Senator Byrd Passes Away at 92

West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, the self-educated son of a coal miner who became the longest-serving member of Congress, died early Monday at age 92, the senator's office said.

Byrd, a nine-term Democrat, was known as a master of the chamber's often-arcane rules and as the self-proclaimed "champion of the Constitution," a jealous guardian of congressional power. He was a genius parliamentarian.

His speeches were laced with references to poetry and the Greek and Roman classics, often punctuated by the brandishing of his pocket copy of the national charter.

He was also known as the "King of Pork," using top positions on the Senate Appropriations Committee to steer federal spending to his home state -- one of the nation's poorest.

Byrd relished the title.

"Pork, to the critic, is service to the people who enjoy some of the good things in life, and I've been happy to bring to West Virginia the projects to which they refer. I have no apology for it," he said.

"When I am dead and am opened they will find West Virginia written on my heart."

He was an outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq, calling his 2002 vote against a "blind and improvident" authorization of military action the proudest moment of his career.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin -- a Democrat -- has the power to appoint a replacement for Byrd, whose current term is set to expire in 2013.

When Byrd entered Congress in January 1953, a postage stamp cost 3 cents and American kids were clamoring for a new toy called Mr. Potato Head. Harry Truman was president, Winston Churchill was Britain's prime minister, and Josef Stalin was still the Soviet Union's leader.

In November 2009, two days before his 92nd birthday, Byrd passed Arizona Democrat Carl Hayden's record to become the longest-serving member of Congress.

His health problems mounted in his later years, putting him in the hospital four times between February 2008 and September 2009.

Under pressure from fellow Democrats, he announced he would step down as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee after the 2008 elections.

"I have been privileged to be a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee for 50 years and to have chaired the committee for 10 years, during a time of enormous change in our great country, both culturally and politically," he wrote in a statement announcing his intention.

"A new day has dawned in Washington, and that is a good thing. For my part, I believe that it is time for a new day at the top of the Senate Appropriations Committee."

Byrd's records

-Longest-serving member of Congress, with 20,996 days

-Only person elected to nine full terms in the Senate

-Presided over the shortest session of the Senate (6/10ths of a second; February 27, 1989)

-Presided over Senate for longest continuous period (21 hours, 8 minutes; March 7-8, 1960)

-Cast 18,689 roll-call votes; more than any other U.S. senator

-Held the most leadership positions in Senate

Robert Carlyle Byrd was born Cornelius Calvin Sale Jr. on November 20, 1917, in the North Carolina town of North Wilkesboro. His mother died when he was a year old, and he was adopted and renamed by his aunt and uncle, Titus and Vlurma Byrd.

He started his political career by running for the state House of Delegates in 1946, while working as a butcher and welder. He won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives six years later, was elected to his first Senate term in 1958, and won his ninth in 2006, three weeks shy of his 89th birthday.

"If it's the Lord's will, the people will send me there. Why? This Constitution needs a champion," he said before the 2006 vote.

As the senior senator of the majority party, Byrd served as the Senate's president pro tempore -- third in line of presidential succession, behind the vice president and speaker of the House.

While he set two endurance records in Congress, he was only proud of one in the end. The other was for his 1964 filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, when he spoke for 14 hours and 13 minutes in an effort to derail the law.

He opposed civil rights when he first ran for office, a stance he came to regret later in life. He blamed "that Southern atmosphere in which I grew up, with all of its prejudices and its feelings," for his opposition to equal rights, which included joining the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s.

He called the move "the greatest mistake of my life," an "albatross" that would always shadow his career.

"It's a lesson to the young people of today, that once a major mistake has been made in one's life," he said, "it will always be there, and it will be in my obituary."

Byrd was married to his childhood sweetheart, the former Erma James, for nearly 69 years before her death in 2006. They had two daughters.

"I have met queens and the wives of shahs and great women from all over the world, (but) to me now, this was the greatest woman I ever met in this world," he said.

