An interview with fifteen term Congressman Andy Jacobs
Andy Jacobs, Jr. was born in Indianapolis in 1932, served in the House of Representatives for 15 terms, and as a result knows how Washington, DC operate. Mr. Jacobs served in Congress with President Bush I. He is a former Marine and saw heavy combat in Korea. He has written three books, “The 1600 Killers: A Wake-up Call for Congress,” “The Powell Affair, Freedom Minus One” and “Slander and Sweet Judgment - The Memoir of an Indiana Congressman.”
Kevin Zeese: Does the decision making process, particularly the decision to go to war, adhere to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution? Is Congress fulfilling its Constitutional duties - standing up for the Constitution and in the Congressional responsibility of providing a check and balance to the president?
Kevin Zeese: Does the decision making process, particularly the decision to go to war, adhere to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution? Is Congress fulfilling its Constitutional duties - standing up for the Constitution and in the Congressional responsibility of providing a check and balance to the president?
The beloved Cynthia McKinney: a White ex-cop speaks out about a Georgia Congresswoman
April 11, 2006 1000 PST (FTW) - ASHLAND -Cynthia McKinney is a friend of mine. Until the day I die she will be a friend of mine. More than that, she will be a role model and an inspiration that I don't ever expect to be equaled, let alone surpassed. Full disclosure.
Out of several dozen Op-Eds, news reports and commentaries on the now-infamous so-called "cop-slapping" event of March 29th, I haven't seen a single one that, from my perspective, got it right.
So right up front, let me say that if I am forced to look at this one snapshot incident, divorced from context and history, then yes, my very good friend messed up. It shouldn't have become as big a deal as it has and she bears some responsibility for that. But if I look at the event as part of a continuum of the life of congress, or the life of this nation, and (no less importantly) of the life of this woman, things look and feel a whole lot different.
Out of several dozen Op-Eds, news reports and commentaries on the now-infamous so-called "cop-slapping" event of March 29th, I haven't seen a single one that, from my perspective, got it right.
So right up front, let me say that if I am forced to look at this one snapshot incident, divorced from context and history, then yes, my very good friend messed up. It shouldn't have become as big a deal as it has and she bears some responsibility for that. But if I look at the event as part of a continuum of the life of congress, or the life of this nation, and (no less importantly) of the life of this woman, things look and feel a whole lot different.
Out of the shadows -- the Seattle immigration march
People marched because families and futures were at stake. Seattle didn’t have a half million marching for immigrant rights, like Los Angeles or Dallas, or 300,000 like Chicago, But 25,000 marched for fifteen blocks through the heart of our city, packing the streets. “I heard it on the radio,” people said. “I heard it at my church.” “I heard it from a friend.” Students came on chartered buses from farm towns 40 miles away. One family drove ninety miles after hearing on the nightly news that a march was going to happen and traffic might be swamped. Except for some students passing the word through MySpace and scattered social justice listservs, this march didn’t rely on the on-line networks that have become the activist standard. It built on more intimate networks, and as coverage rippled out, people came and brought others, affirming that this was now their country too, and they wanted to be treated with dignity and respect.
Courtroom bumps for the war on terror
A terrorism trial of two Muslims in federal court in Sacramento has thus far left the FBI looking manipulative, credulous, and prodigiously extravagant.
At the center of the case are two Pakistanis living in Lodi, a small town south of Sacramento. One, 23-year-old Hamid Hayat, a cherry picker, stands accused of being a terrorist who trained at an Al Qaeda camp and returned to the United States to wreak havoc. The other, his 48-year-old father, Umer Hayat, an ice-cream truck driver, is charged with lying to the FBI about his son's activities. If found guilty, the son faces 39 years in prison, the father 16.
Their ordeal began last summer, when Hamid Hayat, fresh back from a two-year trip to Pakistan where he has spent half his life, was interrogated by the FBI. Soon his father was pulled in. When the indictments came down, the news headlines were that Hamid had attended a terror-training camp in Pakistan, that there was a terror ring centered in Lodi. Both father and son had made full confessions.
At the center of the case are two Pakistanis living in Lodi, a small town south of Sacramento. One, 23-year-old Hamid Hayat, a cherry picker, stands accused of being a terrorist who trained at an Al Qaeda camp and returned to the United States to wreak havoc. The other, his 48-year-old father, Umer Hayat, an ice-cream truck driver, is charged with lying to the FBI about his son's activities. If found guilty, the son faces 39 years in prison, the father 16.
Their ordeal began last summer, when Hamid Hayat, fresh back from a two-year trip to Pakistan where he has spent half his life, was interrogated by the FBI. Soon his father was pulled in. When the indictments came down, the news headlines were that Hamid had attended a terror-training camp in Pakistan, that there was a terror ring centered in Lodi. Both father and son had made full confessions.
