Lewis quotes extensively from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but clearly his scholarship does not extend to the Constitution. The command of the armed forces follows from the president’s election to office, and cannot be separated from the office itself. Bush isn’t C-in-C because he got appointed to that position, but because the American electorate voted him into that role. In other words, the military cannot arrest the C-in-C but leave the President in power, and to argue otherwise is to demonstrate complete ignorance. ~captainsquartersblog.com

I concur. And thus I am calling for Far-left author Martin Lewis to be stripped of his blogging credentials and convicted of Ignorance unbecoming a blogger. Give that man a dishonorable discharge for incurable B.D.S. [Bush Derangement Syndrome].

“Most ethical congress in history?”

“The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history,” Pelosi said.

…Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada told supporters, “All across America tonight . . . there is in the air a wind of change.” ~washingtonpost.com

I’m confused…

WASHINGTON – After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress’ pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify “earmarks” — lawmakers’ requests for specific projects and contracts for their states — in documents that accompany spending bills.

Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them. ~news.yahoo.com

Confusing? Not really. I never imagined for a minute that Democrats would clean up their act. After all Republicans weren’t creating congressional corruption they were following 40 years of it. Democrats practically invented corruption in congress.

“Tonight is a great victory for the American people,” Pelosi said in a late-night speech in Washington. “Today the American people voted for change, and they voted for Democrats to take our country in a new direction.” She described the vote as a mandate “to restore stability and bipartisanship” in Washington and for “a new direction” in the war in Iraq.

Democrats really aren’t good at lying. Though they are quite practiced at it. Balancing the budget? Correcting Republican fiscal irresponsibility? Spending cuts were never part of the plan. Raising taxes, yes. Passing more complex, arcane, and encumbering regulations for all Americans, yes.

WASHINGTON — Defying veto threats, House Democrats are proposing a more than $10 billion increase above President Bush’s budget request for health, education and labor programs in the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

Virtually all domestic agencies will receive more than the White House proposed, but the commitment to health and education, two core issues in the 2006 congressional campaign, is …  ~online.wsj.com

Jetsetting

Tax increasing

Pork Spending

Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. ~rasmussenreports.com

In fact, the poll says that 35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance! Perhaps I should repeat that because it is evidence of the apparent mental incompetence ideological hatred of an entire swath of the electorate:

35% of Democrats believe Bush knew about 9/11 in advance!

On a side note I’d say that Segolene Royal is definitely a Democrat, or has read the official liberal playbook, or has the same ideological psychosis…

PARIS (Reuters) – Socialist opponent Segolene Royal said on Friday that France risks violence and brutality if her opponent right-winger Nicolas Sarkozy wins Sunday’s presidential election. ~yahoo.com

I can recall many such instances of Democrats warning that “there’s going to be violence” if this or that doesn’t happen… I believe it is just part of the unhinged nature of liberalism’s disconnect with reality. How else could so many believe that socialism could actually work and should be the ultimate goal of society?

Next we will find out that liberals believe that President Bush really is trying to kill Hugo Chavez and that, “Radical Christianity,” really is, “just as threatening as radical Islam.“

What a way to climb to power, eh? Through a death of a thousand cuts and a drumbeat of defeat.

Subpoenas Approved for Rice, Other Bush Officials

Kucinich Files Articles of Impeachment Against Cheney

The Re-Making of a Quagmire

Bush blames the troops

House Panels Vote Subpoenas, Immunity in Probes on Prosecutors, War, Political Activity

The Bushies Lied About Tillman and Lynch

Man arrested in threat on GOP official

A man has been arrested in connection with an incident earlier this month, when someone pressed a rifle to the face of a Nevada Republican Party official and threatened to “take action” if President George W. Bush vetoed a particular piece of legislation. ~fox5vegas.com

Declare defeat and legislate surrender, that’s the road to power in post Vietnam America.

We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.

~Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.

It is axiomatic to say that Democrats are invested in our defeat. But why? They voted for the war. The reason is that they see political advantage in it. Democrats believed Bush, not because he played them like a Stradivarius, but because they believed their own intelligence. Bush said nothing that was not already known. Democrats voted to authorize the war because they believed that it was necessary according to the best intelligence of the time. Or did they?

I’m at the point where I just don’t care anymore. As far as I’m concerned Bush should nominate a Democrat for Veep and then step down. Good luck. Edwards perhaps. He says he’s for defeat, let him own it. It’s easy to talk about how we need to surrender, perhaps Democrats need to be in power so that they can root for America again. If that is the only way to heal this divided nation then perhaps Republicans should just sit out the next election for the good of the country.

But then would Democrats truly unite the country? Or would they set about consolidating their power and grinding their political enemies into the dust so that they never again pose a threat their power? I suspect the latter would be the case.

And why would I believe that, you might ask? Because ‘cooperation not competition’ is not the true philosophy of liberals or the left. They don’t believe in getting along with those who disagree. They believe in getting their way. They don’t believe in compromise, they believe in dissent. They believe that those who stand in their way do so out of malice and hate, not honest disagreement.

The great irony is that those who rail against hegemony the most do so because it is the wrong kind of hegemony, not because they are against the idea of hegemony in the slightest.

So after uniting with Bush on the authorization for war Democrats set about opposing the war once it had been set in motion. The idea that you would authorize an action and then demonize the one you gave approval to (to do the action) is perverse but no longer unexpected.

In retrospect, the signs of discord and division were there long before any policy like the Iraq war. The 2000 election itself was reason enough. But Democrats were actually blaming Bush for 9/11. And still do! How I thought that the Iraq war would be any different, I don’t know.

Better a dry crust with peace and quiet
than a house full of feasting, with strife.

~Proverbs 17:1

Democrats and liberals are ready to tell Pelosi that:

…America and the world cannot wait until January 20, 2009, to put an end to Bush’s reign of error. When Pelosi arrives at the California Democratic Convention in San Diego on April 28–the same day that activists nationwide will rally for presidential accountability–she’ll find on the agenda a resolution that declares that the actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney “warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office.” Delegates are expected to endorse the measure. ~thenation.com

Then there’s Vermont’s Senate which has actually voted (on a non-binding resolution) to declare, or call for, the Impeachment of George W. Bush.

(MONTPELIER, Vt.) — Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions have raised “serious questions of constitutionality.”

The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it.

The resolution says Bush and Cheney’s actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, “raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust.”  ~time.com

I suspect that had 9/11 not happened and Afghanistan and Iraq not been invaded that the Vermont Senate would have voted for a different resolution calling for Bush’s Impeachment for not having been legally elected.