Let's call our reps and report back in this thread. It's after business hours but I'll get on the horn to Yvette D. Clark tomorrow morning.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

well, on a lark I called anyway, even though it's 7 o'clock. The good news is that Congresswoman Clark's people work late.

Bad news is: "She does not have a position yet as she has not yet seen the legislation." I was told to call back closer to the vote and they promised to give a yes or no answer as soon as they have one.

A+ for friendly service from her office and for a nice conversation.

C for not being able to articulate an opinion.

She's a Democrat representing Brooklyn, by the way. I'll call them back in a few days.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

This is serious, I think. Please, if you have some time, call your rep, ask how they're going to vote and post it back here. I think Todd's absolutely right that we have a chance to make congress grow a spine.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

destor23:

Bravo. Let us know what she says.

Todd Gitlin

This is brilliant in its own way. If Bush vetoes the bill, Cheney's office is still defunded. Congress has to approve of the spending for the spending to occur. And no one can use the "supporting the troops" line.

It's a great idea, but an administration that runs like a well oiled Mafia machine, that has broken domestic and international laws, killed hundreds of thousands with no accountability, trashed the US Constitution, lied everytime they open their mouths, and destroyed records of their malfeasances, will not be stopped by some smart ass terrorist loving, surrender monkey liberal's piece of paper.

Cheney and his staff will remain funded and secure in his undisclosed bunker, and everything he does, and everyone he meets will never see the light of day. If nothing else, he will get funds thru sub-contractors of sub-contractors of KBR/Halliburton, with the money laundered through Cayman Islands banks; or, déjà vu, illegally selling banned weapons or missiles to Iran for big profits through arms dealers in the Middle East.

~

Hey!

As Oddball once said, "There you go with those negative vibes again, Moriaty."

~OGD~

Bronto1:

When you go up against big battalions, you don't just talk about stopping them, you drive a wedge into them. Cheney, in his ham-handed way, has passed us a wedge. If Rahm's bill passes, he suffers a huge blow to his prestige. If it loses, those who voted with Cheney look like idiots even to many who weren't sure what they thought of Cheney. Whether it wins or loses, those who voted to fund his office become all the more vulnerable in '08.

Todd Gitlin

Whether it wins or loses, those who voted to fund his office become all the more vulnerable in '08.

I think this is wildly overstating the case.  No one seriously believes this bill will pass.  And even if it does, it is not actually going to affect anything as Bush would surely veto any bill that tried to delete the funding for the OVP.  And that assumes it would get past a certain Senate filibuster.

It is a publicity stunt, pure and simple.  Now there's a time and a place for publicity stunts, and this may be one of those times.  If it serves to bring some publicity and scrutiny to the way Cheney operates, then it will have been worth it.  But I highly doubt anyone is going to pay a political price for voting against this bill.  Why?  Because members of Congress almost never pay a price for voting against symbolic measures.

So let's urge passage, sure.  But let's understand what this is about and act accordingly.

Rahm is big on publicity stunts. All the Democrats have done since the election is engage in one toothless stunt after another and you can see the results in the public's opinion of Congress. This isn't going to fool anybody. Cheney isn't going anywhere and all the stunt will do is call attention one more time to how ineffectual the Democrats truly are.

Knew we could count on you, Hoppy. Please report back here as to your rep's position.

Also, please encourage other TPMers to join us. There's enough of us here that we can at least make a phone call and put people on the record.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Emails are good, but phone calls have more impact, I believe. Postal mail letters also have an impact, but there isn't time for that now. And, it only takes a few minutes to make the phone call. Well worth it.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Can we get a coy of the proposed amendment or a reference to it that we can provide to the Congress-turkeys?

I live abroad so calling gets a bit tricky, but this is the email I sent to my old Representative:

"I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of Rep. Rahm Emanuel's bill cutting funding for Vice President Cheney's office on the grounds that he is not (apparently) part of the Executive Branch. This man has done everything within his considerable power to subvert the values and vision of the US Constitution and I strongly believe US taxpayers should not be enabling him to do so.

I further urge you to do all you can to shine a very bright light on the activities of his office. If he is not part of the Executive Branch then he no longer falls under the blanket of Executive Priviledge and his role in institutionalizing torture, subverting Constitutional checks and balances, and cloaking the entire Executive in a dangerous - and potentially illegal - veil of secrecy needs to be vigorously examined.

