Is Bush Trying To Pick A Fight With Putin ?

I really don't understand what Bush is trying to do with his idea of putting a missle-defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. It's almost like he's trying to pick a fight with Putin and Russia.

Does it bother him that the Cold War is over? Is he trying to bring it back? I know he says the shield is to protect against Iranian missles, but Iran doesn't have a missle that can reach Europe and is unlikely to have one anytime soon. Besides, if it was really for protection against Iran, then wouldn't it make more sense to put it in southern Europe closer to Iran?

I don't blame the Russians for being upset. By placing the shield in northern Europe on Russia's border, it certainly looks like Bush is aiming his action at Russia. Russia doesn't trust us fully yet, just as we don't fully trust them. From their viewpoint, their only protection against an attack from the West is their ability to retaliate with missles of their own.

But a missle-defense shield could take away their ability to retaliate, and open them up to a first-strike from the West. It is easy to see why they would be nervous about Bush's proposal. After all, Bush has shown with his attack on Iraq that he is willing to declare war without a reason to do so.

With this proposal, it looks as though Bush is trying to engage in brinkmanship politics (like JFK during the missle crises in Cuba). That's scary, because Bush is not half as smart as JFK. He'll screw it up like he has with all his other endeavors, and wind up leaving the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

Can't we impeach this fool before he starts another cold (or hot) war?

Potter County Sheriff Blames Ex-Wife For Troubles

Potter County Sheriff Michael Shumate has broken his silence about the FBI investigation into his actions. But I'm not sure he's thrown any more light on the matter. According to the sheriff, his problems are all due to his ex-wife.

Shumate says he and his wife had a bitter divorce, and she promised to make trouble for him. He said she accused him of taking bribes and kickbacks from vendors who service the jail commissary (this is the first we've heard of what the charges might be).

That sounds a bit simplistic though. The FBI doesn't usually takes sides in divorce matters, or waste months investigating a public official when the only evidence is the word of an ex-wife. This investigation has gone on for months, and now the FBI has brought U.S. Attorneys into the matter. That sounds pretty serious.

Evidently Shumate's chief deputy thought it was serious also -- serious enough that he said he could not ethically continue as Shumate's employee. I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Farmers Branch Begins To Back Down

It looks like Farmers Branch officials are beginning to realize they passed an unconstitutional law when they banned the rental of apartments to immigrants without a green card. Sensing that U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay was about to rule their new law violated the U.S. Constitution, attorneys for Farmers Branch have offered up some "compromises", and asked the judge to choose among them.

In issuing his restraining order on May 21, the judge had written that "the city has attempted to regulate immigration in violation of the U.S. Constitution."

They city has offered three alternatives to the judge. One would simply cut out any reference to U.S. Housing and Urban Development's prohibition on providing housing to illegal immigrants (it was determined that HUD's rules would also apply to many people who were in the country legally).

Another alternative would be to drop the $500-a-day penalty on landlords and eliminate the need to provide paperwork proving a renter was a citizen. It would however force renters to sign a document declaring they were legal immigrants.

The third alternative would eliminate the $500-a-day penalty and the need to sign a document, but would force renters to provide documentation showing they were legal immigrants. These alternatives would still allow the city to pursue renters for "fraud".

Nina Perales of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (one of the groups suing the city) did not think the city's compromises were legally proper. She said, "That's not an appropriate thing for a judge to do. The judge decides what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional. The judge does not rewrite ordinances."

Ms. Perales is right. The city has stepped in a large pile of racist crap, and now they want the judge to pull them out of it. But that is not his job. His job is simply to point out the smelly nature of what they've stepped into -- it's their job to get out of it and clean their boots.

I suspect the city officials don't know how to write a constitutional ordinance. If so, they should resign. Their racist ordinance is unconstitutional, and this judge is fixing to tell them that. I hope the humiliation will be enough to keep them from pursuing further bigoted actions.

Agg Town Fights Defendant Pleads Guilty

About a year ago, it was discovered that an Arlington teen gang was starting fights among teenagers so they could tape them, and then sell the tapes on the internet. Once they found out about it, Arlington police acted quickly to arrest those involved.

