Alaska on Auto Pilot: Where’s The Captain?

Andrew Halcro
Andrew Halcro blog
March 30, 2009

On March 19, just hours after Governor Sarah Palin held a press conference to announce that she was rejecting federal stimulus monies that would feed operating expenses, one of Palin’s directors was telling lawmakers the exact opposite.

During a Senate Finance budget subcommittee closeout, Department of Revenue’s Administrative Services Director Ginger Blaisdell testified that the budget for the Child Support Enforcement Division would be fine because there was federal stimulus money they planned to utilize to fill needs of the division.

Rebecca Braun, Publisher of the Alaska Budget Report wrote in her latest installment, “When a reporter questioned Blaisdell following the meeting, noting Palin had hours earlier said she is rejecting all stimulus operating monies (except Medicaid funding), Blaisdell was nonplussed.”

Braun goes on to report that the following day after checking with the Office of Management and Budget, Blaisdell confirmed that Palin had removed the money from her stimulus request. “I had no idea until you brought it up to me about the operating money being cut,” Blaisdell wrote in an email.

This was just one example of how the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing in the Palin administration.

Last week on my radio show I interviewed Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau regarding the $170 million in education money for Alaskan schools that Palin said she was going to reject and the days leading up to that decision.

Comeau stated she was personally in Juneau during the first week of March and clearly communicated to the governor’s senior staff that if there were any questions about how she would spend the money or if there were any concerns about the future when the bridge funding goes away, to call her and she would go over the districts plan.

One week later, Palin’s Education Commissioner Larry Ledoux held a statewide teleconference with school superintendents from around Alaska to discuss the stimulus monies and how they would be distributed by district. Comeau, who was in Washington D.C. at the time of the teleconference, stated that her assistant superintendent ended the teleconference with the Education Commissioner with the clear understanding that the money was going to be accepted.

In fact Comeau’s assistant superintendent wasn’t the only one under the impression that taking the education money was a done deal.

According to Dermot Cole writing in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Fairbanks North Star Borough Schools Superintendent Nancy Wagner was under the same impression after the teleconference.

“Wagner said superintendents across the state took part in a teleconference with the education commissioner Monday regarding the details of the stimulus plan and received estimates about how much they would qualify for. Wagner said it was a shock to learn Thursday that the governor had rejected the money,” Cole wrote in the March 20 edition of the Newsminer.

In the aftermath of the governor announcing the education funding money would be left on the table, Education Commissioner Ledoux seemed to offer up a conflicting excuse to why the governor had pulled the plug on funding that days earlier he had outlined for school superintendents.

In both her press release last week and her latest opinion column published in the Anchorage Daily News this week, Palin has consistently stated that Alaska schools have plenty of money without taking the additional stimulus cash from Uncle Sam.

“Alaska’s children are my priority, as proven by my unprecedented increases to K-12 funding, including intensive needs programs, which we currently fund at historic levels,” Palin penned in an opinion column published in Sunday’s ADN.

However, last Wednesday, during a hearing in the House Education Committee, Ledoux seemed to sing another tune. Instead of schools having enough money, Ledoux argued that schools are facing tough financial times and the federal money could be a dangerous short term fix that would cause difficult withdrawals in two years.

So why didn’t Ledoux communicate this to Alaska school superintendents nine days earlier on the teleconference, instead of telling them how much cash they’d be receiving?

Meanwhile, Anchorage Superintendent Comeau stated last week she never received any phone calls asking for an explanation from anyone in the Palin administration about how she’d deal with the disappearing federal funding in 2011.

To add to the “send in the clowns” environment, Ledoux’s deputy contradicted his boss by testifying that the money could most certainly be used for professional development training that would not incur obligations and commitments beyond two years.

So with all of this internal confusion, where is the captain and who is piloting the ship of state? The answer appears to be that Alaska is on auto pilot.

The needs of the state and the political ambitions of Palin

Less than twenty four hours after she received national headlines for standing up and rejecting almost $300 million in federal stimulus monies, Palin started to back track due to legislative and public pressure.

The very next day at a press conference held by Anchorage School Superintendent Comeau and acting Anchorage Mayor Matt Claman to voice their opposition to Palin rejecting the education money, a sheepish Lt. Governor Sean Parnell showed up to clarify that the governor was still open to discussing the education funding.

Parnell defended Palin by saying the governor didn’t outright reject the money, she said she just was going to refuse to request it. Excuse me, but quick, somebody get the Lite Guv a Thesaurus. Reject, deny, refuse….it all means the the same thing.

However the question must be asked; why hold a press conference and announce you won’t request the money, then say you are open to discussing taking the money?

Wouldn’t a competent governor, especially one who just two months earlier told lawmakers that it was time for them to work together, actually work together with lawmakers before holding such a grandstanding press conference, thereby putting lawmakers in the corner?

There is no doubt that the governor changed her mind about the stimulus funding at the eleventh hour after being told by her SarahPac handlers that she needed a national headline, Rep. Mike Hawker (R-Anchorage) said during an interview on my radio program last Friday.

Her national ambitions won the first round to get a national headline on Thursday as a crusading conservative, but the follow-up on Friday was total in-state damage control countering the outrage from schools across Alaska, Hawker added.

A non-meeting of the minds

Since the governor began her back pedaling about accepting stimulus funds she originally said she wasn’t going to request, Palin has consistently said she wanted to have a dialogue with lawmakers.