Congress's approval rating is languishing because it is not doing enough to hold the Executive to account for the damage it is causing. We cannot fight them the way you can; you must fight for us where we cannot reach. Take a strong and public stand in support of this measure and help lead your colleagues in our stead."

Feel free to poach at will; that's why I posted it. And let us know how the phone calls go!

Dan K,

To my knowledge, Rahm has not yet made his legislation public, but I don't think there's any reason to fear. If Congress endorsed Cheney's contention that he's post-branch or branchless, it would also have defunded him. He be a sapless nonbranch.

Todd Gitlin

As to the politics of Emanuel's bill its a sure winner, its van Helsing going after Dracula as Cheney's approval ratings may now be flirting with negative numbers. All the Emanuel bill risks is angering an already angry 28% of the population who are Bush sycophants.

The Bush gang must be made to pay dearly for (Insert your choice of transgressions here ______________________) and I don't mean "hearings" that result in nothing more than bloviating and empty threats about subpoenas blah, blah, blah. Ask yourself, how has the Bush gang suffered for their contempt of treaties, law, Constitution, tradition? Since Bush took office and instituted the Imperial Presidency, insulating himself from the other branches of government and the law, only Libby has paid a price for their hubris.

Impeachment of Cheney or Bush must NOT be off the table nor should some form of Contempt of Congress, or some charge, if possible, that doesn't require the Justice Dept, and it should be done NOW as the clock is ticking.

Emanuel's bill should have the support of all Democrats as it aims squarely at the one person who is more responsible for the crap this country is experiencing than anyone else in the Administration.

The most dangerous legacy of an unpunished Bush gang is the precedent they are setting
for future Presidents.

Imagine 'President Giuliani', someone who may be worse than Cheney, as he showed when he was Mayor of NY.

And no one can use the "supporting the troops" line.

Not after five deferments for this "troop."

I understand the desire for action -- any action -- from the Democrats on this issue. But I keep thinking this is a mistake. Maybe you can help me see otherwise...

If the bill doesn't pass (which is most likely), then it is merely a publicity stunt that attempts to embarrass the VP, administration and any Republicans who are forced to argue against it. In such a case, all sides seem a bit silly. The VP knows no shame and really can't go much lower in the polls. I just wonder if anything is actually gained in such a case.

If, by some stroke, the bill actually passes, it would be disastrous. You can't pass legislation that targets a single individual, so this would be a lasting statement about the office of the VP. It would be taken to support Cheney's perverse argument that he is not part of the executive.

The braver (and more appropriate) action here would seem to be to introduce articles of impeachment. The list of abuses is already long, and the refusal to obey an executive order in the handling of classified documents in the smoking gun. For those who say it would never succeed, Rahm's attempt to defund the VP's office is proof that this isn't the prime consideration.

Maybe I'm wrong, but the current bill looks like more heat, little light...

I'll raise your publicity stunts and educational moments and call it an opportunity.

We don't just need to reverse Bush-Cheney in '08, we need to beat back the conservative dereg/privatization assault on our public interest, and we'll need to do it with every opportunity including publicity stunts, educational moments, biting, scratching and hair-pulling.

I'm calling my Republican Rep right now.

[Update] The office of Congressman Peter Roskam (R-IL) "cannot speak for the Congressman," but I urged him to support the Emanuel ammendment and they said they would send me a letter.

NDP,

You say: "The VP knows no shame and really can't go much lower in the polls. I just wonder if anything is actually gained in such a case."

But the point is not to lower Cheney's numbers to single digits, pleasant as that might be. The point is to force members of Congress to take a public position on his authoritarianism.

You say: "If, by some stroke, the bill actually passes, it would be disastrous. You can't pass legislation that targets a single individual, so this would be a lasting statement about the office of the VP."

I would think we can rely on Rahm Emenuel to draft a bill that requires that any Vice Presidential office funded by Congress in its appropriations for the operations of the executive branch must comply with laws governing the executive branch.  Words to that effect.

Todd Gitlin

Democrats often make the mistake of not thinking big enough. We examine issues in a vacuum, on a tactical level, without considering longterm strategy.   What is the longterm strategy here?  Surely, it is not as simple as "freezing funding" for the OVP.  Rather, Democrats' broad, longterm goal is to put sustained pressure on the OVP to (1) limit Cheney's power, (2) force transparency upon his office, and (3) uncover past and present lawbreaking.  In the perfect storm, impeachment of the VP (4) could even become an option.  Thus, Emanuel's bill is not an end unto itself, but a beginning.  And a clever one at that.

