Sunday, July 01, 2007
Saudi religious police face backlash
Okay.
The Saudis are the supposed "moderates". The reasonable Islamists in the region. Our allies in envisioning a brighter, new, and modern day in the region.
In our society, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the "Religious Right" are seen as equivalents of these people.
Look at the most extreme things that the "Religious Right" in our country has been accused of wanting to bring about, and compare it to what the Saudi government has done ... FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS!
The Saudis ... the "moderate" Islamic government ... acts out daily things that only White supremacist groups want to do in our country.
These guys are our "friends". They scare the crap out of me. Given power in our nation, they would enact daily atrocities that make the behavior of the Gestapo and the SS look like a day at Six Flags.
Who would they go after first?
The "borders" of our society. On one end of the spectrum: the gays, the lesbians, the musicians, the artists, the filmmakers, the writers ... anyone who attempts to expand the bounds of what is acceptable to see, hear, watch, think about and discuss. On the other: the rabbis, the priests, the preachers, the pastors, the lay-leaders ... anyone who advocates any religious or moral code that is not Islam.
Quickly, and inexorably working their way to the center of our society ... until secret police can snatch women off the street because their dress allowed so much as their eyes to be uncovered.
"When questioned, the commission members claimed we were indecently covered," because her daughter's veil didn't cover her eyes, she said.
HHHhhhmmmmm ....
So, working in, going to, ... etc. a Hooters would be a capital crime.
Imagine if the "Religion of Peace" makes some, as we consider them today, average American say, "Give me Hot Wings, or Give Me Death!"
The Saudis are the supposed "moderates". The reasonable Islamists in the region. Our allies in envisioning a brighter, new, and modern day in the region.
In our society, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the "Religious Right" are seen as equivalents of these people.
Look at the most extreme things that the "Religious Right" in our country has been accused of wanting to bring about, and compare it to what the Saudi government has done ... FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS!
The Saudis ... the "moderate" Islamic government ... acts out daily things that only White supremacist groups want to do in our country.
These guys are our "friends". They scare the crap out of me. Given power in our nation, they would enact daily atrocities that make the behavior of the Gestapo and the SS look like a day at Six Flags.
Who would they go after first?
The "borders" of our society. On one end of the spectrum: the gays, the lesbians, the musicians, the artists, the filmmakers, the writers ... anyone who attempts to expand the bounds of what is acceptable to see, hear, watch, think about and discuss. On the other: the rabbis, the priests, the preachers, the pastors, the lay-leaders ... anyone who advocates any religious or moral code that is not Islam.
Quickly, and inexorably working their way to the center of our society ... until secret police can snatch women off the street because their dress allowed so much as their eyes to be uncovered.
"When questioned, the commission members claimed we were indecently covered," because her daughter's veil didn't cover her eyes, she said.
HHHhhhmmmmm ....
So, working in, going to, ... etc. a Hooters would be a capital crime.
Imagine if the "Religion of Peace" makes some, as we consider them today, average American say, "Give me Hot Wings, or Give Me Death!"
Patrick Leahy ready to fight White House
This is insane.
The quote from this bit of tripe that has got me going is:
At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the Justice Department's firing of prosecutors. Leahy's hardening stance is pushing the Democratic-led investigation ever closer to a constitutional showdown over executive power and Congress' right to oversight.
Okay, for starters, the Justice Department, like the Department of Defense, for instance, is part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. It is one of the Cabinet-level agencies. Meaning, the Department is headed by a person selected by the President, and, according to the Constitution, answers to the President. So, the Attorney General, and the various Cabinet Secretaries head major departments of the Federal Government. They are selected by the President. After selection, the Senate has to approve the selection. After approval by the Senate, those people work directly for the President. Certain key officials in each Department are, by law, hired and fired by the President. It is his Constitutional duty to do so. Congress only has the duty to approve the selections. They have, under the Constitution, no power whatsoever to be involved in the selection process that the President uses to select the persons hired, and, also, no input whatsoever on who is fired, and why. This is part of the Separation of Powers delineated by the Constitution.