Because the governor has the final say through her veto pen, lawmakers wanted to hear directly from the governor about what she would or wouldn’t veto before they plugged additional federal stimulus funds into the budget.

“All we wanted was a meeting. If you are going to veto these funds we would like to know,” Rep. Hawker said last week.

Taking her up on her offer, the combined House and Senate leadership scheduled a meeting with the governor on Thursday March 26 at 10:00am. However, the day before the meeting, lawmakers were told that Palin would not be available in person or by phone.

Instead lawmakers were told they could meet with the governor’s staff in place of the governor. Lawmakers weren’t interested.

“We didn’t want to meet with the governor’s staff. We meet with them all day, every day and still, none of them have been able to answer any of our questions,” an exasperated Hawker added.

In fact, two weeks ago we blogged about how the governor’s staff couldn’t even answer a simple question during a legislative committee hearing about legislation to expand children’s health care. When asked if the governor supported the bill, the same bill the governor held a press conference in December and said she supported, her staff was clueless.

“I’m not trying to hide anything, I have told you what I can tell you today. I don’t think I can answer your question directly,” testified Jon Sherwood from the Department of Health when asked if the governor supported expanding Denali Kid Care.
andrewhalcro.com – March 15, 2009

So with the governor not available to answer their stimulus funding questions, legislative leaders held their regularly schedule leadership meeting to discuss other legislative business.

One of the key pieces of business they discussed was the creation of a toll free number in conjunction with the Denali Commission that would allow Alaska’s non-profits to inquire about federal stimulus grants for non-profit groups. During the meeting, leaders decided to hold a 1:00pm press conference to announce the creation of the toll free number.

Meanwhile, at 11:30am, after the meeting had already adjourned, Palin’s legislative liaison strolled into the office of the Speaker of the House and declared that Palin was now suddenly available by phone.

According to Rep. Hawker, it was too late. There are ten members of the legislative leadership team, the meeting had long since been adjourned and lawmakers had disbursed and were honoring other commitments.

Hearing that lawmakers had scheduled a press conference for 1:00pm, Palin believed the press conference would be used to criticize her for being out of town instead of in Juneau meeting with lawmakers over the stimulus monies.

So at 1:08pm, eight minutes after the scheduled start of the press conference called by lawmakers to announce the creation of the toll free number for non-profits, Palin issued a press release stating that it was lawmakers, not her, who cancelled the meeting.

“Governor Sarah Palin was scheduled to participate telephonically in a meeting with legislative leadership today when legislative leaders cancelled the meeting to host their own press conference,” the news release from the governor’s office stated.

Lawmakers were furious.

Senate President Gary Stevens, who is as cool and reserved as they come didn’t mince words. Stevens said the statement Palin sent to the press about what happened was “absolutely false, absolutely false. Someone should be brought to task on that.”

It was a “blind and paranoid” press release, Rep, Hawker told my listening audience on Friday afternoon, the day after the events unfolded. The governor thought we were calling this press conference to beat her up, when that was as far from the truth as possible, Hawker added.

But what is even more telling is the absence of any vision or leadership from Palin on much of anything.

In response to bailing out on the meeting with lawmakers to talk stimulus and potential veteos, Palin said it was premature and offered up this explanation; “It’s hypothetical to talk about action that would be taken on a bill that of course hasn’t reached our desk yet, it has not even been formulated yet,” Palin said.

This comment again highlights how the executive branch is on auto pilot.

First, the intent of the meeting was so lawmakers could sit down with the governor and foster more direct communication to hopefully avoid any vetoes before they sent the bill to the governor’s desk.

Second, from her response, Palin seems to believe that although it’s premature to sit down and talk about what stimulus funds she would veto, it wasn’t premature for her to hold a press conference last week to declare what stimulus funds she wasn’t going to request.

Auto Pilot…fully engaged.

A preponderance of misinformation

Since their March 19 press conference, both the Governor and the Lt. Governor have been consistently selling misinformation about the stimulus money.

Whether you support taking the federal money or not, I’m sure we all support an honest discussion based on facts not fiction.

Both Palin and Parnell have been fear mongering about the federal strings attached to the stimulus money, even after the governor’s own budget director and lawmakers have found that there are actually few strings attached.

One of the favorite red herrings is the notion that if the state accepts energy related stimulus money, the legislature would have to adopt costly building codes.

“For example, Alaska’s communities would have to adopt building energy codes that complement the most recent International Codes. These standards should be locally determined, not federally mandated,” Palin wrote in a Sunday opinion column in the ADN.

But as the Alaska Budget Report writes, “Palin has put herself at odds with the largest builder’s association in Alaska.”

The Alaska State Home Builders Association supports the adoption of a building code that would include an energy component and an AHFC presentation to the Office of Management and Budget showed significant savings could be achieved for homeowners with the adoption of an energy code, citing the high cost of heating homes that don’t meet code.

The big picture

Aside from the stimulus funds, the failure to communicate with her own staff and the appearance that Palin’s decision making process is limited to sending out ill conceived press releases, most of this doesn’t come as a surprise that state government is on auto pilot.

This is an administration that can only make political decisions instead of practical ones.

Two weeks ago during a press conference the governor called to defend AGIA, one of her gas pipeline team members made comments that highlighted how out of touch they are.

Mark Myers, recently brought back to state service as the AGIA Coordinator, proclaimed that one of the exciting things happening on the North Slope was Exxon’s development at Point Thomson.

Excuse me, but is this the same development that DNR Commissioner Tom Irwin nearly crippled by playing politics, until he couldn’t stall anymore and realized he was on the verge of embarrassing himself in court, all the while costing Alaska time, money and jobs?

In fact, the exciting work that Exxon is doing should have began last year, when they submitted their plan of development that Irwin rejected twice. Irwin’s ego and ignorance coupled with the governor refusing to lead, cost both Exxon and the state millions in legal fees that could have better spent in Alaska’s private sector.

Over the last ten months, Gov. Palin’s office has issued three hundred and thirty six news releases, an average of more than one per day.

Out of those three hundred and thirty six news releases issued since June of 2008, only one – yes one, has proposed any substantive public policies to address critical issues like Health Care, Education, Public Safety or Domestic Violence.

In fact during that time period, the governor issued more news releases attacking the media and defending her actions as governor versus her plans to address Alaska’s greatest public policy challenges.

On the twentieth anniversary of the greatest maritime disaster of all time, we all know from history what went wrong. The captain went below deck leaving the ship on auto pilot and in the hands of his crew.

Twenty years later, Alaska’s ship of state captain has gone below deck…and the state is on auto pilot.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/alaska_on_auto_pilot_wheres_the_captain
Copyright 2009 andrewhalcro.com

Sarah, You have No Shame

Syrin from Wasilla’s Blog
March 26, 2009

Thats why you’re in so much unethical hotwater. You have NO shame. You have NO core values. You’re an embarrassment to yourself, family and especially the Alaska Republican Party

Sarah Palin …..You’re an Embarrassment

http://syrin.vox.com/library/post/sarah-you-have-no-shame.html
Copyright 2009 Syrin from Wasilla’s Blog

Gubernatorial Grandstanding

Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Pat Garofalo
American Progress Action
The Progress Report
March 26, 2009

Since President Obama signed the economic recovery package into law last month, a handful of Republican governors have come out and “rejected” some of the funds, which are aimed at alleviating budget cuts plaguing state and local governments. For instance, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) turned down $98 million in extended unemployment benefits, while Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) initially planned to reject half of Alaska’s funding, including $160 million for education. During the press conference announcing her decision, Palin asked, “Will we chart our own course, or will Washington engineer it for us?” But by rejecting this funding, the governors are turning away one of the most effective forms of stimulus available, despite the budget crunches that they are all facing. At least 47 states are facing budget shortfalls for this year and next, and 34 states have made budget cuts that will harm vulnerable residents. As it stands now, the stimulus package is “sufficient only to fill about 40 percent of the $350 billion to $370 billion shortfall that states face in the next two-and-a-half years,” and unemployment rates keep rising. The Progress Report rounds up the actions of some grandstanding governors.

ALASKA’S SARAH PALIN: In rejecting the stimulus funds, Palin complained about “the strings attached” and said, “I can’t attest to every fund that’s being offered the state in the stimulus package will be used to create jobs and stimulate the economy, so I’m requesting only those things that I know will.” The Anchorage Daily News criticized Palin for her decision, saying, “It makes you wonder if her national political ambitions are leading her one way, when what’s best for Alaska leads another,” and residents organized a protest last Saturday to urge the governor to accept the money. Top Alaskan legislators have said “they’re likely to accept at least most of the federal economic stimulus money that Gov. Sarah Palin did not,” prompting Palin to NOW claim that “she didn’t say she would actively block the money, and would be willing to participate in a discussion with the Legislature about what they would accept.”

SOUTH CAROLINA’S MARK SANFORD: Despite South Carolina having the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, Sanford rejected $700 million in stimulus, saying, “[W]hat you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have and send it to different states, we’ll create jobs. … If that’s the case, why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?” According to calculations made by the White House, Sanford’s refusal of the funds eliminates 50,000 potential jobs, and the South Carolina Department of Education estimated that, without the money, 7,500 teachers would be negatively impacted. House Speaker Bobby Harrell said that absent federal funding, South Carolina would have to close three to four prisons, release an unknown number of prisoners, and lay off 4,000 to 5,000 teachers. “I am very frustrated,” Harrell said. “We’re talking about affecting lives of people in this state in a very bad way.” Sanford twice requested permission to redirect the funds to paying down his state’s debt, and was twice rebuffed by the Obama administration.

LOUISIANA’S BOBBY JINDAL: Claiming that it could lead to a tax increase on small businesses, Jindal rejected $98 million federal unemployment assistance. “That would’ve actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would’ve been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal money disappeared,” he said. Clarence Hawkins, the mayor of Bastrop, LA, replied to Jindal, saying, “[G]ive me something now. … Help me right now. I need to survive today.” The Center for American Progress Action Fund concluded that Louisiana added 430 new unemployed people every day in December. Many Louisiana companies — including River West Medical Center, Dow Chemical Co., Louisiana Pacific and Shreveport-Bossier City casinos — have laid off workers. Furthermore, if cuts announced by Jindal occur next year, officials from the Louisiana State University system estimate that 2,000 employees might be laid off. According to a letter sent by the U.S. Department of Labor, “Louisiana would not be required to make a permanent change in state law by accepting the federal dollars expanding unemployment benefits.” State Sen. Eric LaFleur (D) said that the letter “dispels the governor’s argument.”