Rahm's bill is a appropriately brash first step, since it creates much needed media buzz and focuses attention on the conduct of Cheney and the OVP as a serious issue, worthy of debate.  As we all know, the media only covers political issues if there is a dispute between the parties, and Rahm's bill certainly satisfies the media's need for a front and center political catfight between Dems and the Darth Vader of the GOP (it's hard not to look good standing up to a figure a dastardly as Cheney). So Rahm's bill will get people talking.  But it's only an entry point.  Indeed, if the bill is defeated and nothing more comes of it, Republicans may successfully dismiss the whole thing a media stunt.  But it doesn't have to be that way.

If I were in charge of Democratic strategy, I would use Henry Waxman and Emanuel in a coordinated, "good cop, bad cop" political attack on the Vice President.   Emanuel plays the bad cop, grabbing headlines and keeping the yacking class talking about the entertaining catfight between the upstart Dems and Darth Cheney. Meanwhile, Waxman starts holding serious, very adult hearings on the Office of the Vice President, digging his teeth into Addington's legal arguments, demanding accountability, and forcing Cheney to make absurd arguments.  In the background, bloggers and Dems' oppo research teams search for new "revelations" to feed the media feeding frenzy as the temperature rises higher and higher for Cheney.

It needs to be a multi-pronged attack.  You need (1) a political catfight to keep the cable news cycle happy, (2) serious hearings to keep the elites and serious journalists engaged and (3) a steady stream of new revelations to keep the pressure on Cheney. 

This has great joke value but how much effect can you expect from holding back 4.4 million dollars? Not much. I would expect if Cheney said that, "the Democrats won't fund the Vice President, could America help," he would raise 40 million in an hour. This stunt although funny will blow up on the D's. Because Gonzales failed to act it's time for a Special Prosecuter.

Dan K,

But I wouldn't want to see some Republican-dominated Supreme Court turning the tables on us, and arguing in the future that this Congressional action shows that it is part of the "evolving understanding" of the office of the Vice President that he is indeed not part of the executive branch.

If they did that, there would be no more "running mates," and the electorate would have to vote for an independent vice president.

You may be right when it comes to carrying on operations in the field, but this bill can still hit Cheney where it hurts: his employees' salaries.  Cheney can't funnel funds from black-ops projects to pay his people. 

Frankly, I'm shocked by how cautious everyone is.  The American people respect balls.  And this is a ballsy move.   Which is rather extraordinary, since most people think Democrats have no balls.  If Dems back down it will be a defeat, but if they play it to the hilt, there's no reason it can't be a roaring success.  Cheney simply cannot ignore the bill.  His people's salaries depend on it.

Rahm said as much.

Yes, the Valerie Plame Wilson Act.

I spoke with the office of Gwen Moore. They didn't know anything about this amendment but seemed interested.

In fairness to Clarke's office, the staff person you spoke to may not have had a chance to talk with her about it. Having worked in a Congressional office a few years back, there is a lot going on, especially this time of year, and while we are all excited about this it may not hit their radar until a day or two before the vote. I'd be surprised if she doesn't vote for it.

Ah... I dunno. It doesn't actually need to pass to make its point, does it? Kinda funny, I guess, but not really a major moment in American politics.

By the way, Mr. Emmanuel also said that he would oppose any attempt by Vice Senator Cheney to play on the Congressional baseball team. Sounds like Rahm's pretty serious about this shit.

To me this just sounds "weak" and will just provide humor to the other side. They really will laugh at us on this one.

I can already hear the Fox commentators... "Oh, those tough Democrats, they're going to... get this... refuse to pay their bill! Oh they scare us. What tough guys they are. Let me ask you, folks, who do you want leading America against the terrorists? The guys who invade nations and sends dicators to gallows, or some guys who think they're tough because they theaten to not pay a bill?"

Do I have a better option? No, sorry. There are certain lines that you just don't cross in a free state. They've crossed many of them, and have dared us to do anything about it, laughing all the while. They've just double-dared us. Again. And yet still they laugh.

We need a stronger option, and "excuse me, sir, may I please speak to the manager if he's not too busy?" isn't a good one either.

I phoned this morning, talked to a very polite staff person, who didn't know Rep.Matsui's position in this amendment, but she promised to make my opinion known to her and get back to me. This took all of 2 minutes to do. It's easy and it lets our representatives know that we do pay attention to their actions and votes. Please, let's all phone our congressional representative.