He did not complete a college degree until 1963, when he earned a law degree from American University in Washington after taking night classes -- the only time a member of Congress has earned a law degree while holding office. He also received a political science degree from West Virginia's Marshall University in 1994, at age 76.

He rose through the Senate's Democratic ranks in the 1960s, and became the chamber's majority leader in 1977. He kept the party leadership when Republicans won back the Senate in 1980, serving as minority leader for six years, then spent two more years as majority leader after the 1986 elections.

In 1989, he became chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee -- one of the most influential posts in Congress, with extensive control over the federal government's purse strings.

Years later, Byrd explained to CNN the power of that unique position.

"In the forest there is a water hole," he said. "All the animals have to come to that water hole sooner or later. The Appropriations Committee is a water hole."

He spent the rest of his career as the panel's chairman or ranking Democrat, steering an estimated $3 billion in federal projects to West Virginia since 1991, according to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

Byrd said he was looking out for the interests of his Appalachian constituents, nearly 20 percent of whom live below the federal poverty line.

"My memory is as good as it ever was, and it's stock full of recollections about the poor people of West Virginia, how they were laughed at," he told CNN in 2006.

But in the same interview, Byrd said it was his October 2002 vote against the resolution that gave President George Bush the authority to launch the invasion of Iraq "of which I am most proud."

He was one of 23 senators to oppose the authorization, warning that Congress was abdicating its constitutional power to declare war by giving the president what amounted to a blank check.

"We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict," he said.

Four months later, with an American-led army poised to move across the frontier and U.N. weapons inspectors reporting no sign of Iraq's suspected weapons programs, Byrd returned to the Senate floor to condemn a "hauntingly silent" chamber.

Four years after casting that vote, he called the invasion "the blunder of the age."

Though he promised to support U.S. troops "to the last breath, the last dollar," he told CNN that he and other opponents of the war had been right.

"History will prove it was wrong to invade another country without provocation. That is wrong. That was wrong then, and it would be wrong 50 years from today," he said.

- Reposted from CNN

PCNAA is censorship & fascist

Been gone long time. Who cares?

I am a little fired up today. And it's not because of the Oil Spill in the Gulf. After 8 weeks and only some progress being made while BP looks worse than some of the sea turtles they've killed.... there's not much I can do to upstage Heyward and Svanberg. They're doing just fine making things worse on their own!

No, I want to blog about something that everyone - EVERYONE - needs to pay attention to. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) has introduced legislation that would give the President the power to shut down parts of the internet in so-called emergency situations.

This bill, S.3480, would "amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States." This bill has currently been referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Ostensibly, the bill would be for stopping cyber attacks on important and vital government infrastructure. Watch Transformers. Ya know, the part where they're like "shut it down!" and they unplug a server (which makes me laugh... like it would be so easily available and easy to do...) and they all scramble because of DoD information that the Decepticons could get? That may be the situation that is forseen by this bill.

But the reality is, it would probably be used to shut down people who are talking about things the government doesn't like. So this slippery slop brings me to the most cherished piece of government documents: The 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I consider what I do in the blogosphere to be amateur journalism. I consider what many of my friends who write about conspiracies, vast or otherwise, ludicrous or otherwise, to be amateur journalists. In other words, we study, research and analyze subjects, events, ideas and people but we don't get paid what Anderson Cooper gets paid. We get paid nothing.

I as a Libertarian, find myself at odds often with both parties. So I don't get much love. The government would probably find me dangerous if I owned more guns. But there are always individuals and then there are groups whom the government can deem threats to national security. And for some businesses that require the internet to conduct business, this could be used to destroy them.

So read the bill and decide for yourself in good amateur journalist fashion whether this bill is constitutional or not. Then write someone on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Here's a list of all of them.

