start banging my head against a wall.]  How could anyone after all these years and after all the lies have been exposed about 9/11 still believe that Hussein was the culprit in 9/11?   Or that Iraq was in any way involved in those attacks?

 

Before I could stop myself I asked the question:  Where did you get that idea from?  I knew what was coming.  Mr. Know-it-all replied with the kind of self-righteous pride that can only come from self-induced ignorance and willing gullibility…….”Limbaugh was saying on his show……”.  [Let the head banging commence.]

 

Here’s your problem Mr. K…….you’re getting your information from a junkie.  One who is paid handsomely to assault the public with manipulated information to make sure you think and believe what those in the neo-conservative movement want you to think and believe. 

 

As a last resort, Mr. K. screamed at me that Hussein was a bad man and had killed more than a hundred thousand of his own people and we had to stop him.  I responded that we have now killed more than a million Iraqi’s, having bombed them, shot them, blown them up, starved them and tortured some others.  I mentioned the depleted uranium gas that is being dispersed over the entire mid-east resulting in 70% of newborns being horribly deformed and the slow agonizing deaths of those exposed to this radio active waste product, and is also poisoning our troops.  Mr. K., now in a full rage, was now trying to tell me and a few others how Hussein had come into power….according to Limbaugh.  [You don’t even want to hear this part, it exceeds stupidity.]

In retaliation, I pointed out that Donald Rumsfeld had appeared on the front page of the New York Times shaking hands with Hussein after he was carefully selected by the up and coming neo-cons, to head up Iraq after we deposed their last leader.  We knew all along what he was doing to his own people and didn’t care until he refused to co-operate with us.  After all, he was instrumental in the Iran/Contra affair and waged war against Iran on our behalf with weapons we supplied him. 

 

Realizing that I was arguing with an individual who was obviously mentally compromised, having been willfully exposed to auditory waste by-products that comprise the majority of Limbaugh and others broadcasts, I couldn’t resist one final question;  What kind of ‘balls’ did it take to attack a country that was nearly defenseless, that had not attacked us or threatened to?  And how ‘bout those oil production sharing agreements they are still trying to shove through the Iraqi parliament? You know…the oil we attacked Iraq to steal?”

 

At this point Mr. K. informed me that all Iraqi’s should be killed because they are Muslims, not Christians.  I bet God loved that one.

 

So there it is in a nutshell.  Bush had [balls] because he attacked a non-threatening country that was defenseless but it’s ok because they are Muslims not Christians….and the oil is a big perk too.

 

Somehow, considering the low level of intelligence of most of those who listen to these hacks who prey on the worst of human attributes, this doesn’t surprise me although the idea of Bush having [balls] somehow did.

 

© 2008 Marti Oakley

 

 

 

Bush gets the boot in Iraq

Leave a comment

 

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/500.html

Translation

Here’s what the man said as he threw his shoes at Bush:

“This is a farewell kiss for you, you dog.

This is from the widows, the orphans, and those killed in Iraq.”

Well put.

Can we make this man an honorary American citizen?

After all, Bush created a lot of widows and orphans in America too.

It’s a pity all this guy had was his shoes – and he didn’t have better aim.

Bush’s S.O.F.A. agreement with Iraq….not approved by congress

Leave a comment

American Freedom Campaign info@americanfreedomcampaign.org

 

The U.S.-Iraq Agreement’s New Clothes

The document parading around as the U.S.-Iraq agreement is not valid under the U.S. Constitution.  Its legitimacy is based solely on the silence of lawmakers (and members of the media), who seem to be paralyzed by the fear of having an independent and intelligent opinion.  Fortunately, one lawmaker has broken the silence and has acknowledged the truth before everyone’s eyes.

It is now time for others, including you, to join their voices with hers.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the pending U.S.-Iraq agreement, decrying the fact that the Iraqi Parliament was being given the opportunity to vote on whether to approve the agreement while Congress was being denied – and was refusing to fight for – the same opportunity.

Well, thanks to our efforts and the leadership of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives may finally get to voice its opinion on President Bush’s unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s legislative power. 

Yesterday, Rep. Lee introduced a resolution related to the U.S.-Iraq agreement, inspired in part by AFC’s call for a “signing statement” resolution.  The primary purpose of this resolution is to express the sense of the House that President Bush does not have the power under the Constitution to negotiate and sign such a far-reaching agreement with another nation without seeking congressional approval of the agreement. 

Passage of this resolution — most likely following re-introduction in January — will send a message to the Bush administration, the incoming Obama administration, and the rest of the world that the agreement holds no legal weight under U.S. law and will be considered merely advisory by Congress. 

In truth, even without passage of this resolution, Congress shall not be bound by its terms.  No president can unilaterally commit $10 billion per month in U.S. treasure to keep our troops in another nation.  The United States has never been a monarchy or a dictatorship and we are certainly not going to accept any similar kind of system today.

Putting aside the question over whether this agreement is currently binding or not, it is important that as many lawmakers as possible openly reject the constitutionality of the agreement.  So please tell your U.S. representative to co-sponsor, support, and vote for Rep. Lee’s signing statement resolution (H.Res. 1535) by clicking on the following link:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2165/t/1027/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26332

Once you have sent your message, please forward this email widely to friends and family.  In the alternative, you can use the “Tell-A-Friend” option on the AFC Web site that will appear after you have sent your message.

Thank you so much for taking action.