Last week, Duente Gains, one of the original Agg Town Fights defendants pled guilty and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. Gains had been charged with Aggravated Assault for attacking an area high school student.

Gains is the third of the foursome arrested in this mess, that has pled guilty. Previously, John Barree pled guilty to Aggravated Assault and received a 3 year prison sentence. Folarin Olabimitan Olawaye pled guilty to Engaging in Organized Crime and received 2 years probation.

This leaves just one defendant left -- ringleader Michael Jackson. He is charged with Engaging in Organized Crime, and is currently awaiting trial. Hopefully, he too will receive some prison time.

Violence toward others is not an opportunity to make money -- it is a crime.

Is GM Serious About Electric Cars ?

General Motors is once again telling us there going to give America an electric car. At the Detroit Auto Show last January, GM unveiled their latest attempt at an electric car -- the Volt.

According to GM officials, the Volt can go up to 40 city miles on a single charge. Then a one liter three-cylinder gas-powered moter kicks in to recharge the batteries as it is driven, giving the car a range of about 640 miles. The batteries can be recharged by plugging them in to a home electrical outlet.

I have to wonder, if this car can already do all this, why isn't it already on the market? This sounds like it would be a great alternative to today's gas-hogs.

Tuesday, GM awarded contracts to two companies to test and improve the car's lithium-ion batteries. Considering GM's history with electric cars, this looks like a delaying tactic. Do they really want an electric car? Or are they just trying to look like they're doing something to stave off stricter government mpg laws.

In the early 90's, it looked like California was going to force car companies to make at least a portion of their sales cars with zero emissions. GM quickly put out the EV-1, and leased it to California motorists (they would not allow anyone to buy one). The EV-1 electric car turned out to be very popular with those lucky enough to lease one.

But as soon as California dropped its plans to initiate the zero emission law, GM stopped producing the vehicles. Then they recalled all the electric cars and destroyed them. Turns out the car was just a ploy to defeat the California law. GM wasn't serious about producing electric cars.

Now, as gas prices rise and people get upset, GM is again teasing us with visions of an electric car. If they were serious, they would put one up for sale. The technology already exists to produce an electric car that has a range of 200-300 miles.

But they're not serious. Don't expect to see the Volt at your GM dealer anytime soon. They're just trying to keep the federal government from forcing them to make their cars more efficient.

Libby Sentenced -- But Still Free

Lewis "Scooter" Libby went back to court yesterday and found out what his sentence was to be. Libby and his attorneys asked for leniency, but U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton was having none of it. Judge Walton said, "Mr. Libby failed to meet the bar. For whatever reason, he got off course."

Judge Walton then sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison for lying and obstructing justice. If it were you or I, we would be sitting behind bars right now waiting to be transferred to a federal prison. But the rich and powerful operate under different rules than the rest of us do. Libby got to go home.

Libby's lawyers asked that he be allowed to remain free while his case is being appealed. Judge Walton said he saw no reason to put the sentence on hold -- then let Libby go home, while he scheduled a hearing on the matter for a week from next Thursday.

Meanwhile, Dick Cheney (Libby's old boss, and the guy he's protecting) said, "Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man." I can understand Cheney's attitude. If Libby actually had to go to prison, he might be upset enough to tell the truth about his superiors.

But I doubt that Libby will actually go to prison. If he's not allowed to stay free while his case is on appeal, then there will probably be a pardon from Bush. Republicans are already trying to put pressure on Bush to give a pardon. Several of the presidential candidates said or inferred that they would pardon Libby.

I have no doubt that Bush wants to pardon Libby. Right now, he's just hoping that Libby can stay free while appeals are heard. That way, Bush can delay the pardon until his term is nearly over.

But whether the judge allows him to stay free or not, the pardon is coming. It is just Bush's nature to reward criminal loyalty.

Richardson Speaks Out On Iraq War

The following is a letter from Bill Richardson to his supporters. I thought it was worthy of wider distribution, and have reprinted it here for anyone to read. It is good to know there is a candidate who wants to end our Iraqi occupation now -- not next Fall or next year.

It's time every single member of Congress caught on to two things: 1) the Bush Administration will not end this war until they are forced to, and 2) it is wrong to wait until September or October to stop the killing.

