JBlunt

Bicycle Sport Shop Helps Cancer Victim

2010-08-24T10:15:00.004-05:00

Some of you are familiar with my current battle with cancer. My COBRA is running out. New Texas Insurance Health Pool coverage was sooooo expensive I would have had to give up my home, move to a bare lot in Canyon Lake and live in my motorhome to afford the premiums. Brandon Pace of Bicycle Sport Shop on South Lamar just made it possible for me to continue my medical battle; stay in my home of nearly 20 years; stop the relentless drain of cash from my retirement account; and have a brighter future. HE GAVE ME A JOB. After 1 1/2 years of unemployment, this part time job will make it possible for me to get group health insurance. For me, that’s LIFE or DEATH.
Buy all your bike shit at Bicycle Sport Shop. If you know Brandon, let him know what a Saint he is. .................And this November, if this story moves you, vote so we can have 62 Democrats in the Senate, and finally get what we all voted for LAST November!

JBlunt

New Website coming!

2010-07-24T13:27:00.004-05:00

Hello Blunts!,

Website redesign is coming soon! After Gregofest, the Twins will be whipping up a badass domain for me. With weekly features such as the "Short Bus" and "I Wish it Were True" I will be bringing even more of my sharp wit and sarcastic humor to the public than ever. Meanwhile, browse past articles and for cryin' out loud DONATE to GREGOFEST!!!!
JBlunt

Conservative Primmer.

2010-02-24T09:07:00.001-06:00

Last time I checked, Conservative meant "more personal responsibility and less government control". When I think of what’s conservative according to the above rule, I find myself to be pro choice; pro secular; pro gun; anti deficit; pro privacy and compassionate towards the lesser of us.

PRO-CHOICE because nothing is more controlling than a government that tells women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

PRO-SECULAR because the constitution demands it and because fascist imposition of religious dogma through legislation causes almost ALL strife and conflict in the world.

PRO-GUN because the second amendment says I can be.

ANTI-DEFICIT because that is the definition of conservative finance.

PRO-PRIVACY because your home should be your castle. Do whatever or whomever you want at home as long as it doesn’t harm another.

COMPASSIONATE towards the lesser among us because the book most Americans cite for guidance on virtue and righteousness says I should.

These are the things my father told me were conservative. Is this the time of the rebirth of true conservatives untainted by religious bias? Will the Republican Party ever return to the ideals of true conservatives like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater? If they do I will become a Republican again. Right now, the Democratic Party is closer to true conservative values than the Republicans and its been like this for the better part of four decades. As the radical right and religious fascists began to infiltrate the Republican Party in the 70's and 80's it became more and more intellectually corrupt. What the party is now only faintly reflects its roots.

Between the Patriot Act, the deregulation of Wall Street, tolerance of religious fascism and the unjustified invasions of foreign nations, the REPUBLICANS have KILLED real CONSERVATIVISIM.
JBlunt

Stop Screwing with GOOD FOOD!

2010-02-24T08:54:00.002-06:00

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is destroying every food product that I love. Why hasn’t anyone done anything to curtail the actions of these food fascists that are destroying everything from Nestles Quick to Frosted Flakes to McDonald's French Fries? Thanks to the actions of these food fascists all those products and many more now taste like crap and I have stopped buying them. I am the only one who should be responsible for what and how much I eat, NO ONE ELSE! The idea that private interests can manipulate large corporations who have been putting out quality products for decades and force them to cow tow to a minority of morons who cant control their own eating habits is BULLSHIT. We should be allowed to eat whatever we want in whatever quantity we want without the interference of the government, let alone private individuals who don’t even know me or have any legal authority over me. I highly recommend setting up a web site where people who feel like I do can funnel money to those who will fight for our rights. As we all know In America the person with the most cash wins these kinds of arguments. I would also make an excellent advocate for your efforts and would be glad to assist you in any way I can to stop this crap. Congress must pass either tort reform or other legislation that will stop this BIG BROTHER repression of freedom of choice. If you or your children get fat and die from Frosted Flakes it’s your fault not KELLOGS! Their lawyers must be completely worthless pussies! How can this even be debatable?
John McJunkin
JBlunt

The Origin of the Feces

2009-11-12T20:46:00.003-06:00

The Origin of the Feces

Our political system is corrupt and becoming more and more corrupt every day. This will continue until the stain of religion is removed from political discourse and existing laws. Here’s a quick primmer on where we are and how we got into this crappy situation.

The First Amendment says two things; Churches have no business in politics at all; the Government shall not form a church. The 1944 Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the tax exemptions churches now enjoy was wrong and has led to state of political perversion we have today. Behemoth corporations masquerading as churches which are used as ATMs by politicians who then inject religious dogma into US law in direct treasonous violation of the First Amendment. Another devastating decision was taken in 1958 when government was forbidden from denying unconstitutional tax exemptions to churches. In 1970 the Supreme Court drove the final coffin nail that sealed our path to self destruction by upholding broadly the tax exemptions of churches.

God and Communist fearing morons corrupted the Pledge of Allegiance in the mid 50’s. Here’s how I learned it, as the original writer (a Baptist Minister) wrote it before McCarthy and his Commie hunting minions got a hold of it.

“I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

No references to God or Communism. No paranoid line that specifies which country you’re pledging allegiance to as if you’re so stupid you might confuse the United States with Russia; just a nice clean, eloquent statement of loyalty, equity and nationalism.

And here’s what’s what about marriage law. The word marriage should not appear in ANY law as Marriage is a religious institution and any such laws violate the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The only authority who should be deciding who does and doesn't get married are churches. Now before you blow a fuse, read on. Government should give any pair of individuals’ spousal rights upon demand and parental rights automatically at the birth of or adoption of offspring. Straight people would marry in traditional churches. Gays would marry in progressive churches and government wouldn't have a damn thing to say about it. No more arguments from either side. All individuals get what they are entitled to under the law and religious fascists can run around claiming whatever they want about the validity of this marriage or that and no one will give a crap. It won't matter.

This only scratches the surface of how jacked up our laws have become since that decision in 1944. If you want to do what’s most effective to eliminate this institutionalized treason, get congress to write new law that reverses the tax exempt status of churches and specifies prison time for political tampering by religious entities and their front organizations. This will turn churches back into what they should be; groups of loosely associated like minded people with only individual political power. Like the rest of us.

For more sane witty original political comment visit www.jblunt.com

James Ricky Thompson West Campus Double Murder

2009-07-27T13:07:00.004-05:00

I have not written in a while and I normally only blog about the sins of National politicians, but last Friday night the Austin Police Department staged a VERY exciting show of force just across the street from my house and I felt like relating it to my fan(s?)
I am Thompson’s neighbor. He seemed to be completely normal in my occasional encounters with him. On the third day after he moved in he and his roommates showed up at my front door asking if I had seen anything of a black man who they said they caught jumping down from their roof after an attempted break-in. Later that day he borrowed some tools to use installing several security lights around the house. This house which had previously been one of the darkest corners on the block was now the most brightly lit house on the street. Not exactly what the average drug dealer with high traffic usually desires. They had lots of friends stopping by, including many fine examples of Austin’s hottest and nicest young women. They seemed to be very ordinary 20ish partiers who were enjoying their youth and lack of responsibility as most average kids of that age do. A couple of days after the West Campus murders took place he stopped by again to borrow a drill to put up cabinets with. He returned it a few hours later and did not look like someone who was nervous or hiding a double murder.
Friday night I was sitting in my house chillin’ with a local high profile guitar player/producer I know watching a movie when we heard a loud noise outside the house that sounded like a large metal dumpster lid crashing closed. I usually grab my shotgun before going outside when I think there is foul play about but tonight I didn't and its a damn good thing. The first thing I saw as I opened the door were the large letters S.W.A.T. on a military like vehicle. I decided the shotgun would have been serious liability in this situation and was glad I had not done my usual. Noting that I had exited the house and was not yet dead or face down on the concrete, I was relived to deduce that they were not here for me. There were half a dozen uniformed officers; half a dozen SWAT team members; Ambulance and Fire Department vehicles blocking the street for about a quarter of a block. They were definitely there for something other than an ordinary pot bust. After a much larger explosion than the first two occurred, the waiting SWAT team members stormed the house. Shortly after that a voice from the darkness near the SWAT vehicle said “go back in your house” so I did, briefly. After a few minutes I noticed my other neighbors standing in their driveway and joined them watching from directly across the street as the situation unfolded. SWAT team members stayed for about 30-60 minutes. Police would not answer any questions except to say there was a “ongoing investigation”. Several detectives and forensic types showed up about 30 minutes after the excitement. They were Suit and Tie cops (usually homicide or white collar investigators) not narcotics cops (usually dressed down with lots of facial hair). One detective kept coming outside with a lovely young blond girl, sometimes in cuffs and other times not. He interviewed her for more than two hours off and on. As the perp was led to the awaiting police van he said something to her. I must assume that was his girlfriend. I was not ready for the perp walk and could not get my camera ready to shoot until they had put James in the van. The neighbors and I stood around for a long time speculating about why such a show of force had occurred and Sunday mornings news stories told the tale.
Blaming the double murder on DRUGS as the mass media and police have been so quick to do misses the reality of what happened. James had to be high on cocaine or something else. I encountered him at the 7-11 one night last week and he looked like he had "cocaine eyes". Cocaine or Methamphetamine or other REAL NARCOTICS cause this type of irrational behavior, not marijuana. Potheads don't go around killing each other over $7k. They go around laughing, eating and falling asleep. People who say legalizing pot will fix this problem are also wrong. Nothing can fix an individual who is willing to commit murder for such a pittance. If James was stealing from his pot connection to start with and then moved on to murder, that is evidence of a deeper personality flaw not marijuana addiction. Pot does not turn you into a thief or a murderer.
I entered the house the next morning with the landlord to do an assessment of the damage. He was nearly in tears. Everywhere a flash bang grenade had been used there was damage to adjacent walls and ceilings. Either these folks were the trashiest people on the planet or the police had trashed everything, ripping open drawers and spilling the contents. There were many broken windows and the front door was destroyed. Air conditioning vents were pulled away from walls. Must the police always destroy a house to make an arrest? Occasionally they should try tricking the desired target to come outside with some kind of rouse. Any kind of story will do. Narcotics agents are good at persuading people to believe lies. The poor unfortunate landlord is now faced with thousands of dollars in repair. Who is going to pay for it? James Thompson? No. Who did the damage? James Thompson? No. APD destroyed this house. APD should pay for the damage. Legislation is needed to compensate Homeowners for destructive Police action that is no fault of a guiltless homeowner/landlord.
All and all it was a very entertaining evening here on Alexandria Drive. Too bad the owner of the home who had absolutely NOTHING to do with it is picking up the tab.

JBlunt

Letter to John McLaughlin

2008-12-28T09:09:00.000-06:00

Dear John,
I have been watching your show for the better part of two decades and I am glad to say it has always been a cogent analysis of what is going on in the world, until today. I have never heard such a load of crap as I heard today on your show. I am from Texas and I am a Democrat and you should take to heart what I am about to tell you.
NAFTA has been a disaster for the middle class in Texas. The enhanced illegal immigration that has occurred since its inception has destroyed the wage base, increased crime and burdened government agencies with unmanageable unrecoverable costs. The only people who have benefited are illegal immigrants and the corporations that employ them. Anyone can pick a random set of statistics to support their argument if they are willing to ignore countervailing statistics that undermine their argument. I thought you were above that. And if gas does go to $10.00/gallon we will simply have caught up with the rest of the world who pay that now. Expensive gasoline would be a boon for America. It would force the inevitable conversion to a solar electric paradigm that the world WILL eventually accept and America would once again find itself on the cutting edge of a technological revolution instead of the ragged tail we now cling to.
The Press is not coddling Barak Obama. They recognize and properly acknowledge a human being of high integrity, intelligence, maturity and secular moral certainty that the public and the constitution demands of a commander in chief. The polar opposite of what we have now. Hillary, John and George ALL represent the same old shit none of us are willing to tolerate any more, period.
I cannot believe that the entire panel (with a feeble caveat by Clarence Page) chose to assist in propagating the lie of pre Democratic debate phone calls to the Canadian Ambassador which have been flatly denied by the Canadian Ambassador and are as yet unsubstantiated by the CBC. Shame on you for going to press with rumor and presenting it as fact. Again, I thought you were above that.
I will conclude with just one more thought because I realize lengthy, verbose emails are rarely taken seriously. For God’s sake let Eleanor Clift finish her points. I notice you all shut the F up when the attractive young and markedly un-credentialed Monica Crowley speaks. You misogynist assholes!
JBlunt

Cheneys Got a Gun

2006-02-19T22:19:00.000-06:00

Cheney’s Got a Gun
Sung to Aerosmith’s Janie’s Got a Gun.

Cheney’s got a gun.
His workday’s just begun.
Killin’ is so much fun.
Everybody is on the run.

Soldiers and pilots too,
They kill Iraqi’s for you.
But you’ve never pulled the trigger.
You’re always outside looking in.
If there’s an order you will give it.
But now you want to live it.
Goin’ huntin’ in the mornin’ Friend!

Cheney’s got a gun.
It glistens in the mornin’ sun.
The boys are out havin’ fun.
Helpless birdies are on the run.

What did those birdies do?
They gave an excuse to you.
And when you pulled the trigger,
that lawyer went right to the ground.
You said “Man that rush was bithchin’.
He’s down but he’s still twitchin’.
Should I hit him with another round?”

Runaway, runaway from the Press.
(Da-vid-Greg'-ry)
Runaway, runaway run-away-eay-eay-eay-eaye.

Cheney’s got a gun.
Lunch of beer, cocaine and rum.
And now the deed is done.
But the Sheriff might spoil the fun.

What will the White House do?
“If the press gets this we’re screwed!”
From an undisclosed location,
we can keep the shooter out of sight.
Instead of telling all the nation,
“We’ll give it to one station,
who we know will never shine the light.”

Runaway, runaway from the Press
(Da-vid-Greg'-ry)
Runaway, runaway, run-away-eay-eay-eay-eaye

Cheney’s got a gun.
His workday’s just begun.
Killin’ is so much fun.
The World is on the run.

What can sane people do?
Cash in Cheney’s last I.O.U.?
All the dead and wounded soldiers,
and torture victims know it’s true.
Without Bush and Cheney’s killin’
The World would all be chillin’.
Future skies will once again be blue.

Cheney’s lost his gun.
The liars have come undone.
The World is much more fun.
Nobody is on the run.

Coulter's Conundrum

2005-12-08T23:36:00.000-06:00

Dear Blunts,

Thursday night when shouted down by a crowd of college students, Ann Coulter decided to open a question and answer session with the statement "I love to engage people who are stupider than I am."

Some educators and journalists might have problems with the form and or innuendo of the statement. I disagree. I think its perfect.

Her heinous grammar deliciously wraps her admission of stupidity in flawless irony.

She’s mo' better at speakin' than I ever reckoned.

John McJunkin aka JBlunt Austin Texas

Katrina Kills

2005-09-21T21:33:00.000-05:00

‘ Let the Niggers die……’
must have been the subconscious mindset at the White House as New Orleans filled with water and hundreds of thousands of Americans became stranded in rising water during the first few days following hurricane Katrina’s trip through the Crescent City. One thing’s for sure, this tragedy has laid bare the routinely covered tracks of class and race that still divide this country. There were failures at all levels of government from George Bush all the way down to the individuals who looted items other than food, clothing and shelter. It was a series of unfortunate events, most of them completely controllable, that left hundreds of thousands of mostly black Americans to survive or die on their own.

The factor that is most sinister, oppressive and damaging to the individuals affected is the subconscious racism that still permeates every corner of our society. Most white people and Bill Cosby say that it is the fault of the downtrodden minorities that they are still downtrodden. If you think nearly two centuries of government sanctioned apartheid has been erased by less than half a century’s affirmative action you are living in the Matrix and I hope Morphius visits you soon! Take the RED pill. This lingering subconscious apartheid leads to unequal education and opportunity. It causes default judgments to occur in your mind. Like, the two white guys with crew cuts hanging out on one corner are good old boys and the two black guys with short hair hanging out on another corner are drug dealers. The most public and a classic example of this is the Associated Press’s now infamous pair of photos depicting different groups of Katrina survivors. In one photo, white people are seen “finding” what they need to survive in a local grocery store while in another photo black people are seen “looting” what they need to survive from the same store. Is it the color of the individuals’ skin, the neighborhood or the income of the people that drowned that caused their deaths? No. A natural disaster caused the deaths. Their race and class just made them much more vulnerable. While everyone is writhing in the agony of Katrina you should remember that poverty, a by-product of racism, kills more people every year than terrorism and natural disasters combined

At the Federal level, the first failures began occurring as long ago as the 1990’s when scientists studying global warming filed reports regarding the retreating coastlines and began asking for money to restore the costal wetlands all along the gulf coast. The Clinton administration funded these projects but once President Bush was appointed in 2000, money for these critical efforts was dramatically cut to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and an illegal war in Iraq which by the way has made the response capability of both the Guard and the Military to this tragedy more tenuous. Two more Bush mistakes that Katrina would expose were President Bush’s lowering of the status of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from a Cabinet level office with the ear of the President to a division of Homeland Security two layers removed from the White House. The appointment of long time Bush friend, State government intern and mediocre horse trainer David “Brownie” Brown to be head of FEMA was a crime against America. I know appointing friends to political patronage jobs is a long standing, dishonorable and widely accepted American tradition, but to appoint such an unqualified person to a job on which American lives are dependant is criminally negligent.
FEMA’s continuing incompetence is too broad, too pervasive and too ongoing to try to cover in the space I am allotted here, but here’s just one more for you. Right now there are hundreds of loads of ice in refrigerated trailers all around the country waiting to come to Louisiana Mississippi and Alabama. FEMA could have dropped them in the stricken areas near where they are needed. The contents would be available to those who need it and they would only need to pay someone to keep the refrigeration units full of fuel. Instead they are scattered about the country and we are paying truck drivers and storage facilities to hold them.

