Saturday, February 21, 2009

The Evidence Is Compelling , The Need For Justice Paramount As We Watch Continued Ignorance Of Our Constitution And Restoration Of The Rule Of Law

The Evidence Is Compelling , The Need For Justice Paramount As We Watch Continued Ignorance Of Our Constitution And The Call For The Restoration Of The Rule Of Law.



"The action I am taking is no more than a radical measure to hasten the explosion of truth and justice. I have but one passion: to enlighten those who have been kept in the dark, in the name of humanity which has suffered so much and is entitled to happiness. My fiery protest is simply the cry of my very soul. Let them dare, then,
to bring me before a court of law and let the enquiry take place in
broad daylight!"

- Emile Zola, J'accuse! (1898) –

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask
not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen!”

-Sam Adams-




A Truth Commission to Investigate Bush-Cheney Administration Abuses


I have set up a petition at, and I hope you will sign it to urge Congress to consider establishing a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate the Bush-Cheney administration's abuses. We already have over 7,000 signatures, but we need to hit 10,000 signatures -- or more -- by next week, to build momentum behind this idea.

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator


Indict Bush

Camus Cafe Political Coffee House: Leahy Opens Petition Drive to ...
By Ed. Dickau 

EdDickau, Thank you for signing my petition at, urging Congress to consider the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate Bush-Cheney Administration abuses. ...
Camus Cafe Political Coffee House -


Propelling Prisoners' Heads into Concrete Walls
OpEdNews - Newtown,PA,USA
The culprits who should be prosecuted include Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, ... to "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. (more. ...




Propelling prisoners' heads into concrete walls by means of towels wrapped around their necks, savage beatings with fists and rifles that left prisoners crippled, hanging prisoners by the arms with their arms strung up behind them, depriving prisoners of sleep for weeks on end, which has been thought the worst torture possible for 500 years, causing prisoners to freeze -- sometimes to death, and waterboarding are but a partial list of the torture methods ordered by America's highest officials. In the "Preliminary Memorandum of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference on Federal Prosecutions of War Criminals," law school Dean Lawrence Velvel, the founder of the Jackson Conference, details the full spectrum of tortures performed in wholesale combinations -- not one torture by itself -- on detainees around the world. His Preliminary Memorandum is a precursor to a formal legal complaint to be filed with the Justice Department this spring.


The Preliminary Memorandum identifies 31 culprits and details the war crimes they committed, the laws they broke, and the many fulsome warnings they received regarding their actions from numerous governmental lawyers and officials high and low, including the Judge Advocate Generals of all the armed services. The culprits who should be prosecuted include Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Addington, Tenet, Bybee, Yoo, Haynes, Chertoff and others.


The Preliminary Memorandum calls the Bush administration's illegal acts "an attempted constitutional revolution that succeeded for years." It began six days after 9/11, when Bush secretly gave the CIA permission to "murder . . . people all over the world." It continued in a series of secret, wholly specious legal memos authorizing torture, electronic eavesdropping, wholesale violations of law, and Presidential usurpation of the role of Congress.


Public pressure eventually forced the administration to declassify a few of the memos. These purported to authorize war crimes outlawed by the Geneva Conventions and U.S. anti-torture laws. Among them was John Yoo's infamous "torture memo" defining torture as "requiring the pain associated with organ failure or death," saying torture supposedly couldn't exist if the torturer wanted information, and urging that the President could do anything he wanted, including paying no attention whatever to Congressional laws. Meanwhile, Bush administration officials and lawyers ignored extensive warnings given them by government officials that they were engaging in criminal acts; the warnings were given both orally and in extensive memos.


Camus Cafe Political Coffee House: Countdown With Olbermann On ...
By Ed. Dickau 
... legal complaint with the Justice Department this spring. SUMMARY_OF_PRELIMINARY_MEMORANDUM.pdf. 9K View Download. Full report - PRELIMINARY MEMORANDUM OF THE JUSTICE ROBERT H.pdf. 65K View Download. Posted by EdDickau at 9:13 PM ...
Camus Cafe Political Coffee House -


Camus Cafe Political Coffee House: The Struggle To Get To The ...
By Ed. Dickau 
Posted by Ed. Dickau at 11:29 AM. 0 comments:. Post a Comment. Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom). Fair Use Notice: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, ...
Camus Cafe Political Coffee House -


Obama Administration Trying To Kill Lawsuit Over Bush White House Emails?


Delaware Watch: Obama Sides with Bush in Missing E-mail Case
By Delaware Watch 
But the Obama administration, which is avowedly inclined not to look backwards at what happened during the Bush administration, is providing cover for the Bush administration by continuing to oppose the lawsuit that asks for the ...
Delaware Watch - 

From One Assault On The Constitution To Another

The Bush brown shirt regime revealed itself as lawless, the worst criminal organization in American history.