Hoppy in Sacramento

This is not a bill, so it can't fail to pass. It is an amendment to an appropriations bill. Amendments are proposed and voted up or down many times for many bills. Of course 95% of the public is unaware, and they will remain unaware unless we can generate enough activity on this for the media to notice and feel obligated to report on it.

Yes, Congress needs to begin impeachment proceedings. No argument there.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Nydia? If so, she'll come through.

This is a clear signal that I need to read more carefully if I'm gonna post replies.

this bill would accomplish exactly nothing.

if it is successful, we move the vice president back into the executive branch of the government?

how is that an achievement? think about it for a second. it's like convincing a crazy person that they can't fly to mars. you haven't achieved anything really.

the fact that the democrats have to enter legislation to force the vice president to admit that he is part of the executive branch is so absurd i can't even wrap my mind around it. the onion could not write this story.

from a purely political point of view, if we manage to push cheney back into the executive branch, we haven't "won" anything. we've pushed him one step back from whatever diabolical goal he is working toward. that's not a victory. it's a pause in our retreat.

a victory is when you bend the president and vice president to the will of the people, not when you simply get them to acknowledge that they can't fly to mars.

when will the president sign a bill he doesn't fully support? when will the OVP let in auditors?

come on people. our side is so thoroughly whipped right now that we are taking things like this as possible "victories".

how pathetic.

Don't sell John Warner short. Yes, I have sometimes been disappointed in him, but he has at times shown himself willing to stand up against the Republican right wing. He's the primary reason Oliver North was not elected to the U.S. Senate from Virginia in 1994 -- the hard-line right-wing of the Virginia GOP has never forgiven him for endorsing the Republican-turned-Independent in that race rather than North, the Republican nominee, which contributed to a win by the Democratic incumbent.

Direct confrontation is not Warner's style; he's a Senator of the old school who prefers comity and back-room deal-making. That may not always be the best approach in a world where even the US Senate is trending towards bare-knuckle brawls, but that's his preferred style.

Maloney's office:

There’s some doubt that this is real, but I understand that if it is offered, she would support it.

So now, Todd, it's on you to confirm that this will actually be introduced.

Although I would prefer to impeach Cheney, this is an excellent smackdown and I totally support it.

Todd,

What will be debated later this week on the floor of the House is not a bill introduced by Emanuel, but rather an amendment to the Financial Services/General Government Appropriations bill which funds White House operations. The bill number is H.R. 2829.

And if it passes, then it legitimizes Cheney's claim to not be part of the executive branch. If he's not part of the executive branch, he's not impeachable.

Any impeachment trial would be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, a down-the-line administration supporter who would no doubt use any excuse to throw out an impeachment before the trial began.

And if it passes, then it legitimizes Cheney's claim to not be part of the executive branch. If he's not part of the executive branch, he's not impeachable.

Any impeachment trial would be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, a down-the-line administration supporter who would no doubt use any excuse to throw out an impeachment before the trial began.

Support the troops--defund Dick Cheney!

Bumperstickers, please.

I think this is a mistake. Yes it's funny and at first glance clever, but it is playing along with Cheney's ascertion that he isn't part of the executive branch. It will be used as proof that there is a debate on whether or not the VP is part of the executive. The push back should be, nice try, Dick, but you ARE part of the executive branch and need to comply wiht the law. Remember this is about classified documents Cheney won't provide info about--Rahm has changed the subject.

No. No. No!

Cutting his Senate privileges, something only the Senate could do, would strengthen his claim not to be part of the executive branch.

In fact, "cutting is a mere gesture".

Not authorizing and not appropriating funds in executive titles of the budget for the OVP is what only the HOUSE can do. They can do it to the Judicial or Legislative branch, as well. The titles on the bills are actually quite specific to each branch.

::JRBehrman

This was at Atrios:

Via email:

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel
issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding
for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the
executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of
the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal
case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot
ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President
should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice
President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have
worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue
to pursue this measure in the coming days." 

...via Open Congress 

My emphasis added. 

Sorry for any duplication.

Actually, if all Democrats in the House voted for impeachment, they do have the votes to impeach. I'll go back to sucking my thumb now.

Please list specific instances where Democrats have demonstrated spine in standing up to Cheney/Bush.

Tom

On June 26, 2007 - 5:39pm tlees2 said:
Actually, if all Democrats in the House voted for impeachment, they do have the votes to impeach. I'll go back to sucking my thumb now.

Please list specific instances where Democrats have demonstrated spine in standing up to Cheney/Bush.