The State of Louisiana failed when it was slow to move in the National Guard and resisted the presence of the American Military when President Bush first moved to deploy the 82nd Airborne into the area. This hesitation in the face of disaster cost lives. The Governor was worried about losing administrative control over the situation. In reality she had already lost control and was incapable of getting it back without the help of the military. The US Military is the only organization large enough; disciplined enough; mobile enough and well enough equipped to deal with anything a devastating as hurricane Katrina. The Governor should have had National Guard troops enter the city concurrent to the water’s entry so that order could have been maintained and logistical support provided to the emergency services that were still operating. The US Coast Guard was on the scene as soon as the wind died down and in the first few days rescued more than 6000 people with 11 helicopters operating 24 hours a day. They are the only government heroes in this tragedy. The main reason they were able to respond so effectively and quickly is because they weren’t listening to FEMA or the Governor or the Mayor. They were simply executing a task that they are well trained for and pre authorized to perform. The Governor needs to assign “Basics Missions” to 2 different units of the National Guard: a Water & Food unit; a Shelter and Sewage unit. These units would operate like the Coast Guard, independently and automatically once an emergency was declared. An emergency in this tragedy was declared two days prior to the failure of the levees. If these units existed, the points of last refuge would be secured and stocked when refugees arrived. Information collected from refugees by these first responders could be used to facilitate the Military’s search and rescue efforts when they arrive.

Local failures that lead to unnecessary death and disorder were: the Mayor’s lack of an adequate evacuation plan (in May of this year the Mayor actually released a PSA that basically told New Orleanians that they were on their own when it came to evacuation); the unanticipated desertion of officers from the New Orleans Police Depatment; and negligently poor planning for situations that could not only be predicted, they should have been obvious.

Poor planning like, why were hospitals allowed to have their generators the basement? Doh! Where were the giant potable water reservoirs? Most hospitals don’t have them! Potable water tanks should be large and in the basement. Generators should be on the roof! Power should be divided by floors so that as a floor is abandoned to the rising water it can be disconnected and does not take down the entire facility. Why don’t hospitals have large drainable sewage tanks to where waste can be diverted when sewage systems fail? What were the architects and planners thinking? Every medical facility, retirement home and designated point of last refuge should be stocked with more than enough of the basics to allow refugees to survive until Federal help arrives.

Order is the most important factor for the public at large. The New Orleans Police Department lost command and control and was immobilized by the rising water. A state with more swamp buggies than any other, more air boats, more john boats, more pirogue’s, more fucking shallow water conveyances of various types than any other state, and they were immobilized! Why doesn’t the NOPD have a few of these? And how many more 9-11’s and Katrina’s will have to happen before emergency services of all forms abandon their centralized communications systems that fail when the repeaters and base stations fall victim to the event. This was the biggest problem for Police in NYC on 9-11 and it repeated itself in spades in New Orleans. Without communications or the ability to move about much of the New Orleans Police force abandoned their stations and went to try to help family, protect property or just fled a deteriorating situation they had no ability to control. A situation that would not have deteriorated so precipitously or as far as it did if the basic needs of the refugees had been provided for.

Poor evacuation planning left busses, hundreds of them parked in lots on Friday and Saturday prior to the storm where they were destroyed by the storm surge. Their drivers should have been ordered to stay and transport the thousands of people who had no car or money to get out on their own and then loaded with ice, water and MRE’s on the return trip for those who could not get out in time. Everyone who wants to get out and has enough time should be facilitated in evacuating. EVERYONE!

Because evacuation did not include everyone, officials made a decision to send people to the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center. Both last resort destinations were cruel jokes. No food. No water. No security. No place to take a shit. How come we can we get enough port-a-potties for an outdoor concert with an expected attendance of 200,000 with 24 hours notice and one phone call but there were none in place in the designated shelters 5 days after the problem had become desperate? The department of Homeland Security prevented the Red cross from going to either location for days. Network TV reporters could get in but the Red Cross and the National Guard couldn’t get a truckload or two of basic supplies in? COME ON! The Police said they were too scared and out numbered to provide security. TOUGH SHIT COPPER! Get in there and put yourself in harms way for the law abiding citizens. That’s what we pay you for. And again I ask the Governor, where was the National Guard? Last time I saw a National Guardsman on duty he was packing an M-16 and wearing a flack jacket. He’d make short work of a thug with a gun stolen from a pawn shop.

You may or may not have noticed that I have not used the word ‘flood’ in describing what happened to New Orleans, and for good reason. The insurance industry is adding insult to injury by contending that wind driven water (storm surge) is equivalent to flood water (rainfall) and is denying insurance coverage to anyone who has a waterline in their house. They will and should lose this argument. Rainfall totals cannot account for the water depth that was evident in most neighborhoods. Only wind. Water is no different than any other inanimate object that is propelled by the wind and causes subsequent damage. If wind blows a car or a tree into your house you’re covered. If wind blows water into your house you should be covered too. But for the wind (legal ease), neither the car, nor the tree nor the water would have damaged your house. Many properties destroyed by the storm surge are above 100 year flood planes and will still be after this storm because this wasn’t a flood. A hypothetical example: A large water tank above and adjacent to your mountain side house fails in a windstorm and the water released from the split open tank destroys your house on its way down the hill. Have you been in a flood? Is your house now below the flood plane? Will your insurance company even hint about not paying? No. NO. And NO!

And lastly I offer a solution that eliminates almost every problem I wrote about above that relates to storm surge. Fill it in, the whole city. Turn New Orleans into a city constructed on a dome, not in a bowl. If that creates a few extra floors below ground level in office buildings that survived, so be it. Turn New Orleans into the world’s largest landfill project. Raise the elevation of every square foot of New Orleans to 3 feet above high tide and provide those who’s houses and buildings were destroyed by the storm enough money to rebuild. Let’s make New Orleans the poster city for the right way to rebuild in costal areas that suffer severe storm damage. Raise the elevation of the land, strengthen the buildings and restore the costal buffers that provide natural protection to lives and property. Don’t just “set ‘em up” so Mother Nature can “knock ‘em down” again because she will eventually someday come knocking once more.

The President has not attacked this problem with the same fervor he exhibited during 9-11 when the enemy was terrorism. Perhaps it is partially because the victims are just a bunch of poor black people who don’t vote for him anyway. Perhaps it was because no one on his staff wanted to tell him the truth as some have said. There is probably some truth to both deeply troubling assumptions. I hope the handling of the aftermath of Katrina drives the death nail deep into Bush’s coffin. He has failed at every aspect of governing since 9-11. He’s killing us all, literally; both here and abroad.

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Please encourage your friends to visit http://www.jblunt.com/ where you will find “Humor beating a path to the Awful Truth.”

Roberts, Rove & BEER!

2005-07-24T18:49:00.000-05:00

Hello Blunts!

I have been on the road with the Tour de Fat for New Belgium Brewing. It’s basically a traveling circus and music show carnival bike ride something. It is a blast! Events include a slow race; a tour of the local town center with everyone riding freaky fabricated bikemorphs in an attempt to attract or abhor the locals; a raffle of a New Belgium custom cruiser bike; a couple of “not the usual” bands; a burlesque show (YEAH!); good food and lots of New Belgium beer! All shows are Zero environmental impact events with total recycling of trash and food and use Solar Powered Staging by Sustainable Waves. New Belgium Brewing itself relies on 100% off the grid power (80% wind and 20% waste water methane recovery) to brew its beer and is a wholly employee owned company. How much better does it get than that, I ask you? Austin used to host it annually but permitting here in Austin became problematic and when they moved it to Rocky Hill Ranch in Smithville the attendance dropped off and the event has not returned. If you want this FREE festival of fun and freakiness to return to Austin, write Chris Winn cwinn@newbelgium.com. I’m having a blast and if you can join us in one of the 8 or so towns left on the tour, please do. For dates and towns go to www.newbelgium.com and click on The Vibe\Tour de Fat.

As for politics, Democrats and anyone else who appreciates a disciplined, intelligent, thinking man with impeccable credentials, the ability to and a history of separating their personal beliefs from the application of the Constitution as it pertains to the written law, should support the nomination of John Roberts to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. By all accounts, both personal anecdotal and professional references he has an impeccable record of jurisprudence, advocacy and professionalism. The idea that such an idiot (Bush) could have chosen so wisely when it was so important boggles the mind. The sane members of G.H.W. Bush’s former staff were consulted heavily on the choice. Rove probably handed Jr. a fishbowl full of raffle tickets that all had the same name on them so he could pretend he was actually making the choice. I say liberals and true conservatives (not to be confused with fascist social conservatives) should shut up and hope for Souter part deaux! Someone as intelligent as Roberts can and always does separate their personal beliefs from their legal constitutional obligations to protect the people. I really think Jr. has made the same “error” his dad did and that Roberts will turn out to be a reasonable moderate force for privacy, human rights and everything else the Warren Court of the 70’s gave us.

Karl Rove can’t be a very happy camper these days. George Bush can’t be real happy either. It’s as though his brain has betrayed him. One thing is clear, someone on the flight deck of Air Force One gave up the identity of C.I.A. agent Vallery Plame Wilson to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson for showing the President to be the liar he’s always been. Consequently every person inside and outside the C.I.A. she worked with has been exposed and become less effective in the war on terror if not in real danger of bodily harm. An innocent reporter is in prison and Rove is not! Disgusting! He’s damn editlucky no one we know of has died as a result of his treason.
What he thought was just another in his long litany of political dirty tricks has turned out to violate the 1917 Espionage Act and the more recent Covert Operatives Protection Act. Perhaps his first call after reviewing the “work up” that Scooter Libby had done on Joe Wilson (likely at Rove’s request and with the Presidents knowledge) should have been to his lawyer instead of to Robert Novak. Any good lawyer would have told him he was about to commit a serious crime. To boot, Karl has apparently lied to federal agents during the investigation and they know it! Oops! That alone can get you a decade in the Federal Penitentiary. The President’s knowledge of this “work up” and subsequent actions to be taken on its findings has likely already been testified to before the Grand Jury by Colon Powell. Witnesses place all three gentlemen on Air Force One at the same time discussing the same document with each other. That’s why the criminal Bush has backed down from promising to “fire any one involved” to “dealing appropriately with anyone who has committed a crime”.
The President is impeachable for lying to us about the reasons for war in Iraq and now is impeachable for trying to cover up the lies he told us. His and his accomplices crimes’ make the Nixon gang look like a bunch of pikers. What happened is blatantly apparent and if the special prosecutor has any balls at all Bush will be referred to the Congress for Impeachment; Rove and Libby will go to prison and the new Supreme Court will reverse Bush vs. Gore on the first Monday in October 2005. OK that last part is just fantasy, but it’s a delicious one for most of us. The saying is true, “If you’re not completely appalled, you haven’t been paying attention.” Yet we allow it to continue by our lack of audible outrage. Not ME! F.U.W!

Peace Love and BEER to YOU my fellow Blunts.

JBlunt

2005-03-25T15:41:00.000-06:00

JBLunt

Austin RV Revolt

2005-03-24T18:16:00.000-06:00

Everyone who has been harrased through abuse of the complaint based system used to enforce City of Austin codes, PLEASE click on the Austin RV Revolt http://www.austinrvrevolt.blogspot.com link and tell your story. Please help me propigate this link by sending it to everyone on your email list or to anyone you know who has a story to tell. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!
JBlunt

RV Protest-OFF the RECORD

2005-03-22T16:38:00.000-06:00

I'm about 4 days into this protest and things are getting very interesting. I have compiled here a littony of stories, complaints and anechdotes given to me off the record by City officials. The following comments are paraphrased from direct comments made to me in the course of this saga.

*There was a guy in this neighborhood that got cited for having one of those add-on carports and he got so mad he went around the entire area and turned in about 100 complaints at once all for the same thing he had been cited for. I spent weeks wasting my time going all around here making everybody mad and all because one person, you don't even know who didn't like this guy's brand new carport.
*My guys have a lot better things to do than going around chasing down complaints like these. We are already short on resources and have more than enough to do. It really urks me the amount of time and money we spend chasing these complaints.
*Who knows. Anything can set someone off. I got a series of complaints on one property that had a domestic dispute occurring there at the time. After a while I had to just get the parties together and cut off the City's envolvement before things got out of hand and the police came.
*If I could I wouldn't enforce any of these bullshit ordinances that make peoples lives miserable. It's becoming like a police state, like Berlin under the Nazi's.
*6' wood or masonary fence that blocks it from ordinary public view, thats it. It needs to be stable so it won't blow over in the wind. We're not interested in asthetics. We have no opinion on that. Do whatever you want. Sounds like a good idea.
*This tickles the shit out of me. I love it.
*I hope you get all these laws thrown out. What buisness does the City have telling you what you can do on your own property anyway?
*I think thats a great idea. Keep me informed on how you do.
*I hope it works.
*Anyone who gets mad at you or just wants to start trouble can use us as a tool to a personal end. Half the time it's not really about the violation, it's about the individual.

JBlunt

RV Protest update 03/22/05

2005-03-22T11:36:00.000-06:00

I have just received my first negative response from my RV Ordinance protest. Oddly enough (or not) it came from my next door neighbor. She was in tears. She said I had "really hurt her" and that I was "being a jerk". She argued that I had created an eyesore (true) and insisted that she was not the one who turned me in. Due to some poor editing on the part of KVUE it appeared that her neighbor opposite me was opposed to the protest action. He is not. He was also threatened with a $2000.00/day fine. (curious, no?) He helped me put the fence sections in place in my yard and I have more sections that were intended for the boat parked in his driveway. We just couldn't get them up before the TV crews arrived.

I sincerely regret the anguish she is going through. She's nice and I like her. She had some friends in from out of town this weekend and she said "they made fun of her because of what (I'm) doing." Anybody see anything wrong with that? Do your friends make fun of you when someone else acts stupidly? Mine don't.

She thinks I miss the point when she says I was the one to buy the trailer and have to take responsibility for obeying the rules.

I think she misses the point when I say the law is being applied unfairly and that people ought to live and let live. Not to mention the fact that everone else in the neigborhood, nay most of the town is free from enforcement of this ordinance. I just want to be treated like everyone else. Equally.

At about this point she gave me a real go to hell look and told me to get my dogs' shit out of her yard. Which I did.

I hope things gets better after the protest is over.

JBlunt

RV Protest update 03/22/05

2005-03-22T09:40:00.000-06:00

Well the email response has been 100% positive so far about my RV ordinance protest. For every show of support I will be adding a thumb-tack to my billboard enclosure. Please email your favorite RV publication to help spread the word about this protest. If you are tired of idiots with no aparrent life who drive down the street looking for ways to jack with people they don't even know or give a rat's ass about, contact me and I will note your support on my billboard. I am beginning to see much wider press coverage. Jump on the bandwagon!

Thanks to everyone who's spoken up for property owners rights!
You can visit the protest site at:

3703 Alexandria Drive

in Austin, TX

jblunt@austin.rr.com
JBlunt

RV parking ordinance protest in Austin TX

2005-03-21T16:27:00.000-06:00

Yo Blunts!
Watch KXAN TV here in Austin TX tonight to see the protest being waged by yours truly against the City of Austin's RV parking ordinance.
Last month an unknown complaintant called in to the City Zoning Enforcement Office to complain about my travel trailer parked in the driveway. I read the ordinance and constructed an enclosure that meets the requirements of the ordinance but is clearly less desirable than parking it in the driveway. I hope the asshole who complained will learn thier lesson and not jack with people just because they can. I will post pictures here soon!
AND if there are any lawyers out there who will offer pro bono assistance to my lawsuit in federal court to attemt to invalidate complaint based enforcement please email jblunt@austin.rr.com.
JBlunt

Immigration, like abortion, should be Safe, Legal and RARE

2005-02-15T10:58:00.000-06:00

A lot of people these days are considering what to do to help or stem the tide of illegal aliens that cross the U.S./Mexico border every year. These individuals employed in mostly menial labor jobs when they arrive after taking great risk just to get here. Some argue that America could not function without these men and women who work jobs that are, in my eyes, tantamount to slave-labor. I thought we had fought and won a war once upon a time long ago to end the exploitation of minorities. Landscapers, contractors and corporate farms seem to have forgotten who won that war. I used to be an employer of Mexican nationals. I went broke paying $10- $16 an hour while my competitors exploited the same class of individuals at minimum wage. Our current President wants to sanctify this abuse with the new immigration bill now before Congress. This bill would give more legitimacy to those who are forced by the economic tyranny of their country to flee to the only slightly less abusive economic tyranny of this country. It does not do anything to actually help the abused; it just makes it ‘OK’. But is it really OK to take advantage of an entire race of people just because you can? And as we take into America all these millions of unassimilated foreigners will the U.S. become something other than what it is now? You know, kind of like what happened to the Indians? Should America stand by and let this happen? Would it be a bad thing?

In the eyes of those who think migrant workers are a boon, the most important thing is that these people be given the opportunity to live and work in the U.S. These strange bedfellows include greedy American consumers, the corporations that feed their greed, Republicans and a handful of misguided human rights advocates. Greedy American consumers want to continue an injustice that brings them cheap produce. Corporations enjoy exploiting the wage disparity that nets them more money while pleasing the greedy Americans. Republicans think it’s a way to get more votes from a minority blind to the exploitation by trumpeting a few proposals that sound good but just perpetuate the injustice. And as to why some human rights advocates advocate for a subjugated minority to remain a subjugated minority (support the President’s plan) is simply beyond common sense comprehension.

In the eyes of those who think migrant workers are a problem, the serpent has many heads. There are those opponents who remember that this is a democracy and that (occasionally) majority rules. Trouble for them is, Hispanics are rapidly becoming the new prominent minority in this country and if you take the population projections out far enough, presto, white Europeans no longer rule this country. Amexico is born! Opponents also point to public services enjoyed by but allegedly not paid for by illegal aliens and their offspring such as public schools, medical care, food stamps, children’s services and so on. Opponents blame immigrants for drug importation. The trouble with that argument is that if illegal aliens were employed in the drug trade they sure as hell wouldn’t need the near slave-labor jobs they have to take when they arrive. Some opponents are offended by even the existence of bilingual ATM’s, signage and stores with Spanish marquees that leave them baffled as to what they sell because they “no hablo Español.” I used to be one of those people. Then I went to Europe for a few weeks. I’ve never cursed public bilingual postings of any kind since.

The two main problems are of course wage disparity and assimilation. Wage disparity causes the build up of a large potential pool of eager laborers just on the other side of the border. A failure to assimilate into American culture by those laborers who do cross the border and stay is changing the culture of America on this side of the border.

Wage disparity can be blamed on the past, present and future governments in Mexico. Mexico will always be a poverty ridden nation as long as the wealthy elites hold all the power in Mexico. Mexican government politicians would like to see America take on more of the socio-economic burden they are unwilling to bear in their own country. They have even gone so far as to say Mexican nationals should have an “expectation” of a right to work in the U.S. Until regular Mexicans organize and defeat the paid politicians who see to it that Mexican socio-economic reform remains a dream, wage disparity will always be a problem. Don’t blame American industry for this disparity! Corporate interests all along the southern U.S. pay the least amount of money they can, offer no benefits, no overtime, nothing they are not required by law to provide. If they could eliminate the wage disparity between the U.S. and Mexico by lowering wages, they would! Some American consumers would just die (and we should let them) if farm workers were paid a living wage resulting in them having to pay a few cents more for a loaf of bread or a basket of fruit. They contend that Americans won’t take the low paying jobs that the illegal aliens take. And they’re right. I wouldn’t pick fruit or harvest vegetables for $5 an hour. No one should. When’s the last time one of you 20 something call center pussies who eat junk food and read from a script all day long actually did some manual labor? If you ever did you’d find yourself ashamed of either the $10 an hour you are paid for munching and chatting through a few hours of your day to support yourself, or the $5 an hour paid to good hard working people who labor until their hands bleed 10 hours a day, sacrifice their youth, health and sometimes freedom to support large extended families. Harvesting is hard labor. Citizens of the U.S. who work hard labor jobs like longshoremen, steelworkers and pipe fitters get $15-$20 an hour or more. I’ve had two of those jobs in my life and worked as a farm laborer. Harvesting is more physically demanding then either of those “trades” but because we allow exploitation of an illegal minority we pay those who work the harder job 60%-80% less than those who have a “trade”. Last time I checked with a family farmer friend of mine, he considered his work a “trade.” If harvesting paid $15-$20 an hour you’d find a lot more white folks and powerful labor unions in the fields.

We’ve been screwing the Mexicans for years and their government has been bending them over and handing us the Vaseline for just as long. This sick, twisted, codependent relationship must stop and the only way is for one of us to act like adults and end it. We have all the money and therefore all the power in this relationship so we are the only ones in a position to take meaningful actions to correct it. My suggestions for fixing this complex, intertwined, imbedded and accepted injustice are a lot like tough love.

1) America should make the border of the United States and Mexico impenetrable. An impenetrable border will force everyone’s hand that has an interest in immigrant labor.
2) Institute a Guest Worker program that allows frequent unfettered traceable movement of laborers to and from the markets where their services are desired and construction of Guest Worker processing centers near all crossing points where documented Mexican nationals can walk in with a voucher from an U.S. employer for a guaranteed job with living accommodations in hand and walk out with a work visa from the U.S. in minutes, not months.
3) Temporary repatriation (at least on paper) of all illegal aliens currently living here. People wouldn’t actually have to leave but they would be forced under threat of deportation to produce valid Mexican ID and obtain the same visa available at the processing centers.
4) A publicly financed rail system capable of transporting workers from the Mexican processing centers to the various locations across the country where the jobs are, and then back again to Mexico at the end of the season.
5) Fiscal arrangements between the U.S. and Mexico that compensate America for expenses incurred transporting and tracking Guest workers while they’re here and compensate Mexico for the Social Security payroll taxes collected in the U.S. that Mexicans pay and never see a dime of upon retirement.
6)Complete protection of immigrant laborers under all U.S. labor laws including the right to organize and form unions to enhance their bargaining power with the corporations that now indiscriminately abuse them along with full access to all social services and other amenities any U.S. resident would expect.

If this normalization of labor practices between the U.S. and Mexico can be realized there will be benefits for everyone. Exploitation would vanish. Coyotes would no longer have jobs. Corporations would have to pay wages based on demands of real people protected under law not on the faint pleadings of illegal laborers with no protected rights. Wages would rise for all farm workers. Immigrant laborers would be protected under all U.S. laws and no longer subject to the indiscriminant abuses of corporations that have no fear of retribution for those abuses. Subconscious as well as blatant discrimination would wane over time because derogatory term “illegal” would now be about the actions of the persecutor not the individual being persecuted. In America, being part of the system offers social acceptance; access to public services; legal protection; recourse for abuses; opportunity to petition the government when you want change and more.

Assimilation poses its own set of complicated paradoxes. Failure to assimilate causes a lot of the social and racial tension that exists on this side of the border. I would bet you a million dollars that if every Mexican national that came to America spoke fluent English and consistently drove over the speed limit they wouldn’t even be noticed in American culture. Do we really want or expect Mexicans to assimilate to what are essentially western European standards of culture or do we want them to bring to America new culture that enriches us and makes us stronger through diversity? The answer of course is YES to BOTH. America is built on diversity and a conglomeration of assimilated cultures that make up the “melting pot” culture we enjoy living in today. Mexican nationals who avoid assimilation by living their lives outside the system pick up a heavy burden they can never set down. They must first suffer Mexican exploitation by coyotes to get access to the near slave-labor environment here in America. This is followed by the ridicule of Americans in the form of stares and discrimination when they gather on street corners and labor camps. They are further exploited by American corporations who pay the least they can and treat them however they want to because their lack of legal status prevents them from using labor laws to protect themselves. They must constantly lie about who they are, commit fraud, falsify documents, live in the shadows and must always live in fear of being found out, arrested and deported. This is BULLSHIT! This should not be happening.

Assimilation for Guest Workers would be less critical to those who are worried about the effect on American culture. If you don’t live here or don’t want to live here you would simply participate in the Guest Worker program where assimilation is not expected. Mexicans who do want to take up permanent residence and or citizenship in the U.S. should want to assimilate in the same way as the Italians, Germans, Irish, Vietnamese, Japanese and others. Right now many Mexicans are either resisting assimilation or going through a process of imposed assimilation that is more akin to what Africans and American Indians went through. And it doesn’t seem to be going much better now than it did then.

Assimilation is important to maintaining the "melting pot" culture that has become America. Right now unassimilated illegal aliens are changing America. Do we really want some of the common realities of Mexican life to take root here? Do we want things like bribery of police; passive acceptance of illegal payoffs to government officials: widespread abject poverty; third world quality health services; government condoned air, land and water pollution; contaminated public water; civic disregard for public safety; a crime rate that even the military can’t control; population densities like that of the Gaza Strip; disappearances and murders that are rarely solved and drug wars as common practices here? Don’t Mexicans flee Mexico because all those things are different here? Do we want these aspects of Mexican culture in America? NO! If you want to live here, be prepared to assimilate and leave the negative aspects of your culture behind. Bring to America the flavors of your culture, not its afflictions.

Wage disparity is an injustice and should not be tolerated.
Assimilation for those who want to call themselves Americans should be desired by the individual and expected by society.

I’m sure I have offended almost everyone involved in or who cares about this issue. Good. Maybe you’ll think new thoughts. Maybe you’ll see the other persons point. Maybe you’ll talk to them about what an asshole you think I am. Maybe you’ll have more meaningful discussions of the real issues. Maybe you’ll step out of the covered cages that blind you to the truth if I rattle them this hard.

JBlunt

Gay Activists shold point the gun at the enemy instead of repeatedly shooting themselvews in the foot.

2005-01-04T18:32:00.000-06:00

Homosexuals, God bless ‘em, keep shooting themselves in the foot politically. They seem bound and determined to wipe out any chance of getting what they want out of marriage because they are hung up on the word marriage. I have been following this issue for some time and now have some advice for my friend loving friends.

In September of 2003, Homosexuals believed they’d won a victory in Massachusetts when the Supreme Court of that state endorsed Gay marriage. If you call sticking a hot poker into the eyes of the only people who can help you enact a Federal Law endorsing gay unions of any type and raising the ire of the 98% of the population that is not gay a victory, then "good show fellas". Subsequently, Representative Barney Frank came out against the “Marriages” that later began taking place in San Francisco, CA on Valentine’s Day. Mayor Gavin Newsome should have listened to him. Since then, the California Supreme Court (not exactly a conservative hotbed) has ruled the marriages unconstitutional and the Mayor’s political prospectus has gone from reading “the next Bill Clinton” to “has-been pretty boy with no political capital outside of Haight-Asbury.” People with liberal leanings should take Representative Frank’s advice and think before they act when dealing with such a politically sensitive issue. Sane liberals of all inclinations should be rabidly paranoid of this movement.

The political wrath of the federal politicians and media started almost instantly after Massachusetts. If the chosen path had been to abandon the ‘M’ word and secure the rights and privileges every gay wants to have with some other word, advocates would have been less of a target for the radical right. Civil Unions might have slipped in under the radar and advocates of these rights would be a leg up already. But the insistence on the use of the word marriage, with all its attached religious and legal implications, has raised the hackles of almost every religious or traditionalist individual in the country. Using the words Civil Union circumvents all the religious arguments, winning half the battle up front.

We already know most Republicans will vote to defeat progress on this issue. Many Democrats may someday be forced to follow suit thanks to the pressure exerted by Supreme Court’s decision in early 2004 not to hear a challenge to the Massachusetts law. In order to placate the 98% of us who are not gay, lawmakers must now consider laws banning Gay Marriage when they could be considering laws endorsing Civil Unions. If proponents of equal rights for gays continue to insist on using the word ‘marriage’ most of the viable Democratic Presidential candidates for 2008 plus Congressmen, Senators and their challengers from both parties, will be forced to take a position against gay 'marriage' in order to get elected. In this climate, passing a constitutional amendment banning gay 'marriage' forever will be easy.

Joining two persons together for life can be traced back in time without ever figuring out conclusively which authority begat which, church or state. In many early instances they are indistinguishable. The tipping point for me as to who must have originated the concept and who holds the ultimate authority in handing out marriages is that even the weddings of Kings required the sanction of a member of the dominant church. Most Kings or governments throughout history have either claimed or dictated a belief in a god of one sort or another. Marriage has been secularized over time by governments all over the world. The fact that a religious establishment (marriage) is endorsed by government in direct violation of our Constitution is the root problem for us here in America. The Separation Clause in our Constitution was an attempt to secularize government, an attempt to eliminate interactions between church and state in order to protect each from undermining the other (to try something new). Marriage was simply allowed to ‘fall through the cracks’ because of tradition. I argue that these ‘cracks’ never existed and that the current political storm over gay marriage is what will force us to finally correct this oversight.

If true separation of church and state existed, we would not be having this argument. We should secure equal rights for gays who want to get 'married' without using the term “Marriage!” It gets gays what they want without further blurring the line between church and state. I would venture that most folks who endorse gay 'marriage' also support the Separation Clause of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court takes any position on this matter either way, it will by its action inject government into what should be a purely religious debate. Make no mistake; “Marriage” is a preponderantly religious institution. It has been adopted into U.S. law over the years in clear violation of the Separation Clause of the Unites States Constitution. If the Supreme Court of the United States is forced into making a decision pertaining to “Marriage”, gay or straight, it will enshrine for the first time, constitutionally based case law binding church and state. What gays are trying to do now and what everyone else has been doing all along clearly violates the implied separation of Church and State set out in the First Amendment. The ACLU to my astonishment appears to support the gay agenda. If they would just look past the end of their noses to the long term consequences they would be backing Civil Unions. You would think that these words, uttered by every leader of a Church who performs a marriage, “And now by the power vested in me by (insert your local jurisdiction here)”, would be prima fascia evidence of this ongoing traditional violation of the First Amendment. The only one that should be vesting power in the Church is God.

So, let religious types keep “Marriage” as a religious pact. Let the church win the semantic argument. Let them call it (as President Bush has done) a “sacred” institution. This adds weight to the argument to apply the Separation Clause to “Marriage.” Force government to treat all Americans the same with respect to legal and civil rights by using a different word that the Church has no historical authority to exercise sanction over. By doing this you categorically eliminate the Church's right to participate in the argument. Without the church's ideologically driven fanatical input, working out the details of enforcement of ordinary rights between individuals and the state would be relegated to an obscure committee somewhere on Capitol Hill and then passed by Congress as a 'Bill that benefits everyone in America.'

Renaming the government’s description of marriage and letting the church keep performing religious “Marriage” ceremonies is far more desirable than fighting to change the traditional definition. It will give equal rights to everyone under the law without any religious taint or blessing and further delineate the bright line the First Amendment draws between church and state. The Congress needs to pass legislation as soon as possible separating marriage from any codification by government. All “Marriages” previously endorsed by government should revert to civil unions and the ability of anyone to enter into these unions in the future should be broadly allowed. Anyone “Married” in a church by a member of the clergy, gay or straight can call themselves “Married”. The Civil Union (the state and federal governments’ nomenclature for marriage) would provide the underlying rights and legal implications. Everyone will likely still use the word marriage to describe a Civil Union contract or a church sanctioned “Marriage” ceremony that includes an underlying Civil Union contract, no-one can stop that. But that would just be traditional, not legally binding.

The current path being followed by radical supporters of gay marriage will seal the deal on the Supreme Court making the final call. They will not vote in your favor and in the process, may damage the First Amendment that helps protect us all. In fact, when the politicians see that day coming, the Supreme Court won’t even get the chance. They will pass a constitutional amendment that will destroy most of the fruits of years of activism that will have occurred by then. If they do that, the first amendment won’t have been damaged, it will have been shredded. Try to have some foresight people. You’re winning battles that will likely cost you the war and hurt everyone. If we don’t soon get back to the secular view of government our forefathers intended to set in stone by adopting the First Amendment, God help us all.
JBlunt

Religion has no place in Honest Political Discourse

2004-12-31T11:40:00.000-06:00

It confuses the issues, mislabels participants and makes an honest exchange of ideas nearly impossible.

All political discourse should be conducted in a secular manner. Today, around the world, most free societies look at the US in the same way we look at radical Islamic countries. As an extremely religiously motivated society, occasionally dangerous (more so lately) who could lash out at any time against who knows who without warning. We are simply the other side of the same coin. If we could just do what the founders of this country intended and get the religion out of politics, we might get control of our government again and greatly improve our reputation around the world.

In case anyone’s forgotten, one of the main reasons the Pilgrims came to America was to free themselves from religious oppression by a government sanctioned church (The Church of England). This is why, in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the founding fathers provided for the clear separation of church and state. They made it first because it was the most important. At the time they wrote it, it was based on 150 years of American tradition, born of the ideals the Pilgrims brought with them when they came. Then, religion was beginning to creep into the new government here. So, to stay the advance of something they had journeyed so far to be free from, the Constitution was amended. The following statement could not be any clearer or more binding.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” (religion has no business in government) ”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (government has no business in religion); ………….” “Establishment” can be read as either something the government might create or as something the church might create. Either way, the government is forbidden from codifying or denying “establishment” (‘s) in any way. Since then, this conservative interpretation of the constitution has been upheld by The Supreme Court on numerous occasions over a period of more than 200 years. That’s over 350 years of history of Americans believing in a secular government. Yes, I know “God” appears in the constitution. That’s why it had to be amended, to clarify the founder’s intent.
The purely secular consideration of issues demanded by the First Amendment has been abandoned by most politicians in this country due to the acquiescence of government in the unconstitutional mixing of religion and politics. Politicians and ordinary people (you) who support one political position based on a moral or political principle commonly allow religion to twist and sometimes totally reverse their principles when evaluating another political position. Do you think you’re intellectually consistent when it comes to the purely secular politics that the Pilgrims, Founding Fathers and 350 years of tradition call for? If you are a Republican, are you really as “conservative” as you think? If you’re a Democrat, are you sure your views are largely “liberal”? Are you a “liberal” living in conservative denial? Does religion or your reaction to it distort your politics? Does religion cause some of us to fret over the shape of someone’s genitalia and use thereof? Let’s find out, shall we?
True conservatives believe in less or “hands off” government, right to privacy, balanced budgets and freedom of speech.
How many “conservative” Republicans out there feel that the choking hands of government regulation should be pulled free from the throats of corporations so that they can grow and prosper, make more money and more jobs, lift the entire economy as a whole, and raise the standard of living for each and every one of us? How many “conservative” Republicans out there feel that the heavy hand of government should be lifted from the backs of the common man in the form of tax cuts so that he or she can keep more money from the each paycheck spending it wherever they want instead of the government deciding where it should go? So then……, how come so many allegedly “conservative” Republicans keep trying to shove the controlling hand of government so far up a woman’s crotch it won’t actually fit? How come so many “conservative” Republicans are screaming bloody murder over the exquisitely conservative decision in Texas vs. Lawrence? A decision where the Supreme Court held that Mr. Lawrence and his lovers’ “right to privacy” outweighed the government’s desire to limit their right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? If Republican economic policy is so “conservative”, how come the economy goes down the crapper every time a Republican becomes President*? Wall Street types claim to favor conservatives in government yet a recent G.A.O. study shows that the stock market goes up 1.7 times as fast during Democratic administrations as it does during Republican administrations. Why? Because lately, Democrats have been the party of conservative economic policy and fiscal responsibility while Republicans have spent money like water from a fire hose.If the Republicans who are currently in charge of the government were really conservative they would balance the budget to insure our childrens’ futures, cut taxes on people who actually WORK for a living, get their noses out of gay men’s bedrooms and their hand out of my girlfriend’s cooch.
And you Democrats who think you’re so “liberal”, what’s so liberal about wanting government out of the abortion controversy? What’s so liberal about wanting all consenting adults to have a “right to privacy” to practice sex in any way they choose in their own homes? What is so “liberal” about wanting the Patriot act repealed when it’s main components restrict civil rights, violate “right to privacy” and put the government smack in the middle of our daily lives whether we want it or not? I’ll tell you what’s so “liberal” about these positions, NOTHING! These are conservative ideals that are being trampled on by today’s Republicans and championed by today’s Democrats. Theoretically, big government “liberals” should LOVE the Patriot Act! Why don’t they? It’s because on issues like these, you’re really conservative. Face it. You’re not quite as liberal as you thought you were, are you?
If you could actually take the religious component out of political discussions you might be able to have a sane airing of the issues. Most Republicans would find out that their position on abortion, gay sex and the Patriot act are liberal. “Liberals” on the other hand would be forced to admit that they are actually quite conservative on the same issues. Republicans who are true conservatives might say, “Damn, I don’t want to be a liberal on gay sex and abortion” and hopefully, change their views. “Liberals” capable of freeing themselves from “conservative” denial might say, “Damn, I guess I am conservative on these issues and would hopefully, still continue to try to change Republican minds (in spite of the fact they would be encouraging them to be more conservative). And in that moment of stark, secular, political clarity, viewed without the taint of religious prejudice, most Americans might find themselves on the same page when it comes to the two or three issues that currently tear this country in half.
And regarding what is currently the most controversial issue along these lines; Gay marriage. I always thought the A.C.L.U. was a purely secular organization. Their stand in favor of government sanctioned Gay marriage is about as far from their founding principals as it could be. Federal laws, according to the First Amendment, cannot legally contain the word marriage. Marriage is a religious “establishment” (there’s that word again) that over the years has been codified by government in clear violation of the Constitution. The A.C.L.U. should be arguing for the repeal of ALL FEDERAL LAWS relating to marriage and fight for “Equal Protection” of all individuals regardless of living arrangement. The A.C.L.U. did not respond to the Austin Dazes’ inquiries on this issue.
Religious prejudice is the cause of almost all wars, discrimination and persecution, not to mention the lack of intellectual consistency in American politics. No wonder we can’t see each others’ views clearly. Most of us can’t even see our own views for what they really are. And isn’t it a bit curious that religion only effects political issues related to someone’s genitalia? I thought you extremely religious types lived your lives in sexual denial. Why do you insist on shoving your genital preferences down the rest of our throats? Anyone who takes a look around the world with open eyes can see that religion, whether fact or fantasy, causes almost all human strife. Religion has no place in government, unless of course your motivation is to corrupt politics and give sanction to human strife.
I am not confused by religion or its practice. I am a conservative. I believe in conservative principals unaffected by the twisted logic of religion. These religiously untainted conservative political principals cause me to support ‘privacy rights’ like gay rights, reproductive rights and to oppose the Patriot Act. My economically conservative principals demand pay as you go budgeting, less income taxes for those who need all their income and more consumption taxes for those who don’t. My socially conservative principals guide me to help the truly disadvantaged and to let those who choose to be losers, lose. A conservative believes in less gun control. Sorry to those of you I just lost, but the Second Amendment is as clear as the First.
If we don’t get back to the secular government our forefathers intended soon, God help us!
JBlunt Austin, TX
JBlunt

Simon & Garfunkel

2004-07-09T14:23:00.000-05:00

JBlunt
Culture, Politics & Music

First off I’d like to thank the DAZE for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the Austin Scene.
Finally, after 30 plus years of listening to and being guided by their words and music, I saw Simon & Garfunkel Tuesday night at the Erwin Center. It was a mixed experience. The sound was excellent, the performance sublime, the stage reasonably attractive and awash with the colors of the era providing a pleasant trip down memory lane as it should have. But take your eyes off the stage or take a close look at the artists and you are slapped with the realization that this is not your father’s millennium. Nobody but NOBODY was smoking pot! Simon & Garfunkel and no-ones getting high? I had good binoculars and made several passes across the arena and saw nothing. What kind of Hippies were you? The Fair Weather Politics kind! Even after Garfunkel acted like the didgeridoo was a bong by holding a lighter near the base, the auditorium remained smokeless. Don’t tell me it’s the Smoking Ordinance. I have seen and participated in virtual smoke-outs at many previous shows at the Erwin Center. Bowie, Nine Inch Nails, Eagles, Tom Petty. I however, was not deterred… at first. I managed to enjoy a toke or two here and there throughout the first two-thirds of the show. Then suddenly, the thirtyish man next to me said “Don’t do it! Don’t do it or Me and the Big Guy on the end are going to get you kicked out of here!” To which I responded, “You’re going to assault me for smoking pot?” He obviously had no sense of what Simon & Garfunkel and the Flower Power 70’s were all about, and I began to wonder if anyone there did. Something else caught my eye through the binoculars that was not obvious on the giant screen TV’s provided to enhance our entertainment experience. Old men. It’s the same rude awakening I got when I sat on the front row at the Eagles show. As the music started, I remember looking up and wondering who all those old farts holding the instruments were. Techs? Roadies? Then they started to sing. I began to realize how old I was. It was no different Tuesday. Father Time is taking his toll on all of us. While Garfunkel was obviously still enthralled by the packed house and his opportunity to perform to worshiping masses, Simon looked a little like he was just going through the motions, but he always looks like that. Don’t get me wrong. After thirty years, it was worth the $100.00 ticket price to take a trip down memory lane. I just wish the audience had come along with me.

JBlunt
www.jblunt.com

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
Long Live President Hastert.

NADERLOPER!

2004-02-23T11:59:00.000-06:00

Ralph Nader endorsed George W. Bush* for President last Sunday. In an interview on Meet the Press, Naderloper announced his intent to run for President as an Independent and took up most of the positions already adopted by both of the leading Democratic candidates. Damn you Russert for giving this unwitting egomaniacal Republican shill such a high visibility platform. Naderloper was bitter about the criticisms he has weathered from the Nation magazine, the Green Party and virtually every person or organization that has ever backed him in the past. When all your friends turn against you in unison, you should listen. The best news here is that Naderloper has burned so many bridges with people who could have helped him get on ballots around the country that he will have much less of an effect this time than he did last time. America is unified in the “Anybody but Bush*” mentality. Whether motivated by anger over 2001 (Me), disappointment over degrading of civil liberties and immigration (Republicans), everything else he does, (Democrats) or the exporting of jobs (everybody), Americans will not be so easily distracted this time around. Naderloper keeps ranting that Democrats ignore Green/Liberal positions on some issues. With the appointment of G.W. Bush* in 2001, all that has transpired since then and the candidacy of Howard Dean, Democrats have already moved further left than they have been in years. Not only that, the perceived center of the political spectrum has been shifted left by radical right’s actions over the last 3 years. We don’t need a Naderloper to run this time. We have a LEFT leaning Democratic Party already. At best Naderloper will pass unnoticed this time. At worst, Naderloper is repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result. Insanity is not Presidential. Go home Ralph!

John Blunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
Long Live President Hastert.

Gays Still Shooting Themselves in the Head!

2004-02-19T10:18:00.000-06:00

Gay’s Still Shooting!

Representative Barney Frank came out against the “Marriages” taking place in San Francisco, CA since Valentines Day. As I have said before in Gay Lobby Shoots Self in Head
(11/18/03), people with liberal leanings should think before they act when dealing with such a politically sensitive issue. Sane liberals of all inclinations should be rabidly paranoid of this movement.

Make no mistake, Marriage is a religious institution. It has been adopted into law by government over the years in clear violation of the Separation Clause of the Unites States Constitution. If the Supreme Court of the United States is forced into making a decision in favor of any endorsement of “Marriage”, gay or straight, it will enshrine for the first time a constitutional principal binding church and state.

What gays are trying to do CLEARLY VIOLATES the implied Separation of Church and State. The ACLU to my astonishment appears to support the gay agenda. If they would just look past the end of their noses to the long term consequences they would be backing the most widely accepted resolution to this issue, Civil Unions. You would think that these words uttered by every member of the Church who performs a marriage, “And now by the power vested in me by (insert your local jurisdiction here)”, would be prima fascia evidence of this ongoing traditional violation of the Separation Clause of the Constitution. The only one that should be vesting power in the Church is God.

The Congress needs to pass legislation as soon as possible SEPERATING MARRIAGE FROM ANY CODIFICATION BY GOVERNMENT. All “Marriages” previously endorsed by government should revert to civil unions and the ability of anyone to enter into these unions in the future should be broadly allowed. Anyone “Married” in a church by a member of the clergy, gay or straight can call themselves “Married”. In the eyes of government the civil union would carry the same weight for everyone, as it should be.

John Blunt
©2004 JBlunt Publishing

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
Long Live President Hastert.

Bush to Blunt English translation of Sunday's Meet the Press

2004-02-09T21:42:00.000-06:00

the Weekly Blunt
for the week of 02/10/04
by John Blunt
www.jblunt.com

Bush confirms the nation’s worst fears on Sunday’s MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT. Bush’s bottom line today seemed to be that the Iraq war caused the deficit, the stock market crash, job losses, the recession, our degraded reputation overseas, an unsustainable economic policy.
Hey, He’s right for once! And it’s all his fault. Let’s review shall we?
Transcript Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Bushisim to Blunt English translations in bold.

Tim Russert: And we are in the Oval Office this morning with the President of the United States. Mr. President, welcome back to Meet The Press.
President George W. Bush: Thank you, sir.
I’m scared silly.
Russert: On Friday, you announced a committee, commission to look into intelligence failures regarding the Iraq war and our entire intelligence community. You have been reluctant to do that for some time. Why?
President Bush: Well, first let me kind of step back and talk about intelligence in general, if I might. Intelligence is a vital part of fighting and winning the war against the terrorists. It is because the war against terrorists is a war against individuals who hide in caves in remote parts of the world, individuals who have these kind of shadowy networks, individuals who deal with rogue nations. So, we need a good intelligence system. We need really good intelligence.
Let me rephrase your question so my answer will seem more plausible.
So, the commission I set up is to obviously analyze what went right or what went wrong with the Iraqi intelligence. It was kind of lessons learned. But it’s really set up to make sure the intelligence services provide as good a product as possible for future presidents as well. This is just a part of analyzing where we are on the war against terror.
These kinds of committees are typically politically unmanageable and if I’m lucky will not complete or leak enough of its work between now and the election to damage me too severely.
There is a lot of investigations going on about the intelligence service, particularly in the Congress, and that’s good as well. The Congress has got the capacity to look at the intelligence gathering without giving away state secrets, and I look forward to all the investigations and looks.
Republican controlled investigations by Congress are no more of a threat then the stacked, bogus one I mentioned just now.
Again, I repeat to you, the capacity to have good intelligence means that a president can make good calls about fighting this war on terror.
Unlike mine.
Russert: Prime Minister Blair has set up a similar commission in Great Britain.
President Bush: Yeah.
No kidding?
Russert: His is going to report back in July. Ours is not going to be until March of 2005, five months after the presidential election.
President Bush: Yeah.
I don’t understand the implication here.
Russert: Shouldn’t the American people have the benefit of the commission before the election?
President Bush: Well, the reason why we gave it time is because we didn’t want it to be hurried. This is a strategic look, kind of a big picture look about the intelligence gathering capacities of the United States of America, whether it be the capacity to gather intelligence in North Korea or how we’ve used our intelligence to, for example, learn more information about AQ Kahn. And it’s important that this investigation take its time.
Well we don’t want to get busted before the next election and generalization poor grammar, fragmented logic and buzzwords are the most effective tools of intellectual obfuscation.
Now, look, we are in a political season. I fully understand people He’s trying to avoid responsibility. There is going to be ample time for the American people to assess whether or not I made a good calls, whether or not I used good judgment, whether or not I made the right decision in removing Saddam Hussein from power, and I look forward to that debate, and I look forward to talking to the American people about why I made the decisions I made.
I’m going to stand up and repeat these lies for the foreseeable future and chalk it all up to politics. I think the American people will buy that crap again.
The commission I set up, Tim, is one that will help future presidents understand how best to fight the war on terror, and it’s an important part of the kind of lessons learned in Iraq and lessons learned in Afghanistan prior to us going in, lessons learned that we can apply to both Iran and North Korea because we still have a dangerous world. And that’s very important for, I think, the people to understand where I’m coming from to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn’t.
I’m clinically paranoid and this commission will cloud that reality and my flawed preemptive foreign policy until I get re- elected. Haven’t you been listening?
I’m a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn’t true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it’s important for us to deal with them.
Come on Tim, Bushes always choose war. It’s what our family history and business connections are all about. I see the dangers no-one else does and these hallucinations have served me, my family and our associates well over the years. WAR! WAR! WAR! Come on man, get with the program!
Russert: Will you testify before the commission?
President Bush: This commission? You know, I don’t testify? I will be glad to visit with them. I will be glad to share with them knowledge. I will be glad to make recommendations, if they ask for some.
No. NO. HELL NO!
I’m interested in getting I’m interested in making sure the intelligence gathering works well.
Intelligence must be useful, but not necessarily accurate.
Listen, we got some five let me let me, again, just give you a sense of where I am on the intelligence systems of America. First of all, I strongly believe the CIA is ably led by George Tenet. He comes and briefs me on a regular basis about what he and his analysts see in the world.
If any of these investigations leaks or yields anything damaging, his ass is grass.
Russert: His job is not in jeopardy?
President Bush: No, not at all, not at all. We’ve got people working hard in intelligence gathering around the world to get as good an information as possible.
What’d I just say?
Intelligence requires, you know, all kinds of assets to bring information to the President, and I want that intelligence service to be strong, viable, competent, confident, and provide good product to the President so I can make judgment calls.
Intelligence requires, you know, all kinds of assets to bring information to the President, and I want that intelligence service to be strong, viable, competent, confident, and provide good product to the President so I can do whatever Carl Rove thinks is best. He’s God you know.
Russert: There is another commission right now looking into September 11th.
President Bush: Yeah.
Bastards!
Russert: Will you testify before that commission?
President Bush: We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton. As you know, we made an agreement on what’s called “Presidential Daily Briefs,” and they could see the information the CIA provided me that is unique, by the way, to have provided what’s called the PDB, because
We tolerate their malicious probing…….wait let me throw out an acronym……..did that sound informed?
Russert: Presidential Daily Brief?
President Bush: Right.
I guess it did!
And see, the danger of allowing for information that I get briefed on out in the public arena is that it could mean that the product I receive or future presidents receive is somewhat guarded for fear of for fear of it being revealed, and for fear of people saying, Well, you know, we’re going to second guess that which you told the President.
If my abuse of intelligence isn’t covered up the CIA may start delivering it directly to the public making it difficult if not impossible to start capricious wars in the future.
I need good, honest information, but we have shared this information with both those gentlemen, gentlemen I trust, so they could get a better picture of what took place prior to September the 11th.
Kean and Hamilton are just mid level lawmakers with little real power and both are beholdin’ to me.
And again, we want I want the truth to be known. I want there to be a full analysis done so that we can better prepare the homeland, for example, against what might occur.
Besides, the more we focus on something people generally sympathize with me on the less Americans will think about the dead and crippled soldiers in Iraq.
And this is all in the context of war, and the more we learn about, you know, what took place in the past, the more we are going to be able to better prepare for future attacks.
WAR! WAR! WAR! Come-on, Russert. Whats the matter with you?
Russert: Would you submit for questioning, though, to the 9/11 Commission?
President Bush: Perhaps, perhaps.
No. NO!
Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican
President Bush: Yes.
His misplaced loyalty is so cute!
Russert: said he is absolutely convinced we will capture Osama bin Laden before the election.
President Bush: Well, I appreciate his optimism. I have no idea whether we will capture or bring him to justice, may be the best way to put it. I know we are on the hunt, and Osama bin Laden is a cold blooded killer, and he represents the nature of the enemy that we face.
We caught Bin Ladin some months ago and are perpetuating false stories about his activities. I think those video’s we’ve produced for him have been very effective at fooling the public. Grassley should keep his moth shut about the top secret files he sees or I’m going to revoke his security clearance.
These are these are people that will kill on a moment’s notice, and they will kill innocent women and children. And he’s hiding, and we’re trying to find him.
We’ve got him and no-one is going to see his ass until November!
There’s a I know there is a lot of focus on Iraq, and there should be, but we’ve got thousands of troops, agents, allies on the hunt, and we are doing a pretty good job of dismantling al Qaeda better than a pretty good job, a very good job. I keep saying in my speeches, two thirds of known al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed, and that’s the truth.
God, if I could just get the focus off this war and back on the old boogie man Bin Ladin, the public might trust me again.
Russert: Do you have a pretty good idea where Osama is?
President Bush: You know, I’m not going to comment on that.
In a cage at GITMO!
Russert: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what you based your decision to go to war on.
President Bush: Sure, sure.
You prick. I’ve already said all I rehearsed on Iraq. Oh, OK.
Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
President Bush: Right.
I’m ignoring your premise.
Russert: That apparently is not the case.
President Bush: Correct.
Still ignoring it while attempting to patronize you.
Russert: How do you respond to critics who say that you brought the nation to war under false pretenses?
President Bush: The … first of all, I expected to find the weapons. Sitting behind this desk making a very difficult decision of war and peace, and I based my decision on the best intelligence possible, intelligence that had been gathered over the years, intelligence that not only our analysts thought was valid but analysts from other countries thought were valid.
It doesn’t matter what was real. What matters is, I wanted war and since we had no reliable intelligence I decided to take advantage of what we had to justify MY WAR!
And I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror.
My paranoia integrated well with the political situation and the faulty intelligence, making it easy to ply my war of vengeance and oil lust to the American people as a war necessary for national security. Right wing serendipity if you will.
And I made the decision, obviously, to take our case to the international community in the hopes that we could do this achieve a disarmament of Saddam Hussein peacefully. In other words, we looked at the intelligence. And we remembered the fact that he had used weapons, which meant he had weapons. We knew the fact that he was paying for suicide bombers. We knew the fact he was funding terrorist groups. In other words, he was a dangerous man. And that was the intelligence I was using prior to the run up to this war.
Now, let me which is—this is a vital question
Hey, if you can’t depend on two decades old intelligence, what can you depend on?
Russert: Nothing more important.
President Bush: Vital question.
And so we – I expected there to be stockpiles of weapons. But David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven’t found stockpiles yet, and there’s theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we’ll find out. That’s what the Iraqi survey group let me let me finish here.
But David Kay did report to the American people that Saddam had the capacity to make weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with weapons. Saddam Hussein was dangerous with the ability to make weapons. He was a dangerous man in the dangerous part of the world.
And I made the decision to go to the United Nations.
By the way, quoting a lot of their data in other words, this is unaccounted for stockpiles that you thought he had because I don’t think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman, and I believe it is essential I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It’s too late if they become imminent. It’s too late in this new kind of war, and so that’s why I made the decision I made.
OK so you’re not buying my lies. How’s about Rumsfeld’s lies? NO? Ok let’s blame the UN then. Those guys couldn’t see evil I saw between the actual facts. They tried to stop my war. But my paranoia and the sheep like mentality of the American people prevailed.
Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said “there is no doubt.” When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said “there is no doubt.” Secretary Powell, “no doubt.” Secretary Rumsfeld, “no doubt, we know where the weapons are.” You said, quote, “The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.”
You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.
President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don’t want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America. [CROSSTALK]
Plausible semantics. That’s Carl’s. Like it?
Russert: In what way?
President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.
It’s important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office. I’m dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.
And the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can’t say, Let’s don’t deal with Saddam Hussein. Let’s hope he changes his stripes, or let’s trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let’s let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn’t work with a man who is a madman.
And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people.
Come on Tim!!! I told you I had run out of rehearsed responses on this topic. You’re getting dangerously close to making me think independently. I’ll end this interview!
Russert: But can you launch a preemptive war without iron clad, absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush: Let me take a step back for a second and there is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.
Evidence, schmevidence! WAR, WAR, WAR!
Russert: But it may have been wrong.
President Bush: Well, but what wasn’t wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn’t right.
OK, He didn’t have ‘em but he wanted ‘em. Wolfowitz saw it in a dream and he told me so.
Russert: This is an important point because when you say that he has biological and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles
President Bush: Which he had.
That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
Russert: and they could come and attack the United States, you are saying to the American people: we have to deal now with a man who has these things.
President Bush: That’s exactly what I said.
Ditto! HI Rush!!!!!!!
Russert: And if that’s not the case, do you believe if you had gone to the Congress and said he should be removed because he’s a threat to his people but I’m not sure he has weapons of mass destruction, Congress would authorize war?
President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.
Congress is made up of sheep like Americans. The same tripe that fooled the public fooled them too. It was easy.
You mentioned “preemption.” If I might, I went to the United Nations and said, Here is what we know, you know, at this moment, and you need to act. After all, you are the body that issued resolution after resolution after resolution, and he ignored those resolutions.
I made the obligatory gesture to the UN and then ignored them, yes.
So, in other words, when you say “preemption,” it almost sounds like, Well, Mr. President, you decided to move. What I decided to do was to go to the international community and see if we could not disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully through international pressure.
I tried to enlighten them but they ignored my prevision.
You remember U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 clearly stated show us your arms and destroy them, or your programs and destroy them. And we said, there are serious consequences if you don’t. That was a unanimous verdict. In other words, the worlds of the U.N. Security Council said we’re unanimous and you’re a danger. So, it wasn’t just me and the United States. The world thought he was dangerous and needed to be disarmed.
And, of course, he defied the world once again.
Hey, between Saddam’s lying about having them and my co-dependant paranoia they had to comply or look like pussies. This world is full of sheep.
In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences, and if there isn’t serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences. People look at us and say, they don’t mean what they say, they are not willing to follow through.
If we say KILL we must KILL or WE look like pussies.
And by the way, by clearly stating policy, whether it be in Afghanistan or stating the policy that we expect you, Mr. Saddam Hussein, to disarm, your choice to disarm, but if you don’t, there will be serious consequences in following through, it has had positive effects in the world. Libya, for example, there was an positive effect in Libya where Moammar Khaddafy voluntarily disclosed his weapons programs and agreed to dismantle dismantle them, and the world is a better place as a result of that. And the world is a safer and better place as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power.
Russert: There is a sense in the country that the intelligence that was given was ambiguous, and that you took it and molded it and shaped it your opponents have said “hyped” it and rushed to war.
President Bush: Yeah.
SO?
Russert: And now, in the world, if you, in the future, say we must go into North Korea or we must go into Iran because they have nuclear capability, either this country or the world will say, ‘Excuse you, Mr. President, we want it now in hard, cold facts.’
President Bush: Well, Tim, I and my team took the intelligence that was available to us and we analyzed it, and it clearly said Saddam Hussein was a threat to America.
Screw the World. They should be more sheep-like.
Now, I know I’m getting repetitive, but I’m just trying to make sure you understand the context in which I was making decisions.
I repeat my rehearsed responses, and by the way you’re starting to piss me off.
He had used weapons. He had manufactured weapons. He had funded suicide bombers into Israel. He had terrorist connections. In other words, all of those ingredients said to me: Threat.
Blah, blah, blah.
The fundamental question is: Do you deal with the threat once you see it? What in the war on terror, how do you deal with threats? I dealt with the threat by taking the case to the world and said, Let’s deal with this. We must deal with it now.
The world ignored my fantasy, so screw them!
I repeat to you what I strongly believe that inaction in Iraq would have emboldened Saddam Hussein. He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time I’m not saying immediately, but over time which would then have put us in what position? We would have been in a position of blackmail.
Must I continue to repeat these lies? Is none of this sticking to your Ivy League brain? Did your Parents schmoose you through school like mine did?
In other words, you can’t rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can’t rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace, and it’s too late, in my judgment, when a madman who has got terrorist connections is able to act.
Saddam’s nuts. I’m nuts. We make a great team.
Russert: But there are lots of madmen in the world, Fidel Castro …
President Bush: True.
We’ll be gettin’ ‘round to them, don’t you fret.
MR. Russert: … in Iran, in North Korea, in Burma, and yet we don’t go in and take down those governments.
President Bush: Correct, and I could that’s a legitimate question as to why we like felt we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea. And the reason why I felt like we needed to use force in Iraq and not in North Korea, because we had run the diplomatic string in Iraq. As a matter of fact, failed diplomacy could embolden Saddam Hussein in the face of this war we were in. In Iraq I mean, in North Korea, excuse me, the diplomacy is just beginning. We are making good progress in North Korea.
As I’ve said in my speeches, every situation requires a different response and a different analysis, and so in Iran there is no question they’re in danger, but the international community is now trying to convince Iran to get rid of its nuclear weapons program. And on the Korean peninsula, now the United States and China, along with South Korea and Japan and Russia, are sending a clear message to Kim Jung Il, if you are interested in a different relationship, disclose and destroy your program in a transparent way.
In other words, the policy of this administration is to be is to be clear and straightforward and to be realistic about the different threats that we face.
I SAID DON”T FRET! I’m on it. We have to give “diplomacy” time to weaken the minds of the sane so that when we start the next war no one thinks to mention the cost and the unwarranted carnage.
Russert: On Iraq, the vice president said, “we would be greeted as liberators.”
President Bush: Yeah.
I’m proud to call Dick a fellow conspirator. And a damn good one, too.
Russert: It’s now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?
President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I’m not exactly sure, given the tone of your questions, we’re not. We are welcomed in Iraq.
They cuss us, kill us, bomb us and hate us. Just like everyone else. Whada ya mean they don’t welcome us?
Russert: Are you surprised by the level and intensity of resistance?
President Bush: No, I’m not. And the reason I’m not surprised is because there are people in that part of the world who recognize what a free Iraq will mean in the war on terror. In other words, there are people who desperately want to stop the advance of freedom and democracy because freedom and democracy will be a powerful long term deterrent to terrorist activities.
See, free societies are societies that don’t develop weapons of mass terror and don’t blackmail the world.
If I could share some stories with you about some of the people I have seen from Iraq, the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we’ve taken. There is a nervousness about their future, however.
They’re going to get democracy even if it has to be forced on them! Every free man and woman will be forced to accept democracy whether they want it or not.
Russert: If the Iraqi people choose
President Bush: Well, let me finish on the nervousness. I don’t want to leave it on that note.
There’s nervousness because they’re not exactly sure what their form of government will look like, and there is you can understand why. In nine months’ time, there’s – we’re now saying, democracy must flourish. And as I recall from my history, it took us quite a while here in the United States, but nevertheless we are making progress.
And so, when you see the debate and the discussion about freedom, those are welcoming signs as far as I’m concerned. People are saying how best to develop this system so that we are free and minority rights are protected.
We will dictate the terms of this democracy and persecute all ethnicities equally.
Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?
President Bush: They’re not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I’m very aware of this basic law they’re writing. They’re not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.
I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I’m a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And he said, it’s going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.
And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it’s not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It’s bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.
Screw that. Those bastards will do what I say or else. I told them when they were here that if they didn’t shape up they’d be wiping their asses with their dead wives burka’s in a Turkish prison!
Russert: You do seem to have changed your mind from the 2000 campaign. In a debate, you said, “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called ‘nation-building.’”
President Bush: Yes.
That was stupid.
Russert: We clearly are involved in nation building.
President Bush: Right. And I also said let me put it in context. I’m not suggesting you’re pulling one of these Washington tricks where you leave half the equation out.
But I did say also that our troops must be trained and prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, make peace more possible. And our troops were trained to fight and win war, and we did, and a second phase of the war is now going on. The first phase, of course, was the Tommy Franks troop movement.
So sue me.
Russert: But this is nation building.
President Bush: Well, it is. That’s right, but we’re also fighting a war so that they can build a nation. And [crosstalk] the war is against terrorists and disgruntled Baathists who are saying we had it good in the past, and therefore we don’t want this new society to spring up because they have no faith in democracy, and the terrorists who want to stop the advance of freedom.
Damn. Busted again. You’re good at this Russert.
And if I might, people say to me, ‘Okay, you made a judgment as to how to secure America for the short term with the Taliban and with Saddam Hussein, and we are staying on the hunt for al Qaeda, but what about the long term?’ Which is a legitimate question. And the best way to secure America for the long term is to promote freedom and a free society and to encourage democracy.
Can I distract you by changing the Question?
And we are doing so in a part of the world where people say it can’t happen, but the long term vision and the long term hope is—and I believe it’s going to happen—is that a free Iraq will help change the Middle East. You may have heard me say we have a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. It’s because I believe so strongly that freedom is etched in everybody’s heart I believe that and I believe this country must continue to lead.
The US will eventually dominate the Middle East and we won’t blow it like the Brits and Turks and the Monguls. We’re much smarter than all of mankind that preceded us.
Russert: Are you now willing to allow the United Nations to play a central role in the reconstruction?
President Bush: In the recon in spending our money, no. They don’t want to spend our money, the money that was appropriated by the United States Congress I think you’re talking about, but they will play a vital role in helping the Iraqis determine the proper course to democracy.
I’m confused. Are they trying to muscle us out? What have you heard?!
Russert: In transferring power, the U.N. will play a central role?
President Bush: Yeah. I call it a vital role because there is a lot of roles being played by different players, but the U.N. will play and this role is a very important role. It says to the Iraqi citizens who again are trying to figure out the right balance as they head toward this new democracy after years of after years of being enslaved by a tyrant—how best to do this, and I think it’s very helpful to have the stamp of the international community be placed upon the political process.
A meaningless UN rubber stamp would be nice, yes as long as they play along with the big picture.
In terms of reconstruction, of course we want the international community to participate, and they are. There is a lot of participation by the international community in restoring this infrastructure of the country of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had just totally I shouldn’t say “totally,” but destroyed a lot of.
If we can sucker those pre war pussies like the French and the Russians into picking up the tab, you can find me in the restroom!
Russert: Before we take a break, now that we have determined there are probably not these stockpiles of weapons that we had thought, and the primary rationale for the war had been to disarm Saddam Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, said that you had settled on weapons of mass destruction as an issue we could agree on, but there were three. “One was the weapons of mass destruction, the second is the support for terrorism, and third is Saddam’s criminal treatment of his Iraqi people.”
He said the “third one by itself is a reason to help Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did.”
President Bush: Um hmm.
You got to pick a plausible lie and stick to it if you’re going to weave enough wool to cover the eyes of America.
Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.
Yes it is!
Russert: But
President Bush: Let me finish.
Oh crap, did I actually say that? Sorry I was thinking out loud.
Russert: Please.
President Bush: It’s essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives.
Let me re-trench.
Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He’s a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.
Saddam Sucks.
For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, “In many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought.” It’s we are in a war against these terrorists who will bring great harm to America, and I’ve asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.
Why the hell did they join the military if they didn’t want to die?
A free Iraq will change the world. It’s historic times. A free Iraq will make it easier for other children in our own country to grow up in a safer world because in the Middle East is where you find the hatred and violence that enables the enemy to recruit its killers.
Free Iraq, Free oil. What more do you want?
And, Tim, as you can tell, I’ve got a foreign policy that is one that believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated there were mass graves that we have found a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility. To me that is history’s call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that direction.
And of course, Tim, my foreign policy is so arrogant and indisputable it can cure AIDS! Nyeah!
Russert: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?
President Bush: I think that’s an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It’s a war of necessity. We—in my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at that says the man was a threat. And you know, we will find out about the weapons of mass destruction that we all thought were there. That’s part of the Iraqi survey group and the group I put together to look at.
You’re confusing me again. STOP IT! Saddam needed an ass whipping. Just ask Daddy!
But again, I repeat to you, I don’t want to sound like a broken record, but David Kay, who is the man who led the Iraqi survey group, who has now returned with an interim report, clearly said that the place was a dangerous place. When asked if President Bush had done had made the right decision, he said yes. In other words, the evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice.
Please refer to the fabricated facts and stop badgering me!
Russert: We are going to take a quick break.
President Bush: Thank you.
THANK GOD!
Russert: We are going to come back and talk to the President a lot more about our world and our economy here at home and the presidential election of 2004. We are in the Oval Office with President George W. Bush.
(Commercial)
Russert: And we are back in the Oval Office talking to the President of the United States.
Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: “I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn’t show up when he should have showed up.”
President Bush: Yeah.
I hate that prick. Always pointing out the obvious. How intelligent is that?
Russert: How do you respond?
President Bush: Political season is here. I was I served in the National Guard. I flew F 102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I’ve heard this I’ve heard this ever since I started running for office. I I put in my time, proudly so.
Hey, I got to fly airplanes, play soldier and screw off for a year. The military makes much better sheep than the public. The public has to be fooled. The military takes orders.
I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It’s fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn’t denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn’t, is because there are a lot of really fine people who served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.
Don’t try to make a valid point here, Russert. Just because I’m a lying pussy doesn’t mean all guardsmen are lying pussies.
Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.
President Bush: Yeah, they re they’re just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don’t just say “I did something” without there being verification. Military doesn’t work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.
Yeah, prove it.
Russert: You did were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?
President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.
Nepotisim and the political clout of my Father. What are you dumb or just naïve?
Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?
President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And absolutely. I mean, I
Yeah, sure. Good luck finding them asshole. My family’s great at cover-ups. Just ask Noriega.
Russert: But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?
President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.
And I’m just telling you, I did my duty, and it’s politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I’m used to it. What I don’t like is when people say serving in the Guard is is may not be a true service.
Look Sherlock, I know those records don’t exist ‘cause I had them destroyed. Search on brother! Quit tryin’ to dis my free ride through the military.
Russert: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
President Bush: Yes, absolutely.
We did so in 2000, by the way.
We’ve released nothing before and we’re willing to pretend to do it again.
Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?
President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.
Yeah, after my Dad got me the free ride. That one digit selective service number had me scared to death at first.
Russert: But you didn’t volunteer or enlist to go.
President Bush: No, I didn’t. You’re right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and we provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called “Air Defense Command,” and it was part of the air defense command system.
The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.
Hell NO! You must think I’m stupid. A person could get killed fighting a war based on lies. That whole Gulf of Tonkin thing was a lie. I wasn’t going to die for a lie.
Russert: Let me turn to the economy.
President Bush: Yes.
Oh crap.
Russert: And this is one of my charts that I would like to show you.
President Bush: I was hoping to see one of them.
They rehearsed me on this, shoot!
Russert: The Bush Cheney first three years, the unemployment rate has gone up 33 percent, there has been a loss of 2.2 million jobs. We’ve gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $521 billion deficit. The debt has gone from 5.7 trillion, to $7 trillion up 23 percent.
Based on that record, why should the American people rehire you as CEO?
President Bush: Sure, because I have been the President during a time of tremendous stress on our economy and made the decisions necessary to lead that would enhance recovery. We’ll review the bidding here. The stock market started to decline in March of 2000. That was the first sign that things were troubled. The recession started upon my arrival. It could have been some say February, some say March, some speculate maybe earlier it started, but nevertheless it happened as we showed up here.
Hey the economy tanked as soon as it became apparent in the poles that I might actually win. I know America liked the prosperity of a peaceful Democratic administration but what does that do for the neglected rich? As the economy spiraled downward I had to do something to protect the folks who got me elected but you can’t just take the money from the public, you’ve got to be much sneakier. The recession was taking money out of the important Americans wallets and the only way we could heal them quick was by transferring wealth from the common man to the fiscally abused wealthy. A transfer of wealth disguised as a “tax cut” did the trick.
The attacks on our country affected our economy. Corporate scandals affected the confidence of people and therefore affected the economy. My decision on Iraq, this kind of march to war, affected the economy, but we have been through a lot. And what those numbers show is the fact we have been through a lot.
Ken Ley & Dennis K., what convenient patsies! And then Osama! Man I got lucky with all those serendipitous occurrences. God wants me to heal the rich.
But what the people must understand is that instead of wondering what to do, I acted, and I acted by cutting the taxes on individuals and small businesses, primarily. And that, itself, has led to this recovery.
The stock market’s rise and temporary healing of the gaping holes in everyone’s retirement accounts has hidden the reality of our unsustainable economics and I’m hoping that lasts through the next election.
So, you show that the numbers kind of I’m not suggesting the chart only shows the bad numbers, but how about the fact that we are now increasing jobs or the fact that unemployment is now down to 5.6 percent? There was a winter recession and unemployment went up, and now it’s heading in the right direction.
Most of the lazy sheep in America have quit looking for work and we don’t count deadbeats no matter how bad they want jobs.
The economic stimulus plan that I passed, or I asked the Congress to pass, and I worked with Congress to pass, is making a big difference.
The economic stimulus plan that I passed, or I asked the Congress to pass, and I worked with Congress to pass, is faking a big difference to the upside. I’ll be re-elected before that chicken comes home to roost.
Russert: But when you proposed your first tax cut in 2001, you said this was going to generate 800,000 new jobs. Your tax cut of 2003, create a million new jobs. That has not happened.
President Bush: Well, it’s happening. It’s happening. And there is good momentum when it comes to the creation of new jobs.
One job, a million jobs, now you’re being petty.
Again, we have been through a lot. This economy has been through a lot, which is why I’m so optimistic about the future because I know what we have been through.
After Osama and Saddam no one can blame ME for the coming economic crisis.
And I look forward to debate on the economy because I think one of those things that’s very important is that the entrepreneurial spirit of this country be strong and the small business sector be strong. And the policies I have laid out enhance entrepreneurship, they encourage small business creation, and I think this economy is coming around just right, frankly.
Look here Tim, I’ve fooled myself and everyone else about the economy and by the time the sheep figure it out this herder and his owners will be golden.
Russert: The General Accounting Office, which are the nation’s auditors
President Bush: Yeah.
Oh God, not more facts. I can’t get re-elected on the facts.
Russert: have done a study of our finances.
President Bush: Um hmm.
Come on, come on I got a lie for this, too.
Russert: And this is what your legacy will be to the next generation. It says that our “current fiscal policy is unsustainable.” They did a computer simulation that shows that balancing the budget in 2040 could require either cutting total Federal spending in half or doubling Federal taxes.
President Bush: Um hmm.
So?
Russert: How why, as a fiscal conservative as you like to call yourself, would you allow a $500 billion deficit and this kind of deficit disaster?
President Bush: Sure. The budget I just proposed to the Congress cuts the deficit in half in five years.
I think you forgot the tax cut subterfuge. Are you listening to me? These are good lies!
Now, I don’t know what the assumptions are in the GAO report, but I do know that if Congress is wise with the people’s money, we can cut the deficit in half. And at that point in time, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will be relatively low.
I guess they’ve never met Rosie. You know, Miss Scenario?
I agree with the assessment that we’ve got some long term financial issues we must look at, and that’s one reason I asked Congress to deal with Medicare. I strongly felt that if we didn’t have an element of competition, that if we weren’t modern with the Medicare program, if we didn’t incorporate what’s called “health savings accounts” to encourage Americans to take more control over their healthcare decisions, we would have even a worse financial picture in the long run.
Gutting Medicare has always been in the cards. Social Security, too. If you’re not smart enough to get rich by the time you’re old, screw you. You screwed up. Not me.
I believe Medicare is going to not only make the system work better for seniors but is going to help the fiscal situation of our long term projection.
All that cash wasted on the poor and infirm should more than cover our imperialistic needs.
We got to deal with Social Security as well. As you know, these entitlement programs need to be dealt with.
Oops! I almost forgot all the cash we get from dissolving Medicare. Hey Don, We got any other wars to start? Look at all this cash we’re gong to have!
We are dealing with some entitlement programs right now in the Congress. The highway bill. It’s going to be an interesting test of fiscal discipline on both sides of the aisle. The Senate’s is about $370, as I understand, $370 billion; the House is at less than that but over $300 billion. And as you know, the budget I propose is about $256 billion.
Congress is bought, paid for and under Republican control. They ain’t gonna’ do nuthin’.
Russert: But your base conservatives and listen to Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, they’re all saying you are the biggest spender in American history.
President Bush: Well, they’re wrong.
So? Who else they gonna’ vote for DEAN?
Russert: Mr. President
President Bush: If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
The war expenses have made it easy to take money from the weak and under represented sheep in America.
And the other thing that I think it’s important for people who watch the expenditures side of the equation is to understand we are at war, Tim, and any time you commit your troops into harm’s way, they must have the best equipment, the best training, and the best possible pay. That’s where we owe it to their loved ones.
Don’t worry Don, the military is getting all it wants, in spite of the numbers.
Russert: That’s a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.
President Bush: Yeah.
Damn you Russert. Again with the facts!
Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?
President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder.
I learned how to destroy an economy from the best. Regan/Bush!
See, I’m more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That’s what I’m worried about. I want people working. I want people to find work. And so, when we stimulate the economy, it’s more likely that person is going to find work. And the best way to stimulate the economy is not to raise taxes but to hold the low taxes down.
People looking for job just muck things up. Personally I think they should be ignored and I believe that’s actually policy.
Russert: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?
President Bush: Well, that’s a hypothetical question which I can’t answer to you because I don’t know how strong the economy is going to be.
Are you kidding? R.M. Scafe would have me shot. Remember Kennedy? Rich people don’t jack around when it comes to money.
I mean, the President must keep all options on the table, but I do know that raising the child lowering the child credit thereby raising taxes on working families does not make sense when the economy is recovering, and that’s exactly what some of them are calling for up on Capitol Hill. They want to raise taxes of the families with children, they want to increase the marriage penalty. They want to get rid of those taxes on small businesses that are encouraging the stimulation of new job creation, and I’m not going to have any of it.
I just need to stick to my lies and I’ll be fine. I’m not worried.
Russert: We are going to take another quick break. We will be right back with more of our conversation with the President in the Oval Office, right after this.
(Commercial)
Russert: And we are back.
Mr. President, last time you were on the show you said that you wanted to change the tone in the nation.
President Bush: Yes.
Yeah, that was rich, eh? They bought it.
Russert: This is Time magazine: “Love Him or Hate Him: Why George Bush arouses such passion and what it means for the country.”
President Bush: Yes.
Commies!
Russert: Tom Daschle, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, said that you’ve changed the tone for the worse; that it’s more acrimonious, more confrontations, that you are the most partisan political president he’s ever worked with.
Tom sucks!
Our exit polls of primary voters, not just Democrats but Independents in South Carolina and New Hampshire, more than 70 percent of them said they are angry or dissatisfied with you, and they point to this whole idea of being a uniter as opposed to a divider.
Why do you think you are perceived as such a divider?
President Bush: Gosh, I don’t know, because I’m working hard to unite the country. As a matter of fact, it’s the hardest part of being the president. I was successful as the Governor of Texas for bringing people together for the common good, and I must tell you it’s tough here in Washington, and frankly it’s the biggest disappointment that I’ve had so far of coming to Washington.
I’m blind to this. Besides, Democrats aren’t real Americans!
I’m not blaming anybody. It’s just the environment here is such that it is difficult to find common ground. I‘ll give you a classic case: the Medicare bill. The Medicare bill was a tough vote, but the Medicare bill is a bill that a lot of people could have signed on to and had it not been for kind of the sense of, well, ‘Bush might win, we might lose,’ you know, or ‘Bush might lose, we might win’ kind of attitude.
People take me too seriously. I’m just trying to schmoose through another government job. People shouldn’t get so worked up about debt and dead soldiers and such. It’ll all work itself out after the election.
And… but I will continue to work hard to unite the country. I don’t speak ill of anybody in the process here. I think if you went back and looked at my comments, you will see I don’t attack. I don’t hold up people. I talk about what I believe in, and I lead, and maybe perhaps I believe so strongly in what we are doing around the world or doing here at home.
I don’t have any convictions. What bastard says I’ve been convicted? That was wiped clean in the 80’s. My Dad promised me that was done! Is there some old college associate trying to dig up stuff in Houston again?
Russert: But around the world, in Europe, favorable ratings unfavorable ratings, 70 in Germany, 67 in France.
President Bush: But you know, Tim, that
Screw the French.
Russert: Why do people hold you with such contempt
President Bush: Heck, I don’t know, Ronald Reagan was unpopular in Europe when he was President, according to Jose Maria Aznar. And I said, ‘You know something? ‘
He said to me, he said, ‘You’re nearly as unpopular as Ronald Reagan was.’ I said, ‘so, first of all, I’m keeping pretty good company.’
I think that people when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And I heck, I don’t know why people do it. I’ll tell you, though, I’m not going to change, see? I’m not trying to accommodate I won’t change my philosophy or my point of view. I believe I owe it to the American people to say what I’m going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can, try to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make, but I’m not going to change because of polls. That’s just not my nature.
Cause I’m a powerful dangerous moron, jeese Tim!
Russert: Two polls out this weekend show you—
President Bush: See there, you’re quoting polls.
Polls scmolls, I’ve got $200,000,000.00+. By the time I get done campaigning people will vote for me just to shut me up.
Russert: you’re trailing John Kerry in both U.S.A. Today and Newsweek polls by seven and five points.
President Bush: Yeah.
SO? $200,000,000.00 Tim!!!!!!!!
Russert: This is what John Kerry had to say last year. He said that his colleagues are appalled at the quote “President’s lack of knowledge. They’ve managed him the same way they’ve managed Ronald Reagan. They send him out to the press for one event a day. They put him in a brown jacket and jeans and get him to move some hay or move a truck, and all of a sudden he’s the Marlboro Man. I know this guy. He was two years behind me at Yale. I knew him, and he’s still the same guy.”
Did you know him at Yale?
President Bush: No.
I went to Yale?
Russert: How do you respond to that?
President Bush: Politics. I mean, this is—you know, if you close your eyes and listen carefully to what you just said, it sounds like the year 2000 all over again.
I went to Yale?
Russert: You were both in Skull and Bones, the secret society.
President Bush: It’s so secret we can’t talk about it.
I wouldn’t have joined if I had known “Skull & Bone(s) was a homosexual reference. But I had a great time!
Russert: What does that mean for America? The conspiracy theorists are going to go wild.
President Bush: I’m sure they are. I don’t know. I haven’t seen the (unintel) yet. (Laughs)
Yeah, who would have thought I had a Gay period. Coke will do that to you, ya know.
Russert: Number 322.
President Bush: First of all, he’s not the nominee, and I look forward
Russert: Are you prepared to lose?
President Bush: No, I’m not going to lose.
I’ve already paid for this one, just like the last one.
Russert: If you did, what would you do?
President Bush: Well, I don’t plan on losing. I have got a vision for what I want to do for the country. See, I know exactly where I want to lead. I want to lead us I want to lead this world toward more peace and freedom. I want to lead this great country to work with others to change the world in positive ways, particularly as we fight the war on terror, and we got changing times here in America, too.
I’m not going to lose. I’m leading the country to peace and freedom by fighting a war and abrogating civil rights. I’m not changing a winning strategery now!
Russert: Biggest issues in the upcoming campaign?
President Bush: Who can properly use American power in a way to make the world a better place, and who understands that the true strength of this country is the hearts and souls of the American citizens, who understands times are changing and how best to have policy reflect those times.
And I look forward to a good campaign. I know exactly where I want to lead the country. I have shown the American people I can lead. I have shown the American people I can sit here in the Oval Office when times are tough and be steady and make good decisions, and I look forward to articulating what I want to do the next four years if I’m fortunate enough to be their president.
WAR, WAR, WAR. (Bush jumping up and down yelling) KILL, KILL, KILL. Russert joins in and they were both jumpin’ up and down yellin’ KILL, KILL, KILL(A. Guthrie circa 1970). Come on America! Lets Roll!
Russert: Mr. President, we thank you for sharing your views, and I hope we could come back and talk about issues during the course of the campaign.
President Bush: Thank you, Tim.
In your DREAMS Russert! I do something like this again and someone may figure out the truth!
Russert: That’s all for today. We will be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet The Press.
Transcript © 2004 MSNBC Interactive
All of the preceding is for entertainment only. The idea that Bush could ever muster up words or phrases as sophisticated as “ethnicities; subterfuge; plausible; unwarranted carnage; co-dependant paranoia; integrated well with the political situation and the faulty intelligence, making it easy to ply my war of vengeance and oil lust; obfuscate; serendipity and acronym" is of course pure fiction.
JBlunt
Added satire © 2004 JBlunt Publishing

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
Long Live President Hastert.

Bush* tries to trade 9-11 time for WMD time.

2004-02-05T20:23:00.000-06:00

Now we know why Bush* extended the deadline for the 9-11 commission. It was a tradeoff. The administration needs to buy time in the eyes of the American public for them to get past the election without having to produce WMD. George Tennant spoke at his alma-mater Thursday where he attempted to purchase that time by insisting that David Kaye doesn’t know shit. Hmmmm…. President’s approval rating drops below 50%; The number of Americans believing what we are doing in Iraq is wrong goes over 50%; White House gives in to the 9-11 investigation extension; Tennant falls on his sword and begs for more time while protesting that overall the CIA is doing a great job; The President* goes on Meet the Press. A Rove by any other name still smells the same.

Bush lays down a campaign bottom line “Knowing what I knew then, and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq.” Most of America no longer believes that. This shows Bush’s inability to learn even on the most elementary level. He said the unemployment rate is dropping. Yo' G., when people run out of benefits and or hope you don’t count them. Doesn’t mean we’re not still here!

Bush is beginning to show that he truly does not see things as most Americans do.
He’s had 2 years to kick this country in the ass and lead it back to the thriving economy and peaceful existence we enjoyed in the 90’s. Instead, all He’s* done is kick America in the balls financially, internationally, domestically and repeatedly. Financially he has destroyed the economy for the long term, something we had just gotten right at the end of the Clinton administration. He did it by pandering to his wealthy peers in the form of a tax cut which buys him just enough of an economic dead cat bounce to get him through the next election and by dragging us into a war based on lies born of poor, selectively filtered intelligence. This has caused America’s reputation around the world damage so great it will take decades to repair. This widely accepted distrust and animosity will cost our economy immeasurable billions over the years to come. Our children will pay the balance in the near term. Four years ago we were on the path to pay off the national debt in 30-40 years. Now we can only see deficits into infinity. If we weren’t paying interest on the national debt we could afford Healthcare, Food, Clothing and Shelter for every American and not even break a sweat financially. And He just keeps on kicking us. Tennant repeated the lies today. Bush* will repeat them again on Sunday. TV ads and surrogates will repeat them for the next ten months.
Ten months America. Ten months of someone repeating the same behavior expecting a different result. Isn’t that the definition of INSANITY?
This pretend President* of ours is going to destroy us if He’s* elected (for the first time) or manages to steal another one.
Don’t let him kick you in the balls anymore, America.

WAKE UP!

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America
Long Live President Hastert!
© JBlunt Publishing

Can Bush* turn back the tide?

2004-02-04T14:30:00.000-06:00

Can Bush* turn back the tide?

As the choice for Democratic nominee becomes clearer, the events of recent weeks combined with the pounding He’s* getting in the media are closing the window on Bush’s* re-election bid.

Events: David Kaye has quit his job, returned to the U.S., and with one terse statement to Congress obliterated the administration’s reasoning for war. Just yesterday Colin Powell said he would not have supported the war if the intelligence had been accurate. The raw intelligence was accurate if you give the caveats that come with such intelligence the weight they deserve. A practice that the “Office of Special Plans” was specifically created to eliminate. Even the information given to the Senate and House intelligence committees was filtered through that office. No wonder normally competent peace loving politicians reluctantly got behind the President* in the war effort. If I had been professionally lied to for 2 years I too might have been conned into supporting the war. OK I was. I like many other people with good hearts were tricked into thinking that war with Iraq was a NESCESSCARY thing. Now, new polls show that among all Americans the war in Iraq is WRONG! I too should thank David Kaye for pulling the administration’s wool from over my eyes. Bush* is now labeled a liar in the eyes of a majority of America and that’s a hard label to shed.

A jobless recovery is underway. Yes everybody’s 401k is healing a little from the Bush* tax cut that puts more money into the pockets of the investing class but hundreds of thousands of Americans have stopped contributing to these accounts and many are now drawing them down in an effort to make it from month to month. Everyone longs for the fairer tax structure and budget surpluses of the Clinton administration. You remember, when we had the greatest economic expansion in history? When almost everyone had a job, or two? When the national debt was going down, driving interest rates down? Now the rich are getting relief while the majority of Americans search for work thanks to NAFTA (not Bush’s* fault, although he supports it) pushing jobs overseas. Some say that if we retaliate at other countries that are absorbing our jobs it will violate NAFTA. Who says we can’t impose restrictions and penalties in this country on the companies that export those jobs. What say we pass a law or two that taxes the crap out of companies that ship a modest percentage of our jobs overseas and those that send most of our jobs overseas get to live overseas. Do you really think American CEO’s will be willing to live and work in third world countries? I am boycotting all the companies that are listed as “Exporting America” on CNN’s web site. If you look at that list you see that it must be policy and not just pure unadulterated corperate greed that allows such a broad, diverse list of companies to be comfortable exporting these jobs. This same broad exporting of jobs tells us something else. 30 years ago these companies would have found it impossible to export these jobs due to lack of a trained work force overseas. Now, with the neglect our educational system has seen by government, the decimation of teaching standards by the teacher’s unions trying to insure job security, and the death nail of “No child Left Behind”, corporations now see exporting of jobs as a logical if not preferable alternative to letting poorly educated overpaid Americans do them.

Resentment about the last Presidential election is also still a factor.

Corporate criminals are still free and American retirement accounts are still bare.

Politics: The State of the Union Speech bombed. While the majority of Americans are concerned about the economy and jobs, Bush* talked of war, terrorism and steroids. What a moron.

Bush has been permanently labeled a LIAR by David Kaye. Virtually every statement of fact that He*, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their subordinates spewed forth for the last two years has been shown to be LIES. The more money he spends in the election trying to convince Americans otherwise will backfire and be viewed as more of the well financed lies we’ve been told to date. Americans no longer TRUST Bush* so everything he says from now on will be taken with a pound of salt.

Osama Bin Laden is still free and we have spent LIVES and tremendous amounts of money chancing a false boogie man in Iraq while the real devil roams free in Pakistan.

A monstrous deficit put forth in the administration’s* budget proposal has CONSERVATIVES angry and Democrats livid. It is likely DOA at Congress and will not be resolved before the election. And this obscenely large Smoke and Mirrors deficit doesn’t even include the costs of the war in Iraq. The generosity of the proposed budget to the military industrial complex and pittance doled out to regular Americans is proving there is nothing passionate about this conservative.

A new immigration policy that was supposed to pander to the Hispanic voters without alienating the base has backfired. Immigrants who will be effected by the policy are not voters and voters that make up Bush’s* base don’t want work permits, they want concrete walls topped with razor wire and sniper towers.

Thanks to Bush* shoot first make up excuses later foreign policy, America is viewed with disdain if not much worse by most of the rest of the World. If you go to France in the near future and they treat you like shit, its not just routine, we deserve it, they were right this time.

DEMOCRATS ARE ANGRY! Exit polling at the Democratic primaries and caucuses shows that “beating Bush*” is the only thing that matters to most of them. The criminal actions of the Supreme Court in the last election that led to the theft of the Presidency have not been forgotten. Nor will the current state of affairs be drowned out by the Bush campaign juggernaut. Every media outlet but FOX will see to that.

Predictions: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld will be found culpable and George Tennant will be found spineless in the investigation of WMD claims and the role of the office of “See mo’ evil, Hear mo’ evil, Speak mo’ evil” (Office of Special Plans). As I write this Rumsfeld sits before Congress repeating the WMD claim in the face of the overwhelming evidence and already exposed lies. Senator Kennedy is justifiably incredulous.

