Friday, February 6, 2009

30 Years of Saliva Poured on the Constitution

Andrew Card, chief of staff during the disastrous George W. Bush Administration doesn't like this:


Card, showing uncharacteristic regard for the U.S. Constitution, which the Bush Administration never failed to trample over, had this to say:
The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President. I don't criticize Obama for his appearance, I do expect him to send the message that people who are going to be in the Oval Office should treat the office with the respect that it has earned over history.
Now comes evidence from The Huffington Post that a crime spree of jacketless attacks on the Constitution stretches back at least 30 years:




And, of course, one hardly can mention trampling on the Constitution unless he or she mentions George W. Bush and the Bush Crime Syndicate:


Thursday, February 5, 2009

The President's speech after he signed SCHIP

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The President argues for the urgent need for the stimulus plan

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Stop Sarah Palin

Bush, Miers, and Rove

George W. Bush refrained from issuing pardons for his merry band of Constitution-violators, and we thought, well, here is restraint. But David Latt at Huffington Post points out that Bush really did do something pretty much akin to pardon:
Four days before he left office, Mr. Bush authorized (the White House counsel) to write letters to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove giving them "absolute immunity" from Congressional inquiry and prosecution. Preemptively. In perpetuity. Absolute and irrevocable.
Latt observes that Bush effectively did an end-run around the issue of pardons.

So the ball is going to be in Barack Obama's court. Does George Bush's death grip extend forever forward, or do we really just have one president at a time? We need to wait and see: the President might want to preserve this perverse interpretation of executive privilege. We haven't seen so far whether he's willing to relinquish the powers that George Bush claimed for the presidency. Personally, I hope Obama puts the republic first and the presidency later.

What's all the fuss?


I have begun to notice a pattern in the media's coverage of the Obama Administration. Last night, the Senate easily confirmed Eric Holder as the nation's first African American Attorney General. The vote was 75 to 21. Easy. No fuss, no muss, not a scintilla of suspense. Not a single Democrat opposed him; the 21 nay votes came from Republicans. Moreover, except for John Ensign who hails from the Obama stronghold of Nevada, every senator who opposed Holder represents a state that went for John McCain last November (in other words, states outside of the mainstream of American life.)

We're beginning to see a pattern here: the media likes to suggest conflict and doubt, but Obama's initiatives are sailing through without the hint of any real problem.

Monday, February 2, 2009

National Emergency Centers Establishment Act

Alcee Hastings, Democrat of Florida, has introduced the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. At first, the bill sounds benign, even humane. It provides that no fewer than six centers will be built on U.S. Military installations. These centers would give emergency aid, housing, and relief services for citizens during a time of disaster or national emergency.

Section Two, Paragraph B-4, however, raises some serious questions. It reads that the centers will "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security." Some commentators are wondering whether this is just one more in a long series of steps to prepare the country for martial law. I think talk like this can be a little paranoid, but I also think it's important to be vigilant about our freedoms, so I bring the controversy to your attention.

Why Won't KNBC Let Super Bowl Watchers Get to Know Us First?

Here's an important message from our friends at Believe it or not, these and other ads were not shown during the Super Bowl yesterday. Why? "They were advocacy ads."

Uh huh... And the ads for "clean coal" and for "oil and natural gas" weren't? Give me a break! Get a hold of KNBC, the Southern California NBC affiliate, today and ask them why they refuse to show these ads of these loving families.
KNBC rejects our ad and claims the National Football League (NFL) excluded PSA as “advocacy,” yet other advocacy ads air. learned today during the Super Bowl broadcast that the NFL aired "advocacy" ads, despite rejecting our ad.

Late Friday afternoon, KNBC told our ad agency that the NFL Legal Department had viewed our ad and rejected it, explaining they planned to show no "advocacy" ads during their entire day of programming, from Road to the Superbowl at 9:00 am through the end of the game.

It became clear to us while watching the broadcast, that a number of such ads were playing in rotation.

Things you can do:
1. Read our media release.
2. Forward this to others who would be interested.
3. Post this story on related blogs, news websites, Facebook.
4. Contact KNBC to express your feelings:
Craig Robinson, General Manager
3000 W Alameda Ave # 2201
Burbank, CA 91523
(818) 840-4444

You can also view all five PSAs, as well as Behind the Scenes videos THE SHOOT and THE PRESS CONFERENCE:

Thanks for your support!

-John Ireland
Project Organizer

P.S.--Pass this along to friends and family who you think would be interested in following our campaign! That's how viral marketing works, so you will be amplifying our success with the click of a button. :-)
So please, please make that click, send that email, make that call, and help these families tell their stories. Thanks.

Breaking: Martha Washington wasn't frumpy

The Washington Post has an interesting article this morning that suggests historians are taking an entirely new look at the first First Lady of the United States. Historian Patricia Brady is telling an entirely new story about Martha Washington, who it turns out was not a frumpy and plump dimwit but an 18th century hottie. The Post reports that Brady:
took a miniature watercolor-on-ivory portrait of Martha in middle age, which her grandchildren said was a "striking likeness," to forensic anthropologists at the Louisiana State University Forensic Anthropology and Computer Enhancement Services, or FACES, Labratory. These are the scientists who do age progressions to determine what kidnapped children might look like as adults. Brady asked whether they could do the same process in reverse: take a middle-aged Martha and, using her bone structure, figure out what she would have looked like as a 25-year-old about to marry the future father of the country.
So here is the picture that Martha's grandkids said was a "striking likeness":


As the article observes, forensic anthropologists used that portrait to generate an image of what Martha looked like in her 20s. Their effort inspired Michael Deas to execute this painting:


Sunday, February 1, 2009

The President gives Matt Lauer a great interview

Openly Gay Prime Minister Named in Iceland

Iceland has named an openly gay woman to serve as its new Prime Minister. Her name is Johanna Sigurdardottir.

So what could be more appropriate than Iceland breaking the ice?

Congratulations, Prime Minister Sigurdardottir.

Obama Skit on "Saturday Night Live"