Congress has the power to stand up to Bush and end this war right now -- before the summer break.

Article 1 of the US Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the right to declare war. And the War Powers Act specifies that the President may not continue a war without Congressional authorization. In 2002 Congress passed a resolution authorizing the Iraq war because the administration claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Queda.

Saddam is dead. There never were any WMDs or ties to Al Queda. The basis for the 2002 war authorization is gone.

If Congress passes a resolution de-authorizing the war, the President has no legal authority to continue. De-authorization cannot be vetoed, and it would legally require Bush to begin bringing the troops home. If the President stalled on redeployment, Congress could pass funding legislation requiring him to withdraw.

Congress lost an opportunity last month when it caved before the administration and passed an Iraq war spending bill without a timetable for withdrawal. But it is not too late. If Congress de-authorizes the war before the summer recess, our troops could be home in six months.

The American people elected Democrats last November to end Bush's war. It is time for Congress to do what it was elected to do. It is time to stop deferring to a stubborn President who persists in a failed policy.

Some Democrats say wait -- wait for the fifth anniversary of the original war authorization, wait for General Petraeus's report on the effects of the escalation, wait for George Bush to see the light. Well, I don't buy any of it. The time for waiting is over. People are dying every day. If Congress doesn't act before they leave for the summer, the only thing that will change between now and the end of the year is the body count.

I served in Congress for 14 years and I know that Congress has the power to act, and I know from experience that when the people demand it, Congress will respond.

We can use the leverage of our complete withdrawal to bring the warring factions to the negotiating table. Our continued presence in Iraq enables the factions to delay the necessary compromises and fuels the insurgency by feeding the belief held by most Iraqis that we are in Iraq to occupy their country indefinitely and plunder their oil. That is why we must remove ALL the troops as soon as possible. I have a plan for rebuilding stability in a post-war Iraq, but Congress must take the first step.

We have a responsibility to ourselves and to the Iraqis to embrace a new strategy of military disengagement and diplomatic re-engagement. We owe it ourselves and the Iraqis to end this war now.

The President won't do it. Congress must.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

Rep. Jefferson Finally Indicted For His Crimes

Nearly two years ago, the FBI found $90,000 in bribe money in the freezer of Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana). In spite of this evidence, he was re-elected by the people of his district. Then he was given a seat on the Homeland Security Committee by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

Monday, the Justice Department announced that Jefferson had been indicted on 16 criminal counts, including soliciting bribes, obstructing justice, engaging in racketeering, money laundering, wire fraud, conspiracy, and violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. If convicted on all charges, Jefferson could be sentenced to 235 years in prison.

Of course, Jefferson's lawyer says he is innocent. What would you expect an expensive attorney to say? In spite of that, it is time for Democrats to finally dump this criminal. They should have done it a couple of years ago.

During the 2006 elections, the Democrats made a lot of political hay out of Republican corruption, and justly so. There was and still is a lot of corruption among Republicans. But Democrats cannot accuse Republicans of corruption and then turn around and protect as corrupt a politician as Jefferson.

Corruption is wrong no matter what political party it occurs in. Democrats must kick this criminal out of Congress and, if possible, out of the party altogether. Any effort to do otherwise will destroy any moral authority Democrats have in the next election.

Don't delay Democrats! Take action now.

Bush Screwed Up Military Tribunal Law

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Bush's military tribunals to be unconstitutional. Instead of observing human rights, and trying the Gitmo detainees in American courts that would protect their rights and the rule of law, Bush again tried to create a system that would convict the detainees as he wanted.

He got Congress to pass a new military tribunal law that wouldn't bother with trifling matters like human rights. But it looks like he screwed it up again.

Yesterday in Guantanamo, two separate military judges threw out the charges against the only two detainees that had charges. It seems that Bush's new law declared the tribunals had juristiction over "alien unlawful enemy combatants". But there are no "alien unlawful enemy combatants" in Guantanamo. Years ago, the military had declared the detainees to simply be "enemy combatants". This caused the two military judges to throw out the charges because they had no juristiction.

The prosecution said they would appeal the decisions. However, the military court to which they would have to appeal doesn't exist. Evidently Bush never thought the prosecution might need to appeal, so the appeals court was never organized and staffed. After all, he didn't want the detainees to be able to appeal.

So now he's stuck with a new law that doesn't grant appropriate juristiction (and was probably unconstitutional anyway). And we are back to holding 380 people who are imprisoned without charges or rights. The whole situation just keeps getting more embarrassing by the day for America.

Bush may try to pass another unconstitutional law to try and railroad these prisoners, but now he has a Democratic Congress. Hopefully they will stop him, and force him to abide by our Constitution.

If we have proof that these men are terrorists, then by all means take then to court and give them a fair trial and punish them. If not, then we should release them immediately.

Hopefully we have passed the bad days when Bush could imprison anyone he didn't like without charges, rights or trials.

Is An Execution A Place For Jokes ?

Is an execution the place for telling jokes? Patrick Knight believes that it is. Knight is scheduled to be executed on June 26th for the killing of his Randall county neighbors, Walter and Mary Werner, about 16 years ago. Now he says he wants his last words to be a joke.

Knight is asking for jokes to be mailed to him, and says he'll tell the best one just before he is executed. But Randall County Sheriff Joel Richardson, who investigated the murders, is not happy with Knight's decision to tell a joke in the death chamber. He said, "The whole thing is not a joke to anybody here unless it is to him. This tells you a little bit about the guy's character, anyway."

But Knight, who says about 250 jokes have been sent in so far, said, "I'm not trying to disrespect the Werners or anything like that. I'm not trying to say I don't care what's going on. I'm about to die. I'm not going to sit here and whine and cry and moan and everything like that when I'm facing the punishment I've been given. I'm not asking for money. I'm not asking for penpals or anything like that. All that I'm asking for is jokes."

Knight went on to say, "I know I'm not innocent. They think they're killing me. They think they're punishing me. They've already punished me. I've already had 16 years of punishment. They're releasing me. They're letting me go. That's helping me out. That's the way I look at it."

Knight said he got the idea of telling a joke at his execution from fellow inmate, Vincent Gutierrez, who remarked as he was strapped to the gurney, "Where's a stunt double when you need one?"

There have already been 14 executions in Texas this year. In addition to Knight, there are four more scheduled for June (including one female). So far, there are ten more scheduled this year after this month.

Most of us would not think it appropriate to tell jokes in the death chamber, but it is not our execution. Personally, I would prefer that Texas not engage itself in legalized killing. But if we must do it, then it is only decent to let the condemned say whatever they want as their last words.

Patrick Knight has chosen to use his last statement to tell a joke. That is his right.

FBI Investigates Potter County Sheriff

There have been whispers around Potter county for the last few months that the FBI was investigating some government official in Potter county. Matters came to a head yesterday, when Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy Ken Farren held a press conference to announce his resignation.

Farren said, "I am announcing my resignation, because, ethically, I don't feel I can work there anymore based on some allegations made recently and in the past." Farren would not reveal just what the FBI was investigating, but did reveal the allegations were concerning Potter County Sheriff Michael Shumate.

County commissioners Joe Kirkwood and Lacy Borger admitted after Farren resigned, that they knew of an investigation by the FBI concerning Sheriff Shumate. They said the investigation has been going on since last Fall. They also refused to disclose the nature of the allegations.

They did say though that the FBI has turned the results of their investigation over to federal prosecutors. That doesn't sound too good for the sheriff. If federal prosecutors have been brought in, then federal charges may soon follow. Maybe then we'll find out what these allegations are all about.

Farren has tossed his hat in the ring to replace Sheriff Shumate saying, "I feel that Sheriff Shumate can no longer effectively run the department, and I think that I am the most qualified candidate for the job." He joins two others who have already announced they are seeking the job -- APD Cpl. Brian Thomas (Amarillo Crime Stoppers coordinator) and Robert Taylor (who has previously run against Shumate).

Looks like things are starting to get interesting here in Amarillo.

We're Still Losing The "War On Drugs"

There is new evidence that we continue to lose the "war on drugs". Prior to his visit to the U.S. next Wednesday, Columbian President Alvaro Uribe admitted that a new White House survey shows that coca production in Columbia has risen again for the third year in a row.

The United States, in conjunction with Columbian authorities, have waged an agressive campaign to wipe out coca production in the country since 1999. However, coca production from 1999 through 2006 has risen about 27%. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy survey used satellite imagery to conclude that in 2006, coca production rose by about 8%.

In 2005, there were 355,831 acres of coca production. In 2006, the number of acres had grown to 385,484. Couple this with the fact that in the last year, cocaine in the U.S. has dropped in price and risen in purity, and it becomes pretty obvious that we are not winning this "war".

This is not the fault of our police agencies. They are doing the best they can. Last year here in Texas, the Department of Public Safety once again seized a record amount of cocaine and other drugs.

The fact is that this is a war that cannot be won. If people want drugs, there will always be someone to supply it to them. Wherever there is a demand, there will be a supply.

We need to attack this problem in a different way. We must realize that this is not a legal problem, but a medical and societal problem. Our money should be going into drug education and rehabilitation, rather than in policing efforts.

This is just not a problem that can be solved by our legal system.

Second Democratic Debate Is Better

While not perfect, this was a much better run debate that the MSNBC debacle held earlier. CNN tried to be fairer and get to all the candidates, but they also failed in this task. There was a definite tendency to go toward the "major" candidates.

Some will say that more time should be spent on the candidates that are leading in the polls. I disagree. That might be a valid consideration when we get closer to the primary elections, but we are still at least six months from the first primaries and caucuses.

This early in the race, all candidates should be treated equally. Otherwise, we put ourselves in the position of having the media tell us who our candidates should be, by choosing to only question and cover a few candidates. The candidates should not be chosen by the media, but by the people who vote.

Although CNN did a better job of getting to more candidates, I think that each candidate should have had the opportunity to answer each question. Once again, that did not happen.

As far as the candidates, I thought they all did well when given the chance. No one made any serious gaffes, and I think any of the eight would make a much better president than the current one, or any of the possible Republican candidates.

My own favorite, Bill Richardson, aquitted himself well on most of the issues. But there was one issue on which he, and most of the others, disappointed me. It seems like at least six of the candidates (Gravel did not get to talk on this) want to leave insurance companies in charge of our healthcare system.

Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate who seems to realize that the insurance companies are a big part of what is wrong with the healthcare system. He had the courage to come out in favor of a single-payer system. Hopefully, the other candidates will see the error of their healthcare views, and catch up with Kucinich on this.

Another improvement over the first debate was allowing voters to ask some questions. Frankly, I thought their questions were better than those posed by the media.

14 US Soldiers Killed In Iraq In The Last Three Days

Both the Republicans and Democrats should be ashamed of themselves as they continue to play political games over the war in Iraq. Because while they treat the war as a political argument, things get steadily worse for our soldiers over there.

April was the fourth bloodiest month for our soldiers since the start of Bush's war. But the violence got even worse in May. Last month, there were 127 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, making it the third bloodiest month for our troops.

Now it looks like June may be even worse. In the first three days of June, 14 U.S. soldiers have been killed. There have now been 3,494 U.S. military casualties in Iraq. And what has been accomplished?

Other than the removal of Saddam Hussein (who was the only thing keeping the peace in Iraq), the only thing we have accomplished is:

- started an extremely violent civil war that kills thousands each month.

- created millions of Iraqi refugees who have fled their country in terror because no one will protect them.

- installed a puppet government that has already demonstrated it cannot control the country.

- created ill will toward the U.S. around the world because of our unneccessary invasion and unjust occupation of Iraq.

Surely this was not the desired result! But then, except to steal Iraq's oil resources, I don't know what the desired result was. Did Bush and his buddies really think they could force American-style democracy on another country at the point of a gun? Anyone with eyes can see that we have probably insured that Iraq will become a theocracy -- not a democracy.

If there was the slightest hope of protecting the Iraqi people or actually creating a democracy there, then it might be worth leaving our troops there for a while, but there isn't. Even with 150,000 troops there, we are not able to protect the Iraqi citizens, and any hope for a democracy to survive there is just a pipe-dream.

It is time for Democrats and Republicans to stop playing their political games with the lives of Americans (and Iraqis). Cut off all funds for this war immediately and force Bush to bring our troops home -- all of them. Don't leave a single U.S. soldier in Iraq!