Bush* will Pull Osama Bin Laden out of his ass in November. Even though I find the literal visualization of the agony on his face as they pull a seven foot Arab through his sphincter satisfying, I hope Americans will not be blinded to the truth by his capture. They know where he is and are waiting to apprehend him in deference to the best political timing for such an arrest.

Bush’s* closest advisors, beginning with Colin Powell, will soon begin announcing retirements or other forms of graceful exits.

The political careers of Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz are over. Who would have thought that Arie Fleischer was most cognizant of the path the administration was taking and its eventual consequences.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, AMERICA, from now on REMEMBER:

REPUBLICAN=WAR & DEBT
DEMOCRAT=PEACE & PROSPERITY

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America
Long Live President Hastert!
© JBlunt Publishing

Pollack on "Office of Special Plans" or Office of See mo' evil, Hear mo' Evil, Speak mo' Evil.

2004-01-29T12:20:00.000-06:00

The following is an excerpt from the Atlantic Monthy where Ken Pollack summarizes why we stumbled into war with Iraq.

Everyone should read at least this section or the whole article. It is the most consise published account of who did what and why I have seen yet.

The Politics of Persuasion

The intelligence community's overestimation of Iraq's WMD capability is only part of the story of why we went to war last year. The other part involves how the Bush Administration handled the intelligence. Throughout the spring and fall of 2002 and well into 2003 I received numerous complaints from friends and colleagues in the intelligence community, and from people in the policy community, about precisely that. According to them, many Administration officials reacted strongly, negatively, and aggressively when presented with information or analysis that contradicted what they already believed about Iraq. Many of these officials believed that Saddam Hussein was the source of virtually all the problems in the Middle East and was an imminent danger to the United States because of his perceived possession of weapons of mass destruction and support of terrorism. Many also believed that CIA analysts tended to be left-leaning cultural relativists who consistently downplayed threats to the United States. They believed that the Agency, not the Administration, was biased, and that they were acting simply to correct that bias.

Intelligence officers who presented analyses that were at odds with the pre-existing views of senior Administration officials were subjected to barrages of questions and requests for additional information. They were asked to justify their work sentence by sentence: "Why did you rely on this source and not this other piece of information?" "How does this conclusion square with this other point?" "Please explain the history of Iraq's association with the organization you mention in this sentence." Reportedly, the worst fights were those over sources. The Administration gave greatest credence to accounts that presented the most lurid picture of Iraqi activities. In many cases intelligence analysts were distrustful of those sources, or knew unequivocally that they were wrong. But when they said so, they were not heeded; instead they were beset with further questions about their own sources.

On many occasions Administration officials' requests for additional information struck the analysts as being made merely to distract them from their primary mission. Some officials asked for extensive historical analyses—a hugely time-consuming undertaking, for which most intelligence analysts are not trained. Requests were constantly made for detailed analyses of newspaper articles that conformed to the views of Administration officials—pieces by conservative newspaper columnists such as Jim Hoagland, William Safire, and George F. Will. These columnists may be highly intelligent men, but they have no claim to superior insight into the workings of Iraq, or to any independent intelligence-collection capabilities.

Of course, no policymaker should accept intelligence estimates unquestioningly. While I was at the NSC, I regularly challenged analysts as to why they believed what they did. I asked for additional material and required them to do significant additional work. Any official who does less is derelict in his or her duty. However, at a certain point curiosity and diligence become a form of pressure. If your employer asks you every so often about your health and seems to take an appropriate interest in the answer, you probably feel that he or she is kind and considerate. If your employer asks you about your health every ten minutes, in highly detailed, probing questions, you may have a more nervous reaction.

As Seymour Hersh, among others, has reported, Bush Administration officials also took some actions that arguably crossed the line between rigorous oversight of the intelligence community and an attempt to manipulate intelligence. They set up their own shop in the Pentagon, called the Office of Special Plans, in order to sift through the information on Iraq themselves. To a great extent OSP personnel "cherry-picked" the intelligence they passed on, selecting reports that supported the Administration's pre-existing position and ignoring all the rest.

Most problematic of all, the OSP often chose to believe reports that trained intelligence officers considered unreliable or downright false. In particular it gave great credence to reports from the Iraqi National Congress, whose leader was the Administration-backed Ahmed Chalabi. It is true that the intelligence community believed some of the material that came from the INC—but not most of it. (In retrospect, of course, it seems that even the intelligence professionals gave INC reporting more credence than it deserved.) One of the reasons the OSP generally believed Chalabi and the INC was that they were telling it what it wanted to hear—giving the OSP, in a kind of vicious circle, further incentive to trust these sources over differing, and ultimately more reliable, ones. Thus intelligence analysts spent huge amounts of time fighting bad information and trying to persuade Administration officials not to make policy decisions based on it. From my own experience I know that it is hard enough to figure out what the reliable evidence indicates—and vast battles are fought over that. To have to also fight over what is clearly bad information is a Sisyphean task.

The Bush officials who created the OSP gave its reports directly to those in the highest levels of government, often passing raw, unverified intelligence straight to the Cabinet level as gospel. Senior Administration officials made public statements based on these reports—reports that the larger intelligence community knew to be erroneous (for instance, that there was hard and fast evidence linking Iraq to al-Qaeda). Another problem arising from the machinations of the OSP is that whenever the principals of the National Security Council met with the President and his staff, two completely different versions of reality were on the table. The CIA, the State Department, and the uniformed military services would present one version, consistent with the perspective of intelligence and foreign-policy professionals, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Vice President would present another, based on the perspective of the OSP. These views were too far apart to allow for compromise. As a result, the Administration found it difficult, if not impossible, to make certain important decisions. And it made some that were fatally flawed, including many relating to postwar planning, when the OSP's view—that Saddam's regime simultaneously was very threatening and could easily be replaced by a new government—prevailed.

For the most part, the problems discussed so far have more to do with the methods of Administration officials than with their motives, which were often misguided and dangerous, but were essentially well-intentioned. The one action for which I cannot hold Administration officials blameless is their distortion of intelligence estimates when making the public case for going to war.

As best I can tell, these officials were guilty not of lying but of creative omission. They discussed only those elements of intelligence estimates that served their cause. This was particularly apparent in regard to the time frame for Iraq's acquisition of a nuclear weapon—the issue that most alarmed the American public and the rest of the world. Remember that the NIE said that Iraq was likely to have a nuclear weapon in five to seven years if it had to produce the fissile material indigenously, and that it might have one in less than a year if it could obtain the material from a foreign source. The intelligence community considered it highly unlikely that Iraq would be able to obtain weapons-grade material from a foreign source; it had been trying to do so for twenty-five years with no luck. However, time after time senior Administration officials discussed only the worst-case, and least likely, scenario, and failed to mention the intelligence community's most likely scenario. Some examples:

In a radio address on September 14, 2002, President Bush warned, "Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."

On October 7, 2002, the President told a group in Cincinnati, "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

On November 1, 2002, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told the Second Global Conference on Nuclear, Bio/Chem Terrorism, "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material—whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile-material capability—it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."

Vice President Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press on September 14, 2003, "The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States, and they had a high degree of confidence in it."

None of these statements in itself was untrue. However, each told only a part of the story—the most sensational part. These statements all implied that the U.S. intelligence community believed that Saddam would have a nuclear weapon within a year unless the United States acted at once.

Some defenders of the Administration have reportedly countered that all it did was make the best possible case for war, playing a role similar to that of a defense attorney who is charged with presenting the best possible case for a client (even if the client is guilty). That is a false analogy. A defense attorney is responsible for presenting only one side of a dispute. The President is responsible for serving the entire nation. Only the Administration has access to all the information available to various agencies of the U.S. government—and withholding or downplaying some of that information for its own purposes is a betrayal of that responsibility.

What Is to Be Done?

What we have learned about Iraq's WMD programs since the fall of Baghdad leads me to conclude that the case for war with Iraq was considerably weaker than I believed beforehand. Because of the consensus among American and foreign intelligence agencies, outside experts, and former UN weapons inspectors, I had been convinced that Iraq was only years away from having a nuclear weapon—probably only four or five years, as Robert Einhorn had testified. That estimate was clearly off, possibly by quite a bit. My reluctant conviction that war was our only option (although not at the time or in the manner in which the Bush Administration pursued it) was not entirely based on the nuclear threat, but that threat was the most important factor in it.

The war was not all bad. I do not believe that it was a strategic mistake, although the appalling handling of postwar planning was. There is no question that Saddam Hussein was a force for real instability in the Persian Gulf, and that his removal from power was a tremendous improvement. There is also no question that he was pure evil, and that he headed one of the most despicable regimes of the past fifty years. I am grateful that the United States no longer has to contend with the malign influence of Saddam's Iraq in this economically irreplaceable and increasingly fragile part of the world; nor can I begrudge the Iraqi people one day of their freedom. What's more, we should not forget that containment was failing. The shameful performance of the United Nations Security Council members (particularly France and Germany) in 2002-2003 was final proof that containment would not have lasted much longer; Saddam would eventually have reconstituted his WMD programs, although further in the future than we had thought. That said, the case for war—and for war sooner rather than later—was certainly less compelling than it appeared at the time. At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003. It appears even more reckless in light of what we know today.

The problems that led to our mistaken beliefs about the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be addressed immediately. Unfortunately, to some extent the problems are contradictory, and therefore the solutions may work against one another. For example, a remedy used in the past to address influence from the executive branch on the intelligence process has been to increase oversight of intelligence operations and analysis by Congress. However, in this instance increasing congressional oversight could have exacerbated another problem: the failure of the intelligence community to sufficiently challenge its own assumptions about Saddam's strategy. The more that intelligence agencies must report to both Congress and the White House, the more they fear becoming a political football, and the more they will tone down their estimates, stick to mainstream judgments, and avoid taking controversial positions. Arguing that Iraq had minimized its WMD holdings after 1996 would have been a very controversial position indeed.

Some of the problems that led to our misunderstanding of Iraq's WMD may be insoluble, at least by bureaucratic changes. The forms of pressure exerted on the intelligence community by the Bush Administration were perfectly legal; it would probably be impossible to regulate against them. Moreover, doing so could preclude useful and necessary questioning of intelligence analysts by Administration officials. Still, some fixes do suggest themselves.

In the future we as a nation must be willing to devote enough resources to intelligence so that we will always be able to sustain a large, aggressive program to collect all manner of information and a sophisticated analysis program on all high-priority issues. In retrospect, our over-reliance on UNSCOM inspectors lulled us into a false sense of security; this in turn contributed to our inflated estimates of Iraq's WMD progress after 1998. Even though Iraq was a difficult environment for any intelligence service to operate in, and the CIA did devote substantial assets to it at all times, it would have made some difference if the Agency could have devoted still greater resources to it, even when that seemed redundant with UNSCOM's missions.

Our failings in the WMD experience also argue for a more powerful and independent director of central intelligence. The DCI currently serves at the pleasure of the President, and although he is the nominal head of the entire intelligence community, in reality he does not have much authority over most of the intelligence agencies, whose budgets and personnel come largely from the Department of Defense. The United States could make the DCI position similar to that of the director of the FBI: the President would nominate a candidate who would then need to be confirmed by Congress, and who would serve a fixed term. And the DCI could be made the true head of intelligence, with control over the budgets and personnel of all the intelligence agencies. Many of the intelligence agencies that currently report to the Secretary of Defense, including the National Security Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, to name just two, should instead report to the DCI. These changes would put the DCI in a stronger position to resist pressure from the executive branch (or Congress) and to protect his people from the same.

Strengthening the DCI and increasing his independence might make for smarter, bolder analysis. The less intelligence analysts have to worry that the DCI is going to take heat for unpopular if accurate judgments, the more willing they will be to make them. This is not a slur against DCI George Tenet, who I think handled the difficulties of his situation extraordinarily well. But it is a recognition that DCIs must not be put in the position that Tenet was forced into.

Another step worth considering is forbidding the CIA or anyone else in government from making any intelligence estimates public for five or ten years. As someone firmly committed to the concept of open government, who believes that the CIA has benefited from its efforts in the past decade to be more open to the public, I dislike the idea of greater secrecy. However, when intelligence estimates become public, they have a huge impact on the course of foreign-policy debates, and administrations therefore find themselves with a great incentive to make sure the Agency's estimates support the Administration's preferred policy. If such estimates were not made public, an administration would have little reason to try to influence them. The government could still produce white papers, but they should come from the State Department—the agency that is, after all, officially charged with public diplomacy.

Finally, the U.S. government must admit to the world that it was wrong about Iraq's WMD and show that it is taking far-reaching action to correct the problems that led to this error. Iraq is not going to be the last foreign-policy challenge in which we must make choices based on ambiguous evidence. When the United States confronts future challenges, the exaggerated estimates of Iraq's WMD will loom like an ugly shadow over the diplomatic discussions. Fairly or not, no foreigner trusts U.S. intelligence to get it right anymore, or trusts the Bush Administration to tell the truth. The only way that we can regain the world's trust is to demonstrate that we understand our mistakes and have changed our ways.
Kennith M. Pollack

Dean, Scary

2004-01-20T09:42:00.000-06:00

OK, I got it a little wrong. The finish was Kerry, Edwards and Dean. At least I picked the top three accurately. If I was at the track I would have gotten some pay out.
Really finished was Gephardt. Effectively finished was Kucinich.
But did you see Howard Dean’s speech. It scared ME. Did it scare you? It should have. That guy’s nuts. I retract a lot of what I have said in favor of Dean. I still insist that he is not a radical liberal. I began to feel a little iffy on Dean as he defended himself against the onslaught that Kerry and Gephardt unleashed late last week. But last night, as he recited the names of the States with that Beavis on crack look in his eyes. As he ran back and forth across the stage looking some how less Presidential than our current President* (YEEEEEECHH) he convinced me that not only can he NOT beat the evil one*, he may be more dangerous. I have requested that the Dean campaign remove me from its rolls and I’m sending money to a candidate for the first time this season. John Edwards. I’ve felt good about him for a while and he has now shown he can run with the big dogs.

The most meaningful point to take away from last nights caucuses is that momentum, perceived electability, and current level of celebrity are the keys to winning. Being qualified, tenured and organized appears to have only marginal effect.

As I said in my Sunday Morning Quarterback last week John Edwards is the best candidate the Democrats have and James Carville said yesterday on CNN that John Edwards was the best candidate for the nomination he had ever seen in his career, including Clinton.

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America
Long Live President Hastert!
©JBlunt Publishing 2004

Carville agrees with Blunt!

2004-01-19T08:58:00.000-06:00

JBlunt: "YESTERDAY in the Sunday Morning Quarterback, my weekly review of Sunday news shows, I stated that John Edwards had always been the best choice for ringleader since the democratic circus pitched its tent. I also predicted John Edwards would finish second in Iowa and go on to crush Dean in the South. TODAY on CNN James Carville said John Edwards was 'the best nominee he had ever seen in his career, including Clinton.'

Damn I feel good. You made my day James. Need any good help?

JBlunt

�JBlunt Publishing

President Hastert bumper stickers now available!

2004-01-15T22:13:00.000-06:00

Long Live President Hastert bumper stickers available here!
If you don't recognize the current President* any more than I do, get yourself a bumper sticker that not only makes a statement but forces people to ask questions so you can tell them what’s up! Like, He's* not President*, He* lied about Iraq, He's* getting Americans killed, He's* stealing our civil liberties, He's* trashing the environment, He's* crippling our children's financial future, He's* lost the respect of leaders around the world, He's* short, He's* stupid, He's* easily manipulated, He's* kinda ugly, He's* weak, and He sucks.

JBLunt

*He’s G.W. Bush and He is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
LONG LIVE President Hastert!

©JBlunt Publishing 2004

Reiner and Sheen Kiss of Death to Dean in Iowa?

2004-01-15T19:17:00.000-06:00

Reiner and Sheen may be the kiss of death to Dean’s hopes to win Iowa.
Ever since the Dean campaign brought out Martin Sheen and Rob Reiner, his lead has been evaporating if the polls are to be believed. Polling is a dangerous quest in a caucus state. Caucus goers can do anything on caucus night regardless of public opinion. I personally let out an “Oh God” when I saw Reiner and Sheen pop up on TV and my instinct was right. The overnight Zogby poll puts Kerry on top. The Dean campaign is all about grass roots, low profile, real American down home politics. Reiner and Sheen are Hollywood, high profile, flashy, celebrity fu-fu politics. What moron on the staff thought these guys could help in a Midwestern environment. Dean needs to put the Hollywood crew away until he gets to the east coast. Also, put off all but the most local endorsements until he has the nomination well in hand. Big name endorsements from the fringe will hurt him in the general election and big name endorsements from the middle or conservative sectors of the party may dampen the rebel in your face energy that has kept Dean interesting. Dean and Edwards really are the only candidates who represent anything fresh or interesting. Edwards has been getting some flack lately for being too young at 50. Kennedy and Clinton were both younger, Edwards only gets flack because he looks 35. It’s the same psychological motivation that causes me to refer to George Stephanopoulos as “Manchild” in my Sunday Morning Quarterback weekly review of news shows. God help the Democratic Party if neither Dean nor Edwards ends up with the nomination. Why? Because all the other candidates represent old tired politics or are unqualified neophytes.

JBlunt
©JBlunt Publishing 2004

Dean's not a Radical Liberal!

2004-01-08T12:56:00.000-06:00

Dean’s not a Radical Liberal!
This last weekend a lot of talking heads were marveling at Howard Dean’s ability to weather his occasional gaffs without seeming to suffer any erosion of support. They concluded that his gaffs don’t matter because Dean’s Supporters are “hardcore”. The real reason Dean’s gaffs don’t matter is because of hardcore Bush* haters, not hardcore Dean Supporters. You may think that those two groups are one in the same. Wrong, underestimation breath! The number of people who hate Bush* is far greater. If it were only Dean Supporters that stood solid with him in spite of his gaffs his polling numbers would be driven down with each instance. Yet Dean holds steady at thirty odd percent nationwide, more or less the same as the number of avowed Bush* haters. The terror for Bush* will be when everyone figures out Dean’s actually a moderate and that hardcore Dean Supporters are just the tip of the iceberg. In the general election they will become the digitally connected organization that will motivate and mobilize those who are not yet Dean Supporters. As Dean’s true moderate colors come out, more and more regular Americans will begin to consider him as Presidential material.