Steve Fox
Campaign Director
American Freedom Campaign Action Fund

 

DownsizeDC.org….Iraqi’s need referendum on continued US Occupation

Leave a comment

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h


Quotes of the Day:

“You can’t walk around unless you’ve got flak jackets, helmets on all the time, no matter where you are. It’s always struck me it’s almost like a Fellini movie, kind of unreal. The American people are told things are stable and secure, and violence is down. No American would walk outside there without a convoy!” — Chuck Hagel, upon returning from Baghdad

“At long last, the fragile state of Somalia seems to be slowly resurfacing from a searing bout of violence and humanitarian crisis. Interestingly, the light at the end of this decades-long tunnel is not burning at the behest of the United States or the United Nations; rather, it burns because Somali leaders, both within the government and without, have banded together. Frustrated by failed foreign interventions, they are now seeking sustainable Somali-based solutions. The key to success, going forward, is to keep it Somali-led. Further intervention from neighboring Ethiopia or the United States will be ruinous.” — Michael Shank, Communications Director, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Senior Analyst at Foreign Policy In Focus

Subject: Real “Change” in Iraq

Many people think the U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a non-issue, for two reasons . . .

1. Violence is down
2. The U.S. government signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to continue the occupation

We feel differently. We think the occupation is still an issue, because . . .

* American soldiers continue to die
* The factions in Iraq haven’t reached a settlement, and have no incentive to do so as long as we remain there
* Somalia and Lebanon show that stable societies are grown from within, not engineered from without
* The “agreement” to continue the occupation was signed by a U.S. government that has now been repudiated
* The public legitimacy of the Iraqi government is also highly questionable
* The dollars being spent in Iraq belong in the pockets of struggling U.S. taxpayers

This is why we think the occupation is still an issue. We still want the occupation to end. We want change.

Barack Obama won election by promising change. He distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton and John McCain by having always opposed the Iraq invasion, and by promising to leave Iraq sooner rather than later. Iraq was a key issue to millions of Obama voters. Will they get the change they sought? Consider these points . . .

* Pro-war Congressman Rahm Emmanuel will be Obama’s Chief of Staff
* Pro-war Senator Clinton may become his Secretary of State
* Robert Gates, who favors an indefinite occupation, may remain as Secretary of Defense

With top advisers like these, who needs neo-con bogeymen? Perhaps in DC-speak, “change” means “let’s fool the yokels who think elections matter, and give them more of the same.”

Are we being too harsh on Obama too soon? We think not. We think our skepticism is justified. Remember . . .

We now know that George W. Bush was already scheming to invade Iraq when he promised us a “humble foreign policy,” and “no nation-building.” He also stocked his cabinet with aggressive interventionists, just like Obama has started to do.

This is how politicians behave. They promise one thing and do another. Obama is a politician, therefore . . .

We assume the worst.

And remember, Senator Obama voted to “legalize” warrantless spying. This, all by itself, is enough to justify extreme skepticism about our incoming president, no matter how much we may like him as a person.

If we want real change we’re going to have to demand it, constantly. Eternal vigilance!

The main argument for the occupation has been, “We broke it, so we must fix it.” But what if the Iraqi people don’t want us to “fix” them? What if they don’t want us there?

We think Congress should pass a resolution asking the Iraqi government to hold a public referendum on the U.S. occupation. This resolution would . . . 

* Show respect to the Iraqi people
* Potentially legitimize the occupation, or end it
* Tell the President-elect that the American people still want what he promised — to leave Iraq

If you don’t buy the argument that Iraq has become a non-issue, and you do buy our argument that the Iraqi people must . . .

A. Settle their own differences
B. Be allowed to say yes or no to the U.S. occupation

And if you want to . . .

* Save American lives
* Save your tax dollars

Then . . .

Please tell Congress to pass a resolution requesting an Iraqi referendum on the occupation. You can do so using our quick-and-easy Educate the Powerful System.

Please also . . .

* Forward this message to others or re-post it on your own blog
* Digg this message on our blog.

Thank you for being part of our growing Downsize DC army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project

http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Co-opting religion to promote war

Leave a comment

 

The current US President sees the war in Iraq as a Christian crusade…

Is this kind of bizarre thinking a rare and strange anomaly?

Unfortunately not.

The fact is “Christianity”is frequently co-opted and its missionaries are often used as a weapons.

Excepts from a often-banned film on this taboo subject:

 

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/473.html– Brasscheck

Bush criminalizes anti-war movement and humanitarian aid

1 Comment

This is only one of the Executive Orders issued by a tyrant; a man totally dedicated to eradication of the Constitution, civil liberties and inalienable rights. 

What you can read in this Order are the words of man terrified of his own people; one who seeks to silence them.  Notorious for his own criminal activities, threatened by possible prosecution for crimes against humanity, Bush has effectively rendered dissent against government actions as criminal.  This Executive Order is written to be intentionally and broadly interpreted.  On its face it appears to criminalize persons who might be actively involved in supporting Iraq either physically or monetarily against the United States. This can even include those (religious groups?) who might try to give humanitarian aid. 

As in almost all of Bush’s E.O.’s, he grants himself the power at will to be the single or unilateral “decider” of who is or is not one of this newly created class of criminals.

Its an odd turn of events when the most corrupt and criminal among us abuses its power and authority to criminalize Constitutional rights. 

July 17, 2007

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;

(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 17, 2007.

 

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: