Last night, an episode of complete frustration ensued from the dazzling ignorance and animal-like incivility that seems to have swept our nation right out of the Civilized World, into the realm of a rogue-state or "WTF? It's time to GTFO-land." So instead of complaining all night in bed, my girlfriend encouraged me to re-start The Real-Nation.

The following statement from me is at her behest.

Chief Justice welcomes his newest family member with an extended middle finger.

Yesterday, WashPo released some excerpts from their interviews with all the different Supreme Court judges. In these interviews, the justices describe the court as one big giant family.

But when they started asking questions about the newest member of the Justices' family, Sonya Sotomayor, "Chief" Justice John Roberts welcomed her with this message: "I think it's unsettling."

Love her or hate her, this speaks more about the Chief of the court than Sotomayor.

Now, in his defense, Justice Roberts should be forgiven for not understanding the way things like the Supreme Court and the Constitution work, or that his political opinions really have no place in the highest halls of Justice. Because before he was anointed Chief Justice by a Republican President and GOP congressional majority, he was never actually a judge of any kind. He was a Republican Party lawyer. A political flack. Who's primary focus was making sure GOPers got away with winning, and if need-be, stealing elections.

As was the case in the Florida recount in 2000. Which John Roberts played the part of senior attorney on Bush's recount team. So the venerated Chief Justice's spot was turned into a quid-pro-quo, or "political reach-around" for those non-Latin-speakers, From George Dubbya to his buddy Johnny for stealin' him an election...

I digress.

With that knowledge of his background, it's easy to see why Justice Roberts would have no idea that his opinion matters ZERO on the President's constitutional right to appoint WHOMEVER he wishes to the court for a lifetime term. And one can also award him the benefit of the doubt in not fully understanding that the Supreme Court is, as they have all said, a FAMILY, who's nine members sit, side-by-side and work out the nation's constitutional dilemas for each of their entire lives.

So just because he's a Republican and she's a moderate, there's no excuse for Mr. Roberts to violate Court etiquette and even basic manners, and give Sotomayor a giant and very public F-U on her very first day of work. Next time, he should ditch the rookie plays and try to uphold the sacred tradition of the court; that Justice is blind, no one is pre-judged, and that politics goes out the window when you wear the robe!

Chief Roberts, you are a clumsy obstacle in our quest for a more perfect union.


for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts

Today the Supreme Court ruled to strike down as unconstitutional, a D.C. handgun ban. Now of course, we all know why there's a handgun ban in the capitol. Because that's where all our elected officials live and work and the fewer guns there are in the hands of the un-skilled or unstable, the lower the odds are that our government leaders will be assassinated, threatened or otherwise put in harm's way. It's been working in everyone's favor for about 40 years.

This is the first time ever the ever-so-increasingly-ultra-conservative high court has ruled on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Which reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


In a split 5-4 decision, the supreme court, led by Bush appointees, somehow concluded that the right to buy and keep weapons has nothing to do with a "regulated militia" in effect, disregarding the first whole sentence of the amendment. Therefore striking down a 40 year old law preventing people from carrying handguns in D.C. (You could always own rifles and shotguns in your home, but no less-than-savory-types could bust out a piece on the street and blow away a civilian leader.) 40 years of precedent. Out the window.

Opponents of the decision say this opens the door to allowing convicted criminals and mentally ill people to buy guns now. EVERYWHERE. Because the 'Justices' said the constitution "doesn't explicitly say 'individuals' cannot buy guns."

It should also be noted that it likewise doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that "insane criminals" can't buy guns either...

We had created modern laws to prevent that. Sorta how we created a law saying that you can't have a handgun in the capitol. Which is now gone because it's not "explicitly" written in the constitution. So you know what's next! Some convicted criminal is gonna sue saying the constitution doesn't "explicitly say he cannot own a gun."

I'm sure the framers of the constitution never intended their document to be used as a blank check for any one group's ideology. To allow people to do horrible things and say, "well, it didn't exactly say I COULDN'T do this particular horrible thing..."


We just set a bad precedent. And I personally think they're wrong because I CAN READ the first 4 words of the 2nd amendment. But the NRA and Dick Cheney are STOKED today.

If you can beat 'em, why join 'em?