MISSISSIPPI’S HALEY BARBOUR: Barbour advanced the same false argument about unemployment benefits as Jindal, claiming that accepting the money would mean raising unemployment taxes on businesses by 20 percent each year. “Some people have suggested that we change our law and then change it back once the stimulus money is spent, but that isn’t honest,” he said. State House Majority Leader Tyrone Ellis (D) replied, “I just think it’s a sad commentary that we’re even discussing such a thing. … It’s puzzling to me why any governor or government would suggest that we are only going to take part of the money and not all of it.” Mississippi has an 8.7 percent unemployment rate, though the rate tops 19 percent for some counties. The state House voted to accept the stimulus’ funding over Barbour’s objections, certifying “the state’s intent to request and use all of the money, even if Barbour rejects some of it.” However, efforts to bypass Barbour have stalled in the state Senate.

TEXAS’S RICK PERRY: Perry rejected $555 million in unemployment benefits, saying, “[T]his was pretty simple for us. … We can take care of ourselves. And we do not need any more strings from Washington attached to programs.” But according to the Dallas Morning News, “Texas covers the smallest percentage of unemployed workers of any state,” and “four out of five laid-off workers are not eligible for unemployment benefits.” Texas’s unemployment rate is at a 19-year high, and the state’s unemployment fund is running low, “making a tax hike for employers almost a certainty next year.” The Texas Comptroller “estimates Texas will lose 111,000 jobs in 2009, hiking unemployment to 8.2 percent.” The Texas House appropriations committee has “endorsed enacting the necessary changes to state law so that Texas would be eligible for the money.”

Copyright 2009 thinkprogress.org

Do the Secret Bush Memos Amount to Treason?

Top Constitutional Scholar Says Yes

Was I hallucinating?

Naomi Wolf
AlterNet
March 25, 2009

In early March, more shocking details emerged about George W. Bush legal counsel John Yoo’s memos outlining the destruction of the republic. The memos lay the legal groundwork for the president to send the military to wage war against U. S. citizens; take them from their homes to Navy brigs without trial and keep them forever; close down the First Amendment; and invade whatever country he chooses without regard to any treaty or objection by Congress. It was as if Milton’s Satan had a law degree and was establishing within the borders of the United States the architecture of hell. I thought this was — and is — certainly one of the biggest stories of our lifetime, making the petty burglary of Watergate — which scandalized the nation — seem like playground antics. It is newsworthy too with the groundswell of support for prosecutions of Bush/Cheney crimes and recent actions such as Canadian attorneys mobilizing to arrest Bush if he visits their country.

The memos are a confession. The memos could not be clearer: This was the legal groundwork of an attempted coup. I expected massive front page headlines from the revelation that these memos exited. Almost nothing. I was shocked. As a non-lawyer, was I completely off base in my reading of what this meant, I wondered? Was I hallucinating? Astonished, I sought a reality check — and a formal legal read — from one of the nation’s top constitutional scholars (and most steadfast patriots), Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been at the forefront of defending the detainees and our own liberties.

Here is our conversation:

Naomi Wolf: Michael, can you explain to a layperson what the Yoo memos actually mean?’

Michael Ratner: What they mean is that your book looks moderate in respect to those issues now. This — what is in the memos — is law by fiat. I call it “Fuhrer’s law.” What those memos lay out means the end of the system of checks and balances in this country. It means the end of the system in which the courts, legislature and executive each had a function and they could check each other. What the memos set out is a system in which the president’s word is law, and Yoo is very clear about that: the president’s word is not only law according to these memos, but no law or constitutional right or treaty can restrict the president’s authority.

What Yoo says is that the president’s authority as commander in chief in the so-called war on terror is not bound by any law passed by Congress, any treaty, or the protections of free speech, due process and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments — gone. What this actually means is that the president can order the military to operate in the U. S. and to operate without constitutional restrictions. They — the military — can pick you or me up in the U. S. for any reason and without any legal process. They would not have any restrictions on entering your house to search it, or to seize you. They can put you into a brig without any due process or going to court. (That’s the Fourth and Fifth amendments.)

The military can disregard the Posse Comitatus law, which restricts the military from acting as police in the the United States. And the president can, in the name of wartime restrictions, limit free speech. There it is in black and white: we are looking at one-person rule without any checks and balances — a lawless state. Law by fiat. Who has suspended the law this way in the past? It is like a Caesar’s law in Rome; a Mussolini’s law in Italy; a Fuhrer’s law in Germany; a Stalin’s law in the Soviet Union. It is right down the line. It is enforcing the will of the dictator through the military.

NW: The mainstream media have virtually ignored these revelations, though it seems to me this is the biggest news since Pearl Harbor.

MR: I think that’s right. We had a glimmering of the blueprint for some of this — when they picked up Jose Padilla, the military went to a prison and snatched an American citizen as if they had a perfect right to do so. Now we can see that these memos laid the legal groundwork for such actions. We knew the military could do this to an individual. We did not know the plan was to eliminate First Amendment constitutional rights for the entire population.

NW: If Bush only wanted these powers in order to prosecute a war on terror, why does he need to suspend the First Amendment? Isn’t that the smoking gun of a larger intention toward the general population?

MR: Part of this plan was actually implemented: for instance, they tried to keep people like Padilla from getting to a magistrate. They engaged in the wiretapping, because according to these memos there was no Fourth Amendment.
They had to be planning some kind of a takeover of the United States to be saying they could simply abolish the First Amendment if the president believed it was necessary in the name of national security. It lays the groundwork for what could have been a massive military takeover of the United States.

Here they crept right up and actually implemented part of the plan, with Padilla, with the warrantless wiretapping. Yet they are saying in the White House and in Congress that it is looking backward to investigate the authors of these memos and those who instructed Yoo and others to write them. But investigation and prosecutions are really looking forward — to say we need the deterrence of prosecution so this does not happen again.