Keep in mind that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Congress, except when they follow the procedures in the Constitution to amend the Constitution, cannot pass a law that supersedes the Constitution. In the case of the people that I have described above, no such amendment to the Constitution has been passed. In fact, no such amendment has been suggested.
Cabinet secretaries, Chiefs of Staff of the various military services, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, US attorneys, and various other high government officials are said to "serve at the pleasure of the President". That is, in fact, the legal term for it.
So, to make a long story short, (too late) it is, in fact, impossible for the White House to "exert undue political influence" in the hiring and firing of these officials. Because, it is the Constitutional duty of the President to hire and fire these people. An integral part of the job description of the President.
This is a load of organic fertilizer. If, let's say, that Clinton was still in office, and the Republicans in Congress were assaulting the Constitutional duties of the Presidency in such a way, every Democrat in Congress would be on EVERY news show possible screaming their heads off about the un-Constitutionality of Republican behavior. However, since it is Bush versus a Democratic Congress, not a peep of protest is being heard anywhere in the mainstream media about it. They are just swallowing the Democrat Party's talking points hook line and sinker.
It wouldn't be so bad, but, the Republican party, once upon a time, attempted to impeach a Democrat President for very similar reasons, and failed.
It's ironic. ... or just pathetic, I'm not sure.
What can you expect? Remember your US history, and keep in mind that this is the same political party that brought about such successful ventures as:
1) Secession
2) The firing on Fort Sumter (and, thus, the start of a Civil War they were to lose)
3) Jim Crow laws
The quote from this bit of tripe that has got me going is:
At issue is whether the White House exerted undue political influence in the Justice Department's firing of prosecutors. Leahy's hardening stance is pushing the Democratic-led investigation ever closer to a constitutional showdown over executive power and Congress' right to oversight.
Okay, for starters, the Justice Department, like the Department of Defense, for instance, is part of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. It is one of the Cabinet-level agencies. Meaning, the Department is headed by a person selected by the President, and, according to the Constitution, answers to the President. So, the Attorney General, and the various Cabinet Secretaries head major departments of the Federal Government. They are selected by the President. After selection, the Senate has to approve the selection. After approval by the Senate, those people work directly for the President. Certain key officials in each Department are, by law, hired and fired by the President. It is his Constitutional duty to do so. Congress only has the duty to approve the selections. They have, under the Constitution, no power whatsoever to be involved in the selection process that the President uses to select the persons hired, and, also, no input whatsoever on who is fired, and why. This is part of the Separation of Powers delineated by the Constitution.
Keep in mind that the Constitution is the highest law in the land. Congress, except when they follow the procedures in the Constitution to amend the Constitution, cannot pass a law that supersedes the Constitution. In the case of the people that I have described above, no such amendment to the Constitution has been passed. In fact, no such amendment has been suggested.
Cabinet secretaries, Chiefs of Staff of the various military services, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, US attorneys, and various other high government officials are said to "serve at the pleasure of the President". That is, in fact, the legal term for it.
So, to make a long story short, (too late) it is, in fact, impossible for the White House to "exert undue political influence" in the hiring and firing of these officials. Because, it is the Constitutional duty of the President to hire and fire these people. An integral part of the job description of the President.
This is a load of organic fertilizer. If, let's say, that Clinton was still in office, and the Republicans in Congress were assaulting the Constitutional duties of the Presidency in such a way, every Democrat in Congress would be on EVERY news show possible screaming their heads off about the un-Constitutionality of Republican behavior. However, since it is Bush versus a Democratic Congress, not a peep of protest is being heard anywhere in the mainstream media about it. They are just swallowing the Democrat Party's talking points hook line and sinker.
It wouldn't be so bad, but, the Republican party, once upon a time, attempted to impeach a Democrat President for very similar reasons, and failed.
It's ironic. ... or just pathetic, I'm not sure.
What can you expect? Remember your US history, and keep in mind that this is the same political party that brought about such successful ventures as:
1) Secession
2) The firing on Fort Sumter (and, thus, the start of a Civil War they were to lose)
3) Jim Crow laws