Tom

When you learn the fact that politics is the art of the _possible_, let me know.

whatdoIknow:

The Atrios item is from Saturday, and I still await further clarification. Hoyer spoke of the amendment coming up in the Subcommittee.

Todd Gitlin

What prestige? He's hugely unpopular anyway but the American people want us to do something to help them. This does nothing to help Americans. It doesn't stop the war, restore civil rights, cut their taxes, protect their jobs, insure their health, or clean up their environment. It just looks like one more unserious political game. And it won't pass. So it's yet another way for Democrats to fail.

I just wish Emanuel would also introduce legislation striking out funding for Dubya's and Cheney's Secret Service detachments, mostly for the amusement factor in watching these clowns try to deal with real people for a change when they travel. Just what would Dubya and Cheney and the rest of the White House posse do if they couldn't have the Secret Service bulldoze voters out of the way when they move around? Let's turn the White House into the prison where Dubya and Cheney should be serving sentences for war crimes already.

Thanks so much. It's an honor to be in the presence of a self-proclaimed genius. Do the rest of us get to vote?

Tom

When you learn to use the "reply" button to respond to posts, let me know.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Couldn't find the link, but heard this mentioned on All Things Considered this afternoon.  It clearly tied the defunding to Cheney's argument that he isn't part of the executive branch and therefore doesn't have to abide by the rules governing document classification and the National Archives.  The report was serious, if a bit disbelieving.

All elected or appointed officials are subject to impeachment--Reps, Senators, Justices, Secretaries, etc., including Gonzales.

Also, if Cheney is successfuly impeached/convicted, he can't be pardoned.

Well, aren't I the lucky one?!!!!  I have as my representative, none other than Virgil Goode (R- VA)!  I just spoke to his office and the young woman who answered the phone said she has not spoken to him and so does not know his response.  (Funny, I know his response without even talking to him, but she doesn't. and she works in his office!)

I explained my feelings on the matter, and she said she would relay them to him.  She took my name and address and will send me a reply once she has talked to him.

Why don't I feel any better?

Jan

If the bill were to pass, would that put the Congress on record as endorsing the VP's contention that he is not part of the executive branch?

 It seems to me that it is irrelevent what Cheney OR Congress is on record saying.  The Constitution says that he IS in the Executive Branch, and opinions don't matter. 

The point of the bill is that if Darth Cheney is opting out of the Executive Branch, then taxpayers are opting out of paying him to do more damage to our country!

Jan

I know, Congress should pay for the OVP with a check that has a clause on the back so that the endorser  (Cheney) stipulates that the OVP is an entity of the Executive Branch. ;-)

Goode is Boss Hogg after the intestine shunt has taken hold, in a role that is a bad parody of himself. The RNCC doesn't let Virgil out to speak much on the National Stage. Hell, they aren't real comfortable with him being on CSPAN talking to a live audience of the 3 house members who are forced to be there, and the other 3 who are watching the broadcast. Any GOP members who are less Islamaphobic than Daniel Pipes were not pleased with Virgil's take on Rep. Ellison's freely chosen personal faith. Virgil's muzzle was taken off long enough for him to stand up on February 15, 2007 to state his opposition to Iraq timetables for troop withdrawal.

Watch it on You Tube, while you read along at Liberated Text. A relativist excerpt from his brief speech that day was:

We are in the middle of a 4-day marathon here. While I cannot say that I agree with all of the actions of the President in dealing with Iraq, I will not be supporting H. Con. Res. 63. The eyes of the world are upon this House, and there will be commentary from the Middle East to the streets of small-town America about what we do here over this 4- day period, even though this resolution does not carry the weight of law.

Virgil Goode (R-VA Cong. 5th), in opposition to H. Con. Res. 63, disapproving of the Iraq troop surge, February 15, 2007

Goode is intimating that since the resolution would only be advisory, they were wasting precious legislative time, but while perusing Goode's recent sponsored bills over at GovTrack, I found that two of the five where just to "express the sense" of the legislature, and were not intended to "carry the weight of law". That's one slothful weasel you've got for a congressman, and I didn't even mention his shady support from major contributors subsequently convicted of Campaign financing fraud.

At Project Vote Smart, I noticed that Virgil was born October 17, 1946, and got his BA in 1969 from the Univ. of Richmond. 1969 was also the year that student deferments were no longer valid, the first year of the lottery draft, and the year Goode began his 6 year commitment in the National Guard. Can he say, "daddy got me into the Guard?" I wonder if he was pissed-off after the lottery when his number was an non-drafting 288? At least he did his full 6 years, unlike a certain son of a Texas Congressman, and current president I know of. For those too young to understand, back then, the National guard was where American elites sent their slack-jawed atavistic offspring, so the carriers of the family's double recessives, wouldn't end up dying in SE Asia. That was when it was considered dangerous domestic brinkmanship whenever a governor told the Guard's commandant to issue his troops live ordnance for their rifles. To offer insight into the preponderate incompetence that this implies; two popular contemporary television characters included Gomer Pyle USMC, and Barney Fife, Mayberry deputy, who were both complete morons, and given limited access to live rounds as a part of their occupational duties. Another of the GOP CaponHawks, who support the troops, so that their progeny have a chance of holding elective office in a College Republican campus chapter.

Where do you live, Appomatix, Lynchburg, Charlottesville?

I grew up in Las Vegas, sort-of. Out in what was then the desert outskirts on 10 acres, with 5 usually growing alfalfa hay. The family kept a horse or two, and we stabled a few more. Early in my life, it was possible to saddle-up and ride off the property into the desert, because the development was very sparse. As the city grew into the land, it was sold, and we moved into almost the center of the city.

I have lived many places, sometimes taking freelance employ just for a change of scenery, but Vegas has always been the hometown, and I've been back living there for several years now, maybe permanent, maybe not. I have an extensive history of being nomadic. The one time I was in Virginia was when I was traveling in a band, and was driving the van while the others slept. We were heading for a gig in Maryland, but I took a detour to Monticello. After spending a couple of hours there, the rest of the band weren't complaining about my wanton tendencies, and thanked me. I believe it was very close to Charlottsville, but we skipped around it.

I spent a few months right after getting out of the Army farther south though. First up in the N. Carolina Mtns. to take care of a promise to talk to the family of a dead bro, and then engaging in a whim which brought me into contact with a few young Southern Aristocrats, who engaged in a great deal of debauchery, and existed along the coast between south of Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA. My personal experience in the South was almost entirely either around Asheville or Savannah, so it tends to be a bit distorted, I guess. Not many moon pie and RC snacks, for sure, and a lot of fog was still clearing from Vietnam, so there are gray areas in my memories.

Most everywhere else I've spent time in was west of the continental divide. I've never been married. Factoring that in with my wanderlust, often allowed me to get the temp postings in other cities though. I shy away from the term 'cowboy', because it carries with it a lot of connotational baggage that is not germane, but in many way, I probably am a bit of one. Way more than enough, eh? It's much more than I usually volunteer.

In Re Goode: I wasn't even aware of the ass until he mouthed off about Ellison, and even then, had not heard his rather odd manner of speaking English until I did a bit of data-diving in his name, and came up with that YouTube file of him talking on the House Floor Feb. 15, 2007. (btw, the LiberatedText cite that came with it, is a personal project of mine) In the tape, Goode pronounces 'Mohammed' as 'Moo-hah-med', and 'Sadam ' as 'Sodom'. Adding into the mix that he resides in Rocky Mount causes innuendos regarding his deviant personal sexual preferences to bubble up in my head.

I pulled quite a bit of data on Goode, but this is not a proper place to dump it. Maybe I'll drop a blog entry regarding him though. He is odious. I will offer one more observation, because I know it is an area that causes you a bit of consternation. In his letter to constituents about Ellison planning to use the Koran in pictures of his Congressional swearing in ceremony dated December 7, 2006, Virgil Goode wrote:

When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

Virgil, who claims to be a devout Christian, does not subscribe to the use of The Koran. What a shocking admission. If he is holding a Bible in his hand at the Congressional swearing in, he is alone, because most rational federal politicians believe that it would be oppositional to the US Constitution; Article VI; clause 3, which says in part:

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States

There are also some pretty strong Biblical admonitions against this, which causes me to question Goode's Christianity. The first is an admonition attributed directly to Jesus in Matthew 5:33-37:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Another admonition against swearing to God is found in in James 5:12

But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

Has Virgil Goode ever even read the Bible?  

yesterday,I miss christmasman in my dream.
how happy
,many gifts on the wooden">http://www.china-torches.com/Flooring-c7.html">wooden flooring
http://www.camera-lenses-supplier.com/

Your article was very well written response to many problems, that is what I do not know, thank you.This
is my website!I hope you like it!
Christian louboutin|Abercrombie and Fitch

I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post
Break Up Quotes