Water boarding. Bamboo under the finger nails. Mutilation. Strangulation. Amputation.

Sound like a 3rd World torture chamber in a Tom Clancy novel? Or perhaps more chilling, something you might hear echoing down the halls of the US Congress or the venerated Supreme Court? BINGO

Right now, under the ever-nervous thumb of the Bush administration and the specter of a lost midterm election (which results in a hand-over of power in congress) the legislative branch of our government is sleazing around ways of making these and other unspeakable atrocities LEGAL! They want to amend our interpretation of the Geneva Convention article #3. That is the statute that universally governs how captured prisoners should be treated according to international law.

An accepted guideline obeyed in every conflict from WW2 on. From the fields of North Korea and the swamps of Vietnam, to the sandpits of Gulf War 1.

If this trashing of the statue occurs, the first noticeable affect will be the "reinterpretation" of the same laws by all of the other countries in the world we despise. Of note would be North Korea, Iran, Sudan and other stickily sweet spots around the world. No, in reality, as soon as we, the world's poster child for "the rule of law", start compromising our OWN moral values, it gives comfort and permission to some of the nastiest slime on Earth to act with a free hand. To capture our own citizens and troops and do inhuman, unspeakable things to them...when maybe they would've held back here and there.

Why do we respect the rule of law? Because we are the leaders of the CIVILIZED world... and that's what has made us the nation we are today. That is what will keep us afloat and eternally prosperous in the future. The reason despotic regimes around the world come and go every decade or so is because they DON'T respect the rule of law. And therefore lack the most basic bedrock of functional society.

Some would argue that our enemies already disregard morality, human dignity and the "rules." But our enemies will soon be vanquished and the threat they pose will be over forever. And the moral, righteous and humane hand of Americans will prevail. So why join them when we are certainly going to beat them? Why lower ourselves to the sub-human level of our enemies when we don't need to?

This conflict won't be simple. And the cost in lives and treasure will be high. But whatever the cost, we must hold fast to our sense of self identity, our morals and everything that makes us Americans. And not let our enemies succeed in turning us into them. We are above it. Morally, financially and spiritually. Because, like JFK said, "We do this not because it easy, but because it is hard."

Sometimes it's hard to be right...

A '9' with 12 zeros after it.

That's our new national debt. That's how much we OWE to other countries. Our illustrious and "fiscally responsible" GOP masters in Washington claim that, "that's just how much we can borrow." What nobody is saying is that they have already borrow $8,900,000,000.00 and they had to raise the limit the laws allow them to borrow. In other words, like so many rich kids that are used to daddy paying the bills, they've maxxed out our card.

Who's card? Well, every man, woman and child's born and unborn for about the next three or four generations. That's if we stop spending now. Think about this: President Bush and his GOP cronies are desperate to pass a tax break law for THE RICHEST 1% of Americans, robbing the treasury of about $6 Trillion dollars over the next few years... Uhm, wtf? And it doesn't help that the extra money we're being forced to borrow is going to pay for the MOST BLOATED military budget in history. The MOST BLOATED and unforgivable pork-barrel, special-interest pay-offs and OIL INDUSTRY TAX BREAKS EVER! Not being invested into education, health-care or infrastructure... these are all being CUT! How the heck are we supposed to make money or produce things if we have stupid, sickly children that can't use tools?

It's simple. At this point in our President's national misadventure with our political fortunes, he's managed to saddle every man, woman and child alive today with $30,000.00 each of national debt. That means that everyone of us... even babies 1 hour old, would have to pay, RIGHT NOW, $30,000.00 to balance the budget. That's unforgivable. If you hadn't thought of it yet, let me tell you. Our children, grand-children and great grand-children and all of theirs are going to be paying 80% income taxes for the next hundred years to pay for what this guy screwed up... just like his oil companies that he drove into the ground. Just like the baseball team that he bankrupted... did anyone think this wouldn't happen?

Remember. Just 10 years ago, when a democrat was in the Shite House... White House, they had a BALANCED budget. Hell, we had a national surplus! A SURPLUS! That meant the next guy would have an EASY job managing the economy. But alas, the difference between the last member of the oval office and the current one is a matter of simple ideology. As they themselves have even put it and can be summed up in the following statement:

Is it not better to TAX and spend, than to simply spend?

Mr. Bush, listen to your critics. They're not all a**holes. Because the thing that makes this country strong is our economy. Not our army. It's our money. And economic armageddon is right around the corner.

Especially is you read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/16/congress.debt.ap/index.html

The War on Choice.

Let it be known. The Republicans are losing big time. Sorry guys. As much as I like some of you, I have a bunch of conservative friends and family... but your time with the throne and scepter is juuuust about over. "BUT WHY?!" you plead teary -eyed?

Well, you've lost. You've lost the War on Drugs that you started in the 80's. You've lost Clinton's War on Poverty. You've DEFINITELY lost the so-called "War on Terror" and not too mention, you've lost the only ACTUAL war we're in... you know, the one you started... the War on Iraq.

So frankly, you've lost us.

But what's this? This last ditch effort to stand for something besides corruption, cronyism, ineptitude and backward-focused ideological hocus-pocus...? The latest "war."

The War on Choice.

Please good readers, do not for one second believe that a 65 year old, white male governor or all male state legislature of a state with only ONE family planning clinic really spends a lot of time thinking about a woman's respectful right to do whatever she damn well pleases with her own body. Not for one second do they think about that. If they did, they'd more likely to ban things like sub-dermal nipple piercing, low-riding and other meaningless things that don't affect them in one way or another...

No. Their thoughts dwell primarily on, yes, you guessed, STAYING in power. How do they do that? Well, you can't be elected on nothing. And people don't elect losers. They elect champions. People who WIN. So what better war to win than a war that your opponent can't fight.

Why does the right to make a choice enrage them so? The truth is, it really doesn't bother them at all. Losing bothers them. Losing power scares them. This is just an easy way for them to look like they are doing something productive.
But will this back-fire like the rest of the circus? We'll see...

Oil covered macadamia nuts.

(What's up with the two Democrats from Hawaii consistently voting to drill in ANWR?)

Recently, the Senate was called to vote on whether or not to drill for oil in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All Democrats (as well as several GOPers) voted against this except four. Two of which I'd like to have a closer look at.

For not-publicly known reasons, the two Democratic senators from Hawaii, Akaka & Inouye consistently vote with their GOP adversaries on the issue of drilling in Alaska. Wonder why? Well, it's sorta weird. It might surprise you to learn that for years, the native Hawaiian Islanders have been fighting with the U.S. government for a change of recognition status. Right now, Hawaiians are regarded as American citizens with all the basic rights and privileges granted to you and I. But for years, they have been trying to get that changed. They would prefer to be legally recognized as citizens of a Hawaiian Nation. Much like the way Native American Indians have partial sovereignty on Indian reservations. Hawaiians would have the right to negotiate things like trade and land-use, port-use, etc.

Note: In Alaska, Native American Alaskans enjoy a similar status. Sort of. The Native Alaskans, about 40 years ago, were granted the right to roll up their tribes into corporations and the land that they resided on wasn't so much "reserved" by the government as it was allowed to be owned by the tribal corporations. These tribal businesses are the largest single FOR-PROFIT entities in the state of Alaska. It also so happens that ANWR is situated on "Arctic Tribal Slope Company" land. A privately-owned tribal corporation that stands to benefit greatly -- to the sum of some billions of dollars a year -- if oil starts pouring out of the refuge. Hmmmmm....

So what does this have to do with Hawaii?

Well, meet Senator Ted Stevens, R- Alaska. The Senate's most senior republican and also it's President Pro Tem (3rd in line of Presidential succession). He is the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which oversees all spending that the Senate authorizes and also happens to be a LARGE benefactor of the Arctic Tribal Slope Company. They in fact, are the largest contributor to his campaign and lease real-estate owned privately by Stevens. These real-estate deals are worth $6 million a year on a 20 year lease... and that $$$ goes to the honorable Ted Stevens personally, avoiding those pesky legal hurdles usually associated with buying a politician. He's one rich and powerful old white dude. You may also know him by the nickname "The Bridge to Nowhere Senator." (he's famous in the Senate for his ability to steer pork-barrel money into Alaska on an unprecedented scale). Or you may remember him by his refusal to make oil executives swear-in at a recent Senate sub-committee investigation despite wide-spread objection (he's the chairman, he's got the right).

Anyway, Hawaii has introduced a bill called the "Akaka/Stevens" bill to grant Hawaiians tribal status. "Akaka/STEVENS??" Hey, he's not from Hawaii... WTF? Well, it turns out that it's fairly common knowledge among senators that, in exchange for Hawaii's unwavering support of anything Stevens proposes, Stevens has promised to wield his tremendous influence to help Akaka and Inouye pass the bill they've been trying to get through the Senate.

That's it. Pretty simple. It's kind of a shame to see how easily some Democrats could turn their backs on the environment, the truth and their personal beliefs to cash in a favor.

More easy reading on the matter here:

http://www.hawaiiislandjournal.com/2005/02a05b.html

"Turn to the shredder."

Today, George Bush is facing SERIOUS credibility problems. In a recent Gallop poll, 67% of responders referred to the President as "Not Honest." So now he's saying the accusations of his "opponents" (aka- you and me!) are partisan lies. And all his inner-circle cronies are on TV echoing his statements about their OWN involvement in the Iraq war. My question is: If we all think they're such liars, why do they think we'd suddenly start believing them?

When Bill Clinton was President, we had a lot of intelligence on Iraq and WMDs. The bottom line was, we just didn't know for sure. We thought they did. And we thought they didn't. But we mostly thought they didn't. For eight whole years, conflicting reports were coming into the Oval Office. YES! he's got nukes. NO! he absolutely doesn't. While a few in the defense apparatus thought Saddam was a brilliant military and terrorist leader, others thought that was complete crap. So Bubba stayed put and wouldn't risk war for "theories."

And so it seemed, that president H.W. Bush and his war-czar, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had SUCCEEDED with the help of their allies and the U.N. in accomplishing their mission. "Stop Saddam Hussein and destroy his WMDs." So while there were still a few beating the war drum (aka- the "neocons"), their cries were all but silenced by the end of the conflict.

Then came Bush 2. (Also worth noting: the new Vice President accompanying the new 'Commander in Chief' was none other than the oil-loving, war architect Dick Cheney.) And almost immediately, the upper management, the voices of calm and reason in the CIA, DIA, FBI, NSA and others all found themselves FIRED and replaced with administration loyalists. People who didn't have opinions or facts. They had loyalty. And most of them hadn't even had one day of real experience in their new fields. But it didn't matter. They didn't need experience. They just had to go on TV on behalf of their respective agencies and agree with whatever the Administration mouthed for them. Good boys. Now sit. Roll over. Play dead. Good.

Then came a day of reckoning. Sept 11, 2001. Never mind that it was the darkest day in our nation's history. It was the best day, the brightest day in the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S history. It was the excuse they had been so desperately seeking.

"Good. Cheney has his people in the CIA and the Defense Dpt. They bury any data we don't want... Now all we need to do is remove any dissenters -- then go to town with our new intelligence team and our hand-picked data! FINALLY. We can go back to Iraq and finish what Cheney started."

(Why go back to Iraq? See my next blog on the Neocon agenda.)

And with that, they went to the House, Senate and the entire world with a tiny bit of now wildly discredited intelligence...and it was ok, because they just silenced the data and the people that thought differently.

And the fact that Bush forced the issue RIGHT in the frenzy of the 2002 mid-term elections, he was able to turn this into a POWERFUL political weapon. If a congressman didn't support removing an "obvious threat to our national security" he/she was inviting a "mushroom cloud over an American city." Well, he got his votes to go to war, even though he only gave the Senate and the House LESS THAN A WEEK to mull it over. "More intelligence? Sleep on it?" Come on boys! It's just WAR!

Unfortunately, contained in the data the administration neglected to show us (which is only now surfacing) was information about the realities of invading Iraq. How it wasn't worth it. How it would go horribly wrong and cost the nation countless American lives. And about the damage it would do to our fragile economy and our standing as a citizen of the civilized world. But the Administration wouldn't know. They shredded the sh*t.

And now, they come out and say that they showed everyone the same intelligence, that it wasn't fabricated. They just fail to mention that when they say "all the intelligence" they mean the few scraps that were left of it.

So, if like me and so many of my fellow Americans, you're desperately seeking the truth, look no further than the shredder bins at the CIA.