February 20, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- The US Constitution has few friends on the right or the left.

During the first eight years of the 21st century, the Republicans mercilessly assaulted civil liberties. The brown shirt Bush regime ignored the protections provided by habeas corpus. They spied on American citizens without warrants. They violated the First Amendment. They elevated decisions of the president above US statutory law and international law. They claimed the power to withhold information from the people’s representatives in Congress, and they asserted, and behaved as if, they were unaccountable to the people, Congress, and the federal courts. The executive branch claimed the power to ignore congressional subpoenas. Republicans regarded Bush as a Stuart king unaccountable to law. 

The Bush brown shirt regime revealed itself as lawless, the worst criminal organization in American history.

Now we have the Democrats, and the assault on civil liberty continues. President Obama doesn’t want to hold Bush accountable for his crimes and violations of the Constitution, because Obama wants to retain the powers that Bush asserted. Even the practice of kidnapping people and transporting them to foreign countries to be tortured has been retained by President Obama. 

The civil liberties that Bush stole from us are now in Obama’s pocket. 

Will it turn out that we enjoyed more liberty under Bush than we will under Obama? At least the Republicans left us the Second Amendment. The Obama Democrats are not going to return our other purloined civil liberties, and they are already attacking the Second Amendment. 

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D, IL) has introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. As the British and Australians learned, once firearms are registered, the government knows where they are. The government’s next step is to confiscate the firearms. 

Moreover, the Act would permit the government to negate Second Amendment rights by refusing to issue a license. Any parents who bequeathed family antique or historic firearms to heirs would be in violation of the act, as it bans any transfer of a firearm other than via a licensed dealer.

William Blackstone, the revered 18th century defender of liberty whose Commentaries on the Laws of England was a bestseller in colonial America, wrote that “the last auxiliary right” of free men is “having arms for their defense.” Blackstone, England’s greatest jurist, said that the right to bear arms enables the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

The Bush regime’s reversion to medieval methods of incarceration and torture are an indication that we now live in a time “when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Why do the Democrats desire Americans to be helpless in the face of oppression by the armed state. How can it be that Democrats want Americans to be free from the threat of being thrown into dungeons and locked away without a court ever hearing evidence, but are prepared to deny Americans the ability to resist such horrendous treatment should it come their way?

In response to my question, one progressive acquaintance said that he wanted to reduce “gun violence.” As guns are inanimate objects, I assume he meant violence committed by people who use guns instead of knives, fists or some other weapon. 

“Gun violence” is not something committed by the vast majority of gun owners. “Gun violence” is the preserve of the criminal elements, such as gangs fighting over drug turf. Criminals are already prohibited from owning guns, but criminals pay no more attention to this law than they do to laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why do Democrats think that disarming law-abiding citizens will disarm outlaws? For how many decades have drugs been banned? Does any Democrat think that the ban on drugs has succeeded?

All the ban on drugs has done is to make the drug trade profitable. Now people fight over it. How can guns be successfully banned when the war on drugs is a failure? All a gun ban would do is to create a new criminal activity.

England, in violation of its unwritten constitution, banned ownership of pistols and rifles. But now the police have to be heavily armed, because criminals are now armed, but not law-abiding citizens. When I lived in England, the police were not armed with firearms. I remember reading a few years after the passage of England’s gun ban that criminals were selling submachine guns on London street corners. The police discovered a warehouse in London filled to the brim with machine guns that were being sold to all comers.

So much for gun bans. They only disarm the law abiding and leave them defenseless.

Gun bans also greatly increase the crime rate. When households are armed, robbers prefer houses where no one is home. In England, criminals are no longer deterred from entering an occupied home. The more people at home the better. There might be someone to rape and someone to beat up. There is little to fear from a disarmed household.

When I lived in the metro area of Washington DC, I resided on the Virginia side of the Potomac. There was no problem with owning a gun in Virginia, but in DC, until the recent Supreme Court ruling, the only way a person could have a firearm was to keep it disassembled and unloaded. 

The Washington “gun control” ordinance benefited criminals. The crime rate in DC was much higher than across the river. Despite, or because of, the gun ban, DC was the murder capital of the US.

Police seldom, if ever, prevent a crime. Their job is to appear after a crime is committed and to investigate with a view to identifying the perpetrator. A large number of careful studies show that private gun ownership prevents far more crimes than police ever solve. Criminals are routinely deterred, apprehended, and sometimes killed, by armed private citizens.

In contrast, police, especially the notorious SWAT teams, accidentally kill more law abiding citizens than they do criminals. If anyone should be disarmed, it is the police. When police become militarized, as they increasingly are in the US, their attitude toward the public changes from protective to hostile.  