The idea that Dean is a radical liberal is a Grand Delusion. This Grand Delusion is being perpetuated by the radical right who don’t want him bleeding off moderate Republican votes and the left who view him as some sort of purely motivated party savior. Dean is pro-gun, consistently produced balanced budgets as Governor and provided greatly expanded health coverage without raising taxes. A Nexus search of Vermont newspapers and TV news transcripts finds the words liberal and Dean never used in the same sentence. In fact, liberal is most frequently used in describing people who were upset with Dean. The folks being deluded include the radical left, conservative left and everyone on the right. When the truth about his politics is fully vetted a huge realignment of Dean’s support demographics will occur. Sure the Kucinich crowd will still be unhappy with him and hardcore Bush* supporters won’t have an epiphany, but conservative democrats and moderate republicans who see through the Grand Delusion will flock to Dean. This includes Democrats who currently support Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards. Sharpton, Braun and Kucinich Democrats who won’t flock but they will be forced to Dean’s camp in the voting booth. Include Clark’s voters since he will be Dean’s Vice President. And finally all those Republicans, the ones who want to vote Republican but despise Bush’s* immigration policy or fiscal policy or the Patriot Act infringements on civil rights or job exportation or preemptive military doctrine or...blah, blah, blah, there are so many. This President* has angered enough Americans from both sides of the isle that when Dean is finally seen as the fence straddling moderate that he is, he’ll have voters from both parties hanging on his legs. I hope he has cast iron nads! He’ll need them as the Bush* cash campaign juggernaut sets sail. The Democratic Leadership Counsel doesn’t know what they’re missing here. If they help this guy fight the Bush* campaign pirates, they will get a President that is indistinguishable from Bill Clinton on everything but defense and with Clark as V.P. that perceived negative will be mitigated in the eyes of the voters.

As the general election approaches Dean needs to adopt a public face that more realistically represents the reality of his politics, that of a logical liberal, the yin to the yang of a compassionate conservative. As the logical liberal, Dean can recruit pro-gun voters, traditionalists who do not approve of gay “marriage” but do approve of equal rights for same sex unions, fiscal conservatives of both parties, progressives that want true universal competitive healthcare and even flaming liberals who want out of Iraq. Pretty much anyone who’s got an axe to grind with George Bush* can hang their hat on Howard Dean without feeling like a traitor to their core beliefs. Dean hits the perfect moderate tone for a country that grows weary of negative campaigning and extremist positions.

America has a choice. Democrats because of the leftover rage of 2000, Nader’s wise choice to stay out and not F’ things up this time, and the perfectly positioned Dean campaign hold the key. We can pull back from creating an America known for confrontation, debt and polarizing rhetoric, support the Dean campaign and return to the time when America was a beacon of peace, prosperity, and reconciliation. That is of course providing the Sirens of the Grand Delusion can be muted and the truth about Dean revealed.

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
Long Live President Hastert!
©JBlunt Publishing

Bush Shoots Baker in the Back, Saddam Takes the Bullet

2003-12-14T14:23:00.000-06:00

A couple of weeks ago James Baker, formerly of the George W. Bush administration, was tapped by our current President* to go to the members of the world community who were unsupportive of the Iraq war and beg for more cash and debt relief for the war effort. Last week the President* shot Baker in the back and seemingly crippled his mission with the decision to exclude the aforementioned countries from contracts to rebuild Iraq. International reaction to this decision was unanimous in both outrage and disbelief. The fact that we arrogant Americans would turn away allies after being wrong about the need to go in, getting bogged down in a guerilla war, and having to send our country into debt that will burden our grandchildren, that we would turn down forgiveness and help from our friends after being so wrong in so many ways, stupefies them. The likelihood of Baker having any success in his endeavor in the shadow of the contracts decision was nil.

Enter Saddam Hussein. Pulled from a hole in Adwar Iraq Saturday, looking more like a homeless person than a dictator, he took that bullet for James Baker and the President*. He was caught without resistance despite being armed with a pistol, some other weapons and $750,000.00 in cash. The news of the former Iraqi leaders capture had both the French and German Ambassadors hurried onto national news networks to praise the capture and to protest that last weeks fury had always been an attitude of ‘let bygone’s be bygone’s’. Now, thanks to the very man the President* has been trying to destroy, James Baker can go to Europe and maintain the arrogant American posture and likely get what the President* wants. This political capitulation to a moral principal when we should be the ones with hand held out in humility reeks of irony. The hunted has saved the hunter, for now.

How many more times will this President* be able to step in a bucket of crap and come out 'with the appearance of’ smelling like a rose?

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America.
LONG LIVE President Hastert!

Bush Legacy T-shirts now on sale!

2003-12-09T15:59:00.000-06:00

Bush Legacy T-Shirts now available! order yours from the link on this website or Cafe Press.

Bloomberg Blows It

2003-11-21T16:50:00.000-06:00

Mayor Michael Bloomberg blows it. Bloomberg tried to eliminate primaries in New York politics. He even spent 2 million dollars of his own money to pass it.

Was he asleep during the CalEfornia recall election or does he just have an affinity for circuses his constituents do not?

New Yorkers are not stupid and rejected the proposed change by more than 2 to 1 in the election.
JBlunt
Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Supreme Court reinforces right to privacy.

2003-11-21T16:44:00.000-06:00

.............from a previous post...........
The Supreme Court’s sweeping endorsement of sexual privacy
"Conservatives suffered a setback in the Supreme Court today............." is a phrase echoed by almost every talking pinhead on almost every news channel all day today.

“Conservatives” believe in a right to privacy and hands off government.

Conservatives had a glorious day today. The more accurate descriptor for those who feel cheated today is fascist.
JBlunt

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

My life with Mike

2003-11-20T16:08:00.000-06:00

Young Timmy relates fond memories of NEVERLAND and his secret bedroom. The toys, the games and the little smelly monster that pops out from behind the barn door.

............coming soon............

Gay Lobby Shoots Self in Head

2003-11-18T10:19:00.000-06:00

Homosexuals believe they won a victory in Massachusetts today. If you call falling short of the primary goal and raising the ire of the 98% of the population that is not gay a victory, then "good show fellas".
The political wrath of the politicians and media has already started. If the chosen path had been to abandon the ‘m’ word and secure the rights and privileges everyone wants them to have, the road ahead would be lined with supporters of all sexual and religious dispositions. But since ‘marriage’ is an essentially religious state that has over time (thousands of years) been adopted and sanctioned by governments as routine, changing the rules for who qualifies has raised the hackles of almost every religious or traditionalist individual in the country. We already know Republicans will vote to defeat progress on this issue. Democrats will soon be forced to follow suit thanks to the pressure exerted by today’s decision on the 98% of us who are not gay. If proponents of equal rights continue to insist on using the word ‘marriage’ most of the viable Democratic Presidential candidates plus Congressmen and Senators from both parties, will be forced to take a position against gay 'marriage' in order to get re-elected. In this climate, passing a constitutional amendment banning gay 'marriage' forever will be easy. The fact that a religious doctrine is endorsed by government is the root problem. If true separation of church and state existed, we would not be having this argument.

We should secure equal rights for gays who want to get 'married' without using the term 'marriage'! It will get gays what they want without further blurring the line between church and state. I would venture that most folks who endorse gay 'marriage' also support the separation clause of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court takes any position on this matter either way it will by its action inject government into what should be a purely religious debate. So let religious types keep 'marriage' as a religious pact and let it become a symbolic name used by believers (straight or gay) to describe the underlying renamed legal arrangement accepted by government. Renaming the legal description of ‘marriage’ and letting the church keep performing marriage ceremonies is far more desirable than fighting to change the traditional definition. It will give equal rights to everyone under the law without any religious taint or blessing and darken the line between church and state. The current path being followed by radical supporters of this position will seal the deal on the Supreme Court making the final call. They will not vote in your favor. In fact, when the politicians see that day coming, they will pass a constitutional amendment that will destroy most of the fruits of years of activism that will have occurred by then.
Try to have some foresight people. You just won the battle that will likely cost you the war.

JBlunt

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Bush* Trip to Britain PREVISION Synopsis

2003-11-18T00:20:00.000-06:00

George Bush* goes to England. OOPS! What was he thinking? Like fine French wines, he does not travel well. After the George Michael video depicting Blair as the submissive to Bush* in an S&M parody became so popular, and after transforming that parody into fact with sexed up dossiers, distorted intelligence and the deaths of both British and American soldiers as the two marched in political lock-step, one might think that the puppeteers at the White House might have suspected it would be a bad idea to send Bush* to Britain to rub the public's nose in it. But NO! The political masters at the White House saw right through the obvious and undeniable negatives to the obscure and indiscernible pluses the excursion would produce.

First there was.......no no actually that turned out rather badly.

Second was the glorious....... no uh that was actually embarrassing.

Well you can't deny the great TV we got from his visit to.......oh all right! So he didn't look good..at least he didn't puke on his host like Daddy.

Over all you got to admit the trip was a huge success ..er benefit ..er

uh useful............OK fucking disaster.

But don't worry George*. Your base won't notice. They're too stupid to see the obvious and undeniable. That you're an idiot. A dangerously powerful idiot.

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America

LONG LIVE President Hastert

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Paul Harvey's Confused

2003-11-17T20:11:00.000-06:00

The other night I was watching Paul Harvey on television. He recently had a medical problem, a virus, which caused him to lose his classic Paul Harvey voice. It was a very dark time and he spent months on his knees praying to god to return his instrument to him. After a nine months of preying He finally went to a Physician. His Physician implanted a small plastic fiber in the muscle the adjacent to his larynx. Took about 45 minutes. His voice returned instantly. Nine months of praying and suffering. “I spent a lot of time that night on my knees that night I can tell you.” He told Larry King. So my question is, what were you doing Paul? Servicing the doctor’s yang? He’s the one who got you your damn voice back. God ignored your ass for nine months!

JBlunt

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Austin Music: Alien Grass

2003-11-17T19:51:00.000-06:00

Mo Pair, Sara Hammond & Victor Bustos @ Green Muse 519 Oltorf. I really didn't know what to expect except that anything Mo does is usually excellent. They did not disappoint. In a broad ranging display of vocal prowess Mo & Sara blended their voices beautifully. Original tunes and excellent acoustic interpretations of a couple of covers kept the small intimate crowd of fans and a few members of the jam band Groovin' Ground captivated. "Breathing Rain" written for Sarah by Mo and "Jane Said" were especially sweet. Instrumentation of A.G. is 1 electric and 2 acoustic guitars. See more about the artists at www.mopair.com & www.sarahamman.com
Mo has a CD release party coming up at the Cactus Cafe on the 25th and Sara has CD's for sale now.

JBlunt

No more rushes for Rush

2003-11-17T19:46:00.000-06:00

Mr. Hypocrite .........I mean Limbaugh is out of rehab! I just took two Vicodins in his honor. Go rush..........I mean Rush!

JBlunt

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Moore Gets the Shaft but will He Get the Cage too?

2003-10-26T19:58:00.000-06:00

By refusing to hear the case brought by the FORMER Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore (former because he was fired by the other judges on the bench for violating a Federal Court Order) the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the SECULAR foundation of our Constitution. As it has been established for years, the principal of separation of church and state remains intact but is threatened by the age and inclinations toward retirement of the current lot of Justices. The U.S. Senate can protect us for now but removing our current feaux President must remain a priority. Anyone who takes a look around the World with open eyes can see that Religion, whether fact or fantasy, causes almost all human strife. Religion has no place in Government unless of course your motivation is to corrupt it and give sanction to human strife.

Roy Moore says the Equal Protection clause in the 10th Amendment to the U.S, Constitution protects Alabama and He from this outcome. Obviously it does not. Will Roy Moore go to prison? He should. I would if I had defied a Federal Court Order. Where's my Equal Protection from people like him? If Roy Moore is allowed to resign instead of facing justice that will be a violation of the Equal Protection clause, and I hope the ACLU notices.

JBlunt

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Republicans Can't Think Straight

2003-10-19T14:51:00.000-05:00

Intellectual consistency has been abandoned by the Republican Party in this country. People who support one political position based on a moral or social principle they endorse do not always follow the same moral or social principle when evaluating other political positions.

Think you’re an intellectually consistent conservative Republican?

Conservative Republicans like hands off government don’t they?

How many conservative Republicans out there feel that the choking hands of government should be pulled a free from the throats of corporations so that they can grow and prosper making more money and more jobs lifting the entire economy as a whole raising each and every one of us to higher standard of living?

How many conservative Republicans out there feel that the heavy hand of government should be lifted from the backs of the common man in the form of tax cuts so that he or she can keep more money from the each paycheck spending it wherever they want instead of the government deciding where it should go?

So then……. how come so many conservative Republicans keep trying to shove the controlling hand of government so far up a woman’s crotch it won’t actually fit?

How come so many conservative Republicans are totally freaked out by and vehemently opposed to attorney general John Ashcroft’s attempts to restrict civil rights and privacy in this country that is, unless you’re gay?

If Republican economic policy is so conservative how come it’s the economy that goes down the crapper every time a Republican president gets his hand near the handle?

Just imagine that the economy is a giant toilet. You can use it in two ways. You can flush shit down the toilet whereupon you end up with less shit (desirable) or you can flush money down the toilet whereupon you end up with less money (undesirable). When Republicans have their hands on the handle they flush money down the toilet. “Tax cut for the rich!” Wooooooooosh. New Department of Homeland Security! Woooooooosh. War for oil! Woooooooooooooosh! Ya know, I don’t even remember what the economic priorities were during the Clinton era, and I wish I didn’t have to try. If that stumpy little criminal President* of ours had just left economic policy alone he’d be lookin’ pretty good right now. “Won a couple o’ wars, economy’s steamin’ along, Ron, Dennis pretty much everybody who can rat me* out’s goin’ to jail. Yeah we’re losin’ a 20 year old every 12 hours world wide and there won’t be any money left to support the Baby Boomers in 20 years but who’s gonna notice that.”

If the Republicans who are currently in charge of the government were really “conservative” they’d pay their bills, cut up their credit cards, insure their children’s future, cut taxes on people who actually WORK for a living, get their noses out of gay men’s bedrooms and their hand out of my girlfriend’s ass.

JBlunt …… Austin, TX
*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America LONG LIVE President Hastert

Copright 2003 John McJunkin

Gun Control? People Control!

2003-09-19T18:50:00.000-05:00

Want better Gun Control? Use both hands.
Want better Gun Control laws? READ THIS!

Establish laws that call for the strongest penalties the public will tolerate based solely on the BEHAVIOR of the HUMANS who use guns NOT on the characteristics of the actual piece of hardware. A loaded gun with the safety off cannot and will never be able to hurt any HUMAN unless a HUMAN interferes with it.

If I steal an Colt AR-15 and storm the nearby shopping mall I may be able to kill a small number of people before everyone either runs or hides. Then as police surround me I will either die or give up. A defective/dangerous product lawsuit against Colt will likley follow.
If I steal a Caterpillar bulldozer from the nearby construction site and run it at 20-30 mph through the center of the crowded mall I will kill more people in the first 50 yards than that piker with the AR-15 can kill in 2-3 hours. If people run and hide in the stores or bathrooms I could simply turn the bulldozer in their direction and all the glass and clothing racks in the world will not protect them. When the police show up, I would simply push the police cars and swat team vans around like toys killing officers and disrupting any tactics they may have fancied effective in the situation. Why would this work. Just ask Bush 43*, he knows. Overwhelming force. Will the victims sue Caterpillar? Sure. But they will lose. Why? Because their isn't a large number of misguided nutballs out there trying to manipulate Caterpillar to gain political advantage. And don't give me that crap about the gun being designed to kill and the bulldozer is not. It is the use of the chosen hardware not its capability that matters. The bulldozer is far more capable of killing large numbers of people in a densely populated area than the AR-15.

Colt will no longer sell their hardware to ordinary citizens because of the recent absurd court decisions that transfer responsibility for actions humans who violate the law to the corporations who have cash. A gun pointed at a human by another human that kills the second human when operated is not defective but it has been illegally and properly operated. A bulldozer pointed at a human by another human that kills a large number of humans is not defective, but it has been illegally and improperly operated. Please notice that in the first case a device designed to kill has been properly operated and in the second case a device not designed to kill has been improperly operated, yet the second is more effective than the first. So much for arguments about intended use.

A while back, a human stole a tank and drove it around town smashing everything in his path with impunity until he high centered it. This human had operated it both illegally and in the end, improperly. Has the Army been sued? Have tanks been outlawed? NO.

Just notice how much HUMAN involvement it takes to cause any piece of hardware to take a HUMAN life. That tank was sitting peacefully in the armory until a HUMAN interfered. That AR-15 was sitting peacefully in a closet until a HUMAN interfered. That bulldozer was moving dirt until a HUMAN interfered. Clearly HUMAN BEHAVIOR is the problem not the design, availability or effectiveness of the hardware.

Both political parties need to wake up and smell the reality. Make laws that make sense. Similarly misguided legislation currently on the books or under consideration in the areas of drugs and taxes also need some sense beat into them.
But that's another subject...

JBlunt

*G.W. Bush is not a legitimate President of the United States of America LONG LIVE President Hastert!

Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Bush Disclaimer Explanation

2002-11-21T10:32:00.000-06:00

Apparently there are those who read this site who ask "Who is President Hastert"
No wonder Jay Leno gets the answers he does when he goes out on his walking quiz show bit.
OK, for those of you left behind by the third world public education system we have in this country.................
Representative Dennis Hastert is Speaker of the House of Representatives and in the hierarchy of U.S. Government he is third in line to ascend to the Presidency in the event both the President and Vice President become unfit to serve. Since both of them were unfit to serve from birth and neither one was elected, I feel journalistic integrity demands I post a disclaimer any time I refer to either of them.

JBlunt
Copyright 2003 John McJunkin

Regarding the existence of God

2001-02-04T15:48:00.000-06:00

If you begin to question your faith whatever it is the only one who can give you a definitive answer is the one who is the object of that faith.
It is in this light that I pose the following conundrum.

In order to trust the answer you have to have faith.
If you have faith, you can't ask the question.
If you ask the question, there is no-one to answer.

1999-11-24T15:07:00.000-06:00