• Joe Lieberman, Connecticut, Chairman
• Carl Levin, Michigan
• Daniel Akaka, Hawaii
• Thomas R. Carper, Delaware
• Mark Pryor, Arkansas
• Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
• Claire McCaskill, Missouri
• Jon Tester, Montana
• Roland Burris, Illinois
• Ted Kaufman, Delaware
• Susan Collins, Maine, Ranking Member
• Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
• Scott Brown, Massachusetts
• John McCain, Arizona
• George Voinovich, Ohio
• John Ensign, Nevada
• Lindsey Graham, South Carolina

If it does pass through committee, then write your own senator.

Foot in Mouth for everyone

That's It!!!!!!

I say this with all impunity: no more Congressional comments on political activity. Not that there have been more really since the Moveon.org ad attacking General Petraeus. In fact that was ok. And there haven't been any more since....

All right, there was only the one. But repeatedly I see Congressional types and Senators get asked if Congress should make a call about the 12-year-old Bush critic that has been swift boated by the Right Wing blogosphere. But to be honest, this is still not the activity of congress. Let me explain.

Civics 101: You shoulda learned this shit in 9th grade.

There are three (3) branches to the US government. The Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches constitute the government at the federal level according to the constitution. The Legislature has the powers of the purse and the sword. This means they have the powers to declare war and raise taxes (Oddly enough, the big guy does not). They also have powers to create laws, enact bills, ad nauseam. In fact here are their powers:

The constitution of the United States of America (in congress assembled), Article 1, Section 8. All the numbered statements would be called powers.

1)The aforementioned power of purse and sword (providing for common defense).
2)To borrow money on the credit of the US.
3)To regulate commerce with other nations, states and even Indian tribes (I guess this was before we threw them on reservations)
4)To establish rules of Naturalization and Bankruptcies.
5)To coin money and establish and fix weights and measures
6)To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting and something else I can't remember off the top off my head (Yes, I'm doing this off the top of my head!)
7)To establish post office and I think roads, too.
8)To further progress of Arts & Sciences (read: they should be helping PBS & NPR. And the National Endowment for the Arts!)
9)To create tribunals that are inferior to the Supreme Court (cuz its like Supreme. Who can be superior to them?!?!)
10)To define and punish piracies on the high seas
11)To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisals
12)To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years (what does that even mean?)
13)To provide and maintain a Navy (there are no restrictions on the Navy. Interesting, considering I'm ex-Navy, I like that)
14)To make rules for the government and regulations for land and naval forces
15)To provide for calling of militias and to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
16)To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the said militia (does this include the Minutemen?). This one is long but I do believe there is a part that says they can erect forts, armories and dock-yards. Yes, it specifies dock-yards. Yes, one of the vaguest legal documents in history is specific about what Congress can build for the militias. Yes, dock-yard is written in your constitution. No, Jesus is not.
17)To make all laws which shall be necessary for proper for carrying into execution the aforementioned powers, all other powers the constitution decides to give to congress and the offices and yada yada yada...

No where in there does it say “To rebuke the press for printing things, even if they are crap and badly rhymed, that Congress assembled thinks is crap”.

Reasons Congress is pissing me off. First, As much as the moveon.org ad is wrong, I don't think Congress should take up precious tax subsidized time with. I, you and the kid who delivers your paper are paying for congress to sit around and tell people on the internets to not say crap because it makes them so mad.

Second, for Congress to take time to address every little prick on the Internet is just silly. The Internet is so full of shit, there is no toilet big enough to put it into. For such a respected body (if you believe such) to single out a little turd among the shitpile is disgusting. They have better and more important things to do like getting our troops out of misguided and badly planned wars. Oh, like the scales are falling from your eyes!!!

Third, its completely politically motivated and cannot convince a thinking American that politicians aren't just covering their collective asses. There is nothing like Congress saying “OMG, IMHO those fuckups!!!!!”

So, in the spirit of Congress who obviously has too little to do, I move for the following motion:

That both houses of the Congress of the United States shall not make negative nor positive remarks in congress assembled toward the media in its many forms and formats as well as free speech by any citizen of these United States. Furthermore, Congress is urged to restrain its spirit when making bills that exceed the powers of congress as stipulated in the Constitution of the United States.