Militarized SWAT teams have established a record of showing up at the wrong address.
In Maryland recently, a SWAT team mistook the mayor and his wife for drug dealers. A large number of armed men in black, and not identified as police, broke into the mayor’s home, killed the family’s Labrador dogs, and held the mayor and his wife spread eagled on the floor with loaded automatic weapons a few inches from their heads. Fortunately for the mayor and his wife, a local policeman happened by and informed the paramilitary unit that it was the mayor and his wife whom the SWAT team was terrorizing.

Many progressives oppose gun ownership because they have sympathy for animals and oppose hunting. However, most gun owners are not hunters. Most members of gun clubs are content to shoot holes in paper targets or at clay pigeons. They enjoy hand-eye coordination, the study of ballistics, and reloading for antique rifles. An outing is really just a chance to get together, to talk about history and the load they are working up for their 1873 Winchester, and to enjoy each other’s company.

There is a vast number of small businesses that exist because of gun ownership. Repairs, customizing, parts, sights, brass, bullets, primers, and powders for reloading, reloading equipment, targets, cleaning, refinishing, engraving, it goes on and on. What would happen to these hundreds of thousands of people, to the family businesses and to the skills accumulated, if Americans are deprived of their Second Amendment rights? We would have another million people deprived of livelihood and on the streets. Would they turn to crime?

The progressive canard is that the Second Amendment, unlike the rest of the amendments to the Constitution, is not a constitutional right for citizens. Rather it is a right for a defunct organization known as the militia. Why in the world would the Founding Fathers, when laying out the rights of individuals, confound the point by sticking in among individual rights a right for a military organization? 

But so what if they did. Americans have had squatter’ rights to firearms since 1776. 
In 1992 when the Supreme Court revisited Roe v. Wade, the justices acknowledged that the legal argument behind the 1973 decision legitimizing abortion was flawed. However, the justices ruled that women had exercised abortion rights for 19 years, and the passage of time had given women squatters’ rights to abortions. 

Americans have exercised Second Amendment rights for 234 years. Regardless of the meaning of the Second Amendment, the right of adverse possession makes gun rights final. To assault such a well grounded right is an act of tyranny.



The issue is not just the fact that the GOP remains a threat to this nation and world peace but also the fact that some have awakened and are actively engaged in growing attempts to organize on the internet in the fashion that Democratic Party/Partisans have.  This will bear close watching.  It is more than simply the extreme right and hate mongers we find out in cyber space each day…they have a goal, a mission!


Bush Moves Into New Dallas Home - MashGet (It Ought To Be A Jail Cell)

Attorney General Appoints Executive Director to Lead New Task Force on Review of Guantanamo Bay Detainees



"You Can't Sweep Unlawful Activities Under The Table"

Abu Ghraib Investigator Antonio Taguba Talks To Salon About Why He Backs A Commission To Examine Bush Torture Policies.

Buzz Flash Tag “Torture”

Just For Fun


New Stock Market Terms


CEO - Chief Embezzlement Officer


 CFO -  Corporate Fraud Officer


BULL MARKET - A random market movement causing an investor to mistake himself for a financial genius.


BEAR MARKET - a 6 to 18 month period when the kids get no allowance, the wife gets no jewelry, and the husband gets no sex.


VALUE INVESTING - The art of buying low and selling lower.


P/E RATIO - The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the market  keeps crashing.


BROKER - What my financial planner has made me.


STANDARD & POOR - Your life in a nutshell.


STOCK ANALYST - Idiot who just downgraded your stock.


STOCK SPLIT - When your ex-wife and her lawyer split your assets equally between themselves.


 MARKET CORRECTION - The day after you buy stocks.


CASH FLOW - The movement your money makes as it disappears down the toilet.


YAHOO - What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker for $240 per share.


 WINDOWS - What you jump out of when you're the sucker who bought Yahoo at $240 per share.


INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR - Past year investor who's now locked up in a nuthouse. 


 PROFIT - an archaic word no longer in use.


If you had purchased $1000 of shares in Delta Airlines one year ago, you will have $49.00 today. 


If you had purchased $1000 of shares in AIG one year ago, you will have $33.00 today.


If you had purchased $1000 of shares in Lehman Brothers  one year ago, you will have $0.00 today. 


But---- if you had purchased $1000 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, 

then turned in the aluminum cans for recycling refund,  you will have received $214.00..


Based on the above, the best current investment plan is to drink heavily & recycle.   

 It's called the 401-Keg.


This Accounting Formula Not Recognized By The US General Accounting Office…So What?  Are They The Experts?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Fair Use Notice: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.