The lobby and the bulldozer: Mearsheimer, Walt and Corrie
Weeks after a British magazine published a long article by two
American professors titled “The Israel Lobby,” the outrage continued to
howl through mainstream U.S. media.
A Los Angeles Times op-ed article by Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot helped to set a common tone. He condemned a working paper by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted in the London Review of Books.
The working paper, Boot proclaimed, is “nutty.” And he strongly implied that the two professors -- Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago and Walt at Harvard -- are anti-Semitic.
Many who went on the media attack did more than imply. On April 3, for instance, the same day that the Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted Boot’s piece from the L.A. Times, a notably similar op-ed appeared in the Boston Herald under the headline “Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard.”
A Los Angeles Times op-ed article by Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot helped to set a common tone. He condemned a working paper by professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt that was excerpted in the London Review of Books.
The working paper, Boot proclaimed, is “nutty.” And he strongly implied that the two professors -- Mearsheimer at the University of Chicago and Walt at Harvard -- are anti-Semitic.
Many who went on the media attack did more than imply. On April 3, for instance, the same day that the Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted Boot’s piece from the L.A. Times, a notably similar op-ed appeared in the Boston Herald under the headline “Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard.”
I don't have a dog in this fight
AUSTIN, Texas -- Personally, I think this is a really good time not to keep up. The more you try, the less sense it makes, although getting us used to having it all make no sense at all may be an extremely sneaky Karl Rove ploy to justify the war in Iraq. Hard to say.
The latest development to which the only appropriate response is, "Huh," is the news that the "mobile weapons labs" introduced to us by President Bush before the war as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not evidence -- conclusive or otherwise -- of WMD and were not, in fact, mobile weapons labs.
The only thing new here is the news that George W. Bush likely knew a couple of days before he talked about them in public that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found they were not mobile weapons labs.
The latest development to which the only appropriate response is, "Huh," is the news that the "mobile weapons labs" introduced to us by President Bush before the war as conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were not evidence -- conclusive or otherwise -- of WMD and were not, in fact, mobile weapons labs.
The only thing new here is the news that George W. Bush likely knew a couple of days before he talked about them in public that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found they were not mobile weapons labs.
The daily drip
AUSTIN, Texas -- We need to keep up with the daily drip, that endless succession of special favors for special interests performed by Congress, or we'll never figure out how we got so far behind the eight ball. While the top Bushies lunge about test-driving new wars (great idea -- the one we're having is a bummer, so let's start another!), Congress just keeps right on cranking out those corporate goodies.
Earlier this month, the House effectively repealed more than 200 state food safety and public health protections. Say, when was the last time you enjoyed a little touch of food poisoning? Coming soon to a stomach near you. What was really impressive about H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," is that it was passed without a public hearing.
"The House is trampling crucial health safeguards in every state without so much as a single public hearing," said Erik Olson, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This just proves the old adage, 'Money talks.' The food industry spared no expense to ensure passage."
Earlier this month, the House effectively repealed more than 200 state food safety and public health protections. Say, when was the last time you enjoyed a little touch of food poisoning? Coming soon to a stomach near you. What was really impressive about H.R. 4167, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," is that it was passed without a public hearing.
"The House is trampling crucial health safeguards in every state without so much as a single public hearing," said Erik Olson, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This just proves the old adage, 'Money talks.' The food industry spared no expense to ensure passage."
The real problem with Bush's leak
Politicians, pundits, journalists and bloggers have been debating President Bush's ultimate motivation for authorizing the leak of classified information about the Iraq war to Scooter Libby. But the central issue in the case is not whether or not Bush broke the law per se, or whether he sought isolated revenge against Joe Wilson. What's important to understand and determine here is whether or not this leak is part of a much broader scandal; part of the Bush administration's cover-up of a pre-planned invasion of Iraq, and the cherry-picking of intelligence to fit that mission.
Gangster government: a leaky president afoul of 'Little Rico'
It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual.
'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.
OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a BIGGER crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.
'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you.
OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a BIGGER crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.
Censure movement catching fire
The media has largely been ignoring the fact that the Feingold Resolution to censure George W. Bush has been gaining support among leading Democrats. The Corporate Mainstream Media made it a huge story that the Feingold Censure Resolution did not immediately gain massive public support from other Democratic Senators. Senate Democrats are starting to rally behind the resolution after exploring the issue and examining public opinion on the issue.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa are now co-sponsors of the Feingold Censure Resolution. Senator Harkin has written an excellent article on the subject titled “Why I Fully Support Bush Censure”. This article can be read at Tom Harkin.com http://www.tomharkin.com . Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina recently declared his support of the resolution.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa are now co-sponsors of the Feingold Censure Resolution. Senator Harkin has written an excellent article on the subject titled “Why I Fully Support Bush Censure”. This article can be read at Tom Harkin.com http://www.tomharkin.com . Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina recently declared his support of the resolution.