NW: What about the deployment of three brigades in the U. S.? How should we read that?’

MR: With terrorism as less of a concern to many, but now with the economy in tatters there is a lot more militant activism in U. S. — the New School and NYU student takeovers, protests around the country and strikes are just the beginning. I think governments are now concerned over people’s activism, and people’s anger at their economic situation. I don’t think those brigades can be detached from the idea that there might well be a huge amount of direct-action protest in the U. S. There could have also been a closer election that could have been stolen easily and then a huge protest. Those troops would have been used to enforce the will of the cabal stealing the election.

NW: As a layperson, I don’t fully understand what powers the memos actually manifest. Are they theoretical or not just theoretical? What power did the memos actually give Bush?

MR: They were probably, in fact almost for sure, written in cahoots with the administration — [Karl] Rove, [Dick] Cheney — to give them legal backing for what they planned or wanted to carry out. What I assume happened here is people like Cheney or his aides go to the Office of Legal Counsel and say, “We are going to need legal backing, to give a face of legality to what we are doing and what we are planning.” When the president then signs a piece of paper that says, “OK, military, go get Jose Padilla,” these memos give that order a veneer of legality.

If you are familiar with the history of dictators, coups and fascism (as I know you are), they (the planners) prefer a veneer of legality. Hitler killed 6 million Jews with a veneer of legality — getting his dictatorial powers through the Reichstag and the courts. These memos gave the Bush administration’s [lawless] practices the veneer of legality.

NW: So are you saying that these memos actually created a police state that we did not know about?

MR: If you look at police state as various strands of lawlessness, we knew about some of this lawlessness even before this latest set of memos. But the memos revealed how massive the takeover of our democracy was to be — that this wasn’t just going to be a few individuals here or there who suffered the arrows of a police state. These memos lay the groundwork for a massive military takeover of the United States in cahoots with the president. And if that’s not a coup d’etat then, nothing is.

NW: Can I ask something? I keep thinking about the notion of treason. In America now, people tend to read the definition of treason in the Constitution as if they are thinking of a Tokyo Rose or an American citizen acting as an agent for an enemy state — very much a World War II experience of the traitor to one’s country. But I’ve been reading a lot of 16th and 17th century history, and it seems to me that the founders were thinking more along the lines of English treason of that era — small groups of Englishmen, usually nobility, who formed cabals and conspired with one another to buy or recruit militias to overthrow the crown or Parliament.

The notion that a group might conspire in secret to overthrow the government is not a wild, marginal concept, it is a substantial part of European, and especially British, Renaissance and Reformation-era history and would have been very much alive in the minds of the Enlightenment-era founders. (I just visited the Tower of London where this was so frequent a charge against groups of English subjects that there is a designated Traitor’s Gate.) So clearly you don’t have to act on behalf of another state to commit treason. The Constitution defines it as levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. It says nothing about the enemy having to be another state.

When the Constitution was drafted, the phrase “United States” barely referred to a singular country; it referred to a new federation of many united states. They imagined militias rising up against various states; it was not necessarily nation against nation. Surely, when we have evidence Bush prepared the way to allow the military to imprison or shoot civilians in the various states and created law to put his own troops over the authority of the governors and the national guard of the various states, and when the military were sent to terrorize protesters in St. Paul, [Minn.], Bush was levying war in this sense against the united states?

Hasn’t Bush actually levied war against Minnesota? And if our leaders and military are sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, and there is clear evidence now that Bush and his cabal intended to do away with it, are they not our enemies and giving aid and comfort to our enemies? Again, “enemy” does not seem to me to be defined in the Constitution as another sovereign state.

MR: You are right. Treason need not involve another state. Aaron Burr was tried for treason. I do think that a plan to control the military, use it in the United States contrary to law and the Constitution and employ it to levy a war or takeover that eliminates the democratic institutions of the country constitutes treason, even if done under the president of the United States.

The authority given by these memos that could be used to raid every congressional office, raid and search every home, detain tens of thousands, would certainly fit a definition of treason. This would be the president making war against the institutions of the United States.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute
All Rights Reserved

Another Republican calls for assassination

Brilliant at Breakfast
Monday, March 23, 2009

Where the fuck is the Secret Service? Why is it that a college kid could get visited by the Secret Service for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt, but a member of the U.S. House of Representative can exhort her mouth-breathing minions to take up arms against the Obama Administration — and that’s OK?

Controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this weekend that she wants residents of her state “armed and dangerous” over President Barack Obama’s plan to reduce global warming “because we need to fight back.”

Asked about the White House-backed cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions, Bachmann told WWTC 1280 AM, “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.”

Bachmann also told her constituents she was “a foreign correspondent on enemy lines,” sending Minnesotans warnings through her blog, Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace. “I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington.”

Where was Michelle Bachman while George W. Bush really WAS spitting on the Constitution for eight years? Why wasn’t she calling for armed revolution then? Or is it OK to violate the Constitution too if you’re a Republican?

Copyright 2009 Brilliant at Breakfast
http://brilliantatbreakfast.blogspot.com/

Some say Cheney ‘feeling the heat’ over potential probes

Rachel Oswald
the raw story
March 20, 2009

While the rest of the mainstream press has largely reacted to former Vice President Dick Cheney’s harsh critique of the Obama administration in last Sunday’s interview on CNN as business as usual for the man, several observers have a different theory – that Cheney is nervous about calls for investigations into the Bush adminstration and is going on the offensive.

Bobby Ghosh writes for Time, “Several observers think Cheney may be starting to feel the heat from Democrats’ efforts to investigate the Bush Administration’s counterterrorism policies – policies Cheney advocated, and for which his proteges allegedly provided the legal basis. But if he was trying to deflect attention from Bush-era policies, Cheney’s aggression will likely have the opposite effect.”

“If his goal was to tamp down talk of a truth commission, he has probably exacerbated the problem,” a veteran Republican told Time.

The recent release of controversial Office of Legal Counsel memos, which authorized harsh interrogation tactics for detainees and made the case for doing away with protected civil liberties under the Fourth Amendment, when taken with investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s allegations of an “executive assassination ring” operating under the direction of the former veep, may have prompted the normally very private Cheney to think that an interview on a large media platform, like CNN, was in order to strengthen his public image.

But it may be too late. Just as his interview was airing on Sunday, a leaked Red Cross report was published in The New York Review of Books. The report outlined in graphic detail the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and specifically used the word “torture” to refer to some of the interrogation tactics and called other tactics “degrading” and ‘inhumane.”

Ghosh reports that, “pressure is also growing on the [Justice] department to release the report of an internal ethics probe into the actions of [former OLC attorney John] Yoo and two other OLC lawyers. Many Democrats would like to see Yoo and Cheney’s own lawyer, David Addington, investigated for their role in creating the Bush Administration’s so-called torture doctrine. ”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Cheney_feels_heat_in_calls_for_0320.html

Copyright 2009 rawstory.com

Coming Soon: Declassified Bush-Era Torture Memos

GITMO

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
NEWSWEEK
Mar 21, 2009

Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify—and publicly release—three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the “enhanced” interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against “high value” Qaeda detainees. The memos, written by Justice Department lawyers in May 2005, provide the legal rationale for waterboarding, head slapping and other rough tactics used by the CIA. One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, said the memos were “ugly” and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a “truth commission” on torture.

Because of an executive order signed by President Obama on Jan. 22 banning such aggressive tactics, deputies to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. concluded there was no longer any reason to keep the interrogation memos classified. But current and former intel officials pushed back, arguing that any public release might still compromise “sources and methods.” According to the administration official, ex-CIA director Michael Hayden was “furious” about the prospect of disclosure and tried to intervene directly with Obama officials. But the White House has sided with Holder. Faced with a court deadline in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit regarding the memos filed by the ACLU, Justice lawyers asked for a two-week extension “because the memoranda are being reviewed for possible release.” (White House, Justice and CIA spokesmen all declined to comment.)

The debate about torture ramped up again last week with an account in the New York Review of Books about a secret International Red Cross report that was delivered to the CIA in February 2007. The report, according to journalist Mark Danner, quotes detainees describing, often in gruesome detail, how they were locked in coffin-size boxes; swung by towels around their necks into plywood walls; and forced to stand naked for days while their arms were shackled above their heads.

“I now know we were not fully and completely briefed on the CIA program,” Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told NEWSWEEK. A U.S. official disputed the charge, claiming that members of Congress received more than 30 briefings over the life of the CIA program and that Congressional intel panels had seen the Red Cross report. But the CIA insisted that the report be treated as if it had higher than top-secret classification, precluding any public discussion of its contents. That’s why declassification of the memos is significant, administration officials say: it would remove, at long last, the veil of secrecy about how detainees in the war on terror were actually treated.

© 2009 Newsweek, Inc.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/190362

Legal Fees: The First Family Defense

Andrew Halcro
Andrew Halcro.com
3/21/09

The latest public disclosure documents show Gov. Sarah Palin owes more than a half million dollars to an Anchorage law firm that has defended her against ethics complaints.

According to the Anchorage Daily News article written by Lisa Demer, legal bills have mounted fighting complaints that Palin has called partisan, false and frivolous, starting with “the politically motivated Troopergate probe.”

“On August 29, it seems the political landscape changed in Alaska. Now, it seems in order to do this job as Governor, with the political blood sport some are playing today, only the independently wealthy or those willing to spend their income on legal fees to defend their official actions in office … can serve,” Palin said in the written response to Daily News questions.

The governor has said she may create a legal fund to help defer the cost of these fees.

Okay, before we start passing the hat for legal bills to cover the cost of these unfair witch hunts that have been conducted against Palin, lets take a closer look at two of the complaints.

First: Troopergate.

There were two separate investigations concerning the Troopergate probe, both came to the same facts at the end of the process; Palin’s husband was trading on the governor’s power in her own administration to settle a personal score.

Both the Branchflower and the Petumenos reports clearly identified Todd Palin had exerted influence in trying to get his former brother in law fired.

The main difference in the reports was that Branchflower concluded the governor had the responsibility to control her husband while Petumenos concluded the governor didn’t have any responsibility to control her husband because he was just an average citizen who was exercising his rights.

One of those rights apparently included the right to use his position as the governor’s husband to pressure state employees to act on his behalf. As the governor’s former legislative liaison said during Troopergate; when the governor’s husband suggests you do something, it’s not really a suggestion.

This was a legitimate complaint and one that proved Palin either looked the other way or wasn’t looking at all as her husband tried to settle a personal score using state resources.

Second: Travel expenses.

Another one of the complaints came about after it was disclosed that the governor had charged the state the cost of airfare and incidentals for her family to travel with her on state business.

The complaint was eventually settled with the governor agreeing to reimburse the state over $9,000. The governor agreed that 10 of her children’s state-paid trips went beyond where the line reasonably could be drawn.

At what point in time do you decide it’s okay for taxpayers to pick up the tab for two of your kids to fly to Philadelphia and stay at the Ritz Carlton Hotel for five nights?

Had the governor thought it through, she wouldn’t have billed the state for trips like that. The children’s travel was a clear personal benefit with no benefit to the public paying the bill.

What’s even more revealing is that early on in her term, the issue of the state not paying for her children’s travel was apparently brought up by her staff but ignored by Palin.

If the governor is looking for a few reasons why she is facing legal fees; she just needs to look around her dinner table and then into the mirror.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/legal_fees_the_first_family_defense
Copyright 2009 Andrew Halcro.com

Palin rejects over 30% of stimulus money

SEAN COCKERHAM
Anchorage Daily News
March 19th, 2009

JUNEAU — Gov. Sarah Palin is refusing to accept over 30 percent of the federal economic stimulus money being offered to Alaska, including dollars for schools, energy assistance and social services.

The news Thursday drew anger from those who accused Palin of putting her national political aspirations ahead of the state’s interests, and admiration from others who say she has courage to turn down money that would expand government. The state Legislature will have an opportunity to override her decision.

Palin is not taking about $288 million of the $930.7 million that Alaska is due in the federal stimulus. Palin said she is accepting the federal stimulus money that would go for construction projects, but not funding directed at government operations.

“We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government,” Palin said. “In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government.”

Palin first told the news media that she’s turning down nearly half the federal stimulus money — but later conceded that does not count the Medicaid money she is accepting. That brings down what she’s refusing to 31 percent of what the state government could get. Local governments and nonprofits could still compete for stimulus grants.

The biggest single chunk of money that Palin is turning down is about $170 million for education, including money that would go for programs to help economically disadvantaged and special needs students. Anchorage School Superintendent Carol Comeau said she is “shocked and very disappointed” that Palin would reject the schools money. She said it could be used for job preservation, teacher training, and helping kids who need it.

Palin said she’s sure that her decision on the education money will draw the most heat, and that she wouldn’t be surprised if the Legislature tries to change it. “It is a matter of discussing with our lawmakers if the expansion there is something we’re willing to pick up the tab for when the federal dollars dry up, when they no longer flow into Alaska,” Palin said.

Anchorage Democratic Rep. Les Gara argued that it’s bad governing not to do things he said would improve schools and reduce the unemployment rate for two years just because it might not last forever. Gara suggested that Palin is pandering to voters outside Alaska in order to further her own national political ambitions.

“I’m worried the governor is taking this sort of national political stance, which is that she’s going to be the opposite of Barack Obama on everything,” Gara said.

Sitka Republican Sen. Bert Stedman suggested a combination of factors could be at work.

“She’s got the best interests of the state and her career at heart,” said Stedman.

Stedman, who is a leader in the bipartisan majority in the state Senate, said legislators will take a close look at what Palin has done but that it’s too soon to pronounce judgment.

Palin said she’d work with the Legislature to see if it wants to go ahead and accept some of the money — although she didn’t rule out vetoes if she doesn’t agree with the choices. Palin said a dialogue with legislators and the public is needed for Alaska to chart its course.

There’s confusion over when the state Legislature’s deadline is to decide if it wants the money Palin turned down. It appears April 3 could be a deadline, but state lawmakers said they plan to get around it by passing a resolution technically accepting all of the stimulus money by that date. Then they’ll do the heavy work of figuring out what money they want, with the knowledge Congress can’t really force it on them. That’s liable to dominate the rest of this year’s legislative session, which ends April 19.

The governor could have a point in not wanting the money, said state House Speaker Mike Chenault. “There’s a number of us that have the same concerns about what does it do to our budget in the future,” said the Republican from Nikiski.

But Chenault said that the federal education money, in particular, could be good to have.

Members of the all-Republican state Senate minority said Palin is taking a wise course and it’s important not to accept federal money that could end up costing the state in the long run. People could come to expect the programs, leaving the state paying for them to continue, said the governor and her allies within the state Legislature.

“This offer from the Congress and the Obama administration is a little bit like having way too much to drink,” said Sen. Con Bunde, a Republican from Anchorage. “A good time may be had by all, but the hangover the next day, and the consequences of what you did while you were drunk, may be with you for a long, long time.”

Acting Anchorage Mayor Matt Claman said he’s disappointed Palin chose to turn down funding that would create jobs and maintain services. “Her rationale is like turning down a gift card because it expires in two years,” Claman said in a written statement.

Palin is turning down money for weatherization, energy efficiency grants, immunizations, air quality grants, emergency food assistance, homeless grants, senior meals, child care development grants, nutrition programs, homeless grants, arts, unemployment services, air quality, justice assistance grants and other programs.

Palin said some funds she turned down have federal strings attached: Up to $64 million in energy funds would require the state to mandate a building code change, her office said, while $15 million in unemployment help requires the state to expand eligibility for benefits. Alaska should decide these things, Palin said.

There was mixed reaction from Alaska’s Congressional delegation.

U.S. Sen. Mark Begich called on state legislators to accept the stimulus money. “I trust the legislature will do the right thing and take Alaska’s share of the money for education in the economic recovery package,” the Alaska Democrat said in a written statement. “We owe it to our children to give them the most opportunities possible, and this is money fairly allocated to Alaska in this stimulus package.”

U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who along with all House Republicans voted against the stimulus package, wouldn’t take sides Thursday. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the governor was right to take the part of the stimulus that covers transportation and other infrastructure projects — as that will create jobs in Alaska. She said Palin is required to certify that the stimulus money will be used to create jobs and foster economic growth; Palin has made her decision on what funds she thinks meet that criteria and now it’s the Legislature’s turn to review it, Murkowski said.

Palin appears to be the third Republican U.S. governor to say “no thanks” to a portion of the $787 billion federal economic stimulus package, signed into law last month. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford — both also Republicans — already have rejected some of the money that is allocated to their states.

Sanford, who like Palin is seen as potentially having his eye on a 2012 presidential bid, already has drawn criticism for his refusal to take some of the federal money. The Democratic National Committee began on Monday to air a television commercial critical of the South Carolina governor’s move. The DNC immediately took the offensive Thursday and declared Palin a hypocrite, given that she has requested earmarks and that Alaska receives more federal dollars per capita than any other state.

Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who heads up the National Governors Association, said it would be hard to tell a worker who loses his or her job that the state is turning down unemployment assistance in order to make a statement. But he said he understands Palin’s decision might be based on unique conditions in Alaska.

“Alaska doesn’t have a deficit because of the oil revenues, even though oil revenues are down,” Rendell said. “That puts Gov. Palin in a different position. She doesn’t need federal funding to keep from laying off workers. Alaska is probably in a different status than almost any of us.”

Palin said it’s not a gift when Congress offers dollars with strings attached that would increase government and require the state to follow mandates from Washington, D.C.

“To me it’s a bribe,” Palin said.

Daily News reporter Erika Bolstad contributed to this story.

Alaska stimulus money

Gov. Palin on Thursday said she would accept only part of the federal economic stimulus money heading to Alaska. A breakdown of what she wants and what she’s rejecting:

TOTAL STIMULUS FUNDS ALLOCATED TO ALASKA: $930.7 million

REQUESTED BY GOVERNOR: $642.6 million

Among the programs included in the request: More than $175 million in highway funding; $78 million in aviation projects; $68 million for water and sewer projects; $20 million for job training; $39 million for public housing; $128 million for Medicaid reimbursement; and $116 million for a new university research vessel. REJECTED BY GOVERNOR: $288.1 million

Among the programs rejected: $171 total in various education programs including special education, technology, “fiscal stabilization” money, emergency food assistance and school lunch programs, immunizations, infant learning and additional funding for schools with a high proportion of poor students; $28 million state energy program; $18.5 million weatherization program; $8.5 million energy conservation program; $7.2 in public safety program.

Source: Alaska Office of Management & Budget
http://www.adn.com/palin/story/729504.html
© Copyright 2009, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company

Rage on the streets in Calgary as Bush visit begins

A woman holds a protest sign outside the Calgary convention centre where former U.S. President George Bush was making a speech to the business community in Calgary, Alberta March 17, 2009. (REUTERS/Todd Korol)

Bill Graveland and Shannon Montgomery
Daily Herald-Tribune, Alberta
March 17, 2009

CALGARY – The rage on the man’s face was evident as he berated police officers preventing him from entering the building where former U.S. president George W. Bush was making a speech Tuesday.

‘‘There is a war criminal upstairs that has committed murder,” screamed the man, who identified himself only as Splits the Sky. ‘‘If I try to get in there you will arrest me. What is wrong with you?‘‘I am going in there and make a citizen’s arrest,” he said as he attempt to push past police. ‘‘Arrest George Bush. Arrest George Bush.”

A few minutes later he was handcuffed and hustled past a long line of Calgary’s business elite waiting to get inside the Telus Convention Centre.

Protest organizers say at least four demonstrators were arrested at Tuesday’s event.

About 60 Calgary police officers were on duty outside to control between 200 and 300 people carrying signs that read ‘‘No to U.S. Crimes Against Humanity,” ‘‘Indict Bush For War Crimes” and ‘‘Canada Is Not Bush Country.”

Another sign read ‘‘Shoe Him The Door” – a reference to the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in December.

Two Calgary men showed up at the demonstration to support the former U.S. president. Their signs read ‘‘The World Is Safer Because of George W. Bush.”

‘‘Thank you, George Bush. Thank you, George Bush,” they chanted.

‘‘He doesn’t sit down and negotiate with terrorists,” shouted one of the men, who identified himself as Merle.

‘‘Try doing this in Cuba,” he said as he pointed to the jeering protesters.

There were shoes everywhere during the protest. A young woman wearing a hood, orange jumpsuit and a name tag that said ‘‘Club Gitmo” was pulling a shoe cannon along with a target festooned with pictures of Bush.

An obviously amused police officer told her to leave.

Some of those opposed to Bush’s visit have said he should be arrested as a war criminal because of alleged torture at military prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.

Tuesday’s speech was one of the first public appearances Bush has made since leaving the presidency in January with a dismal approval rating and much of the blame for his country’s collapsing economy. The speech was closed to the media.

‘‘It’s not too late to turn back. Walk away,” the demonstrators yelled to some of the 1,500 guests invited to hear Bush speak to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

A couple of hundred people lined up early to go through a special security screening room before entering the hall where Bush was speaking.

A few said the former president has to take some of the responsibility for what has happened in the United States, but also has the right to talk about his administration.

© 2009 The Candadian Press