My mother seconds the motion. Motion so moved and seconded.

All those in favor say Yea:

“Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

All those opposed say Nay:

[crickets in the galleries]

As the yeas outweigh the nays by 100%, the motion is resolved. Its now a bill. Mozel Tov.

Look I spent all that fucking time on this. I didn't even get to the juicy part about Ann Coulter making anti-semitic comments. I guess I can wait... no, I really can't.

For those of you who know me, you know that I think Ann Coulter is insufferable (I must be tired. There is no long string of obscenely large adjectives describing the acrimonious and repugnant spew that she calls her opinions... Oh wait...). Miss Coulter thinks her opinions matter. And despite the fact the woman is educated, she makes some really pathetic and poorly thought through comments like women should not be allowed to vote because they are stupid and have no knowledge of money. To be fair, she is just like any other political hack, Republican or otherwise, who thrives on name calling and insult mongering to sell books. For other people with actual shows and lets just be honest, jobs, they call it raising their ratings.

Ann Coulter appeared on CNBC “The Big Idea” with Donny Deutsch all the way back on Monday. But since I do not go out of my way to consume all things Coulter, I didn't hear of it till it came up on The Countdown with Keith Olberman ( I love you, Keith!), who is by the way on MSNBC, and yes, they are affiliated channels.

She made some rather anti-semitic comments but they were grounded in theology. Basically, she said that Christians want Jews to be perfected. She also used Seinfeld, a sitcom that went of the air 9 years ago as a reference for mixed race couples in New York City having chips on their shoulders. To think Ann Coulter bases her critique on modern urban society on Seinfeld boggles the mind. I think Jerry Seinfeld is weeping somewhere.

I enclose the following transcript in my already overly long post. I actually procured this from Fox News. See they aren't all bad.

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's — with abortion — what would this country look like?
COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) ... It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country — it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter —
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want — I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: That there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were — if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —
DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" —
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more "Big Idea" when we come back.
(BREAK)
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won't we? Ann Coulter. New book. More "Big Idea" straight ahead.
She would have been better of by just going “Hm.... foot”. Ha! A quote I got from Friends no less. To be honest, she is stating what many Christian Evangelicals believe. Many will deny it and for the most part it is not ill-intentioned. They have a mission to save as many souls as they possibly can. I have no idea. I was raised Catholic. We believe in Good Works and that Judgment is reserved for God and God alone. We also said we weren't going to try to convert the Jews anymore. We weren't even going there. If anything we want to become one of the Righteous among the Nations.

So, all Ann did was present the side of Evangelical thought that is for the most part frightening. She mentioned Jerry Falwell and he probably would have rooted her on. He had some beliefs about the Jews and Israel, particularly that if there were an Israel and it conquered the Middle East, Rapture's gonna come. If it does, I got dibs on the car.

I want to point out how difficult it is for her to not base things in political terms. She has to keep everything politics. Does she consider politics when changing lanes.

Just for the hell of it, here's the YouTube entry for this. It must be seen!!!



For the love of all things good and American, someone help her!!!!!

Other news. The mercenary company Blackwater, Inc. is being sued in a US court. Well, ain't that dandy! A Philadelphia firm filed a lawsuit against the company for committing murder on behalf of the families of the men who died. The Iraqi government contends that the 17 men killed on September 16th died by “premeditated murder”. The company is usually contracted to protect US diplomats traveling through Iraq. They claim the convoy they were protecting came into danger. There has been no evidence to back this up and an investigation by both the US and Iraqi government is underway.

And the final thing I'm commenting on should have been the first. A bill has passed the the House Foreign Affairs committee with a vote of 27-21. This bill calls the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey, then the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, genocide. Turkey does cop to it but calls it a massacre.

This has not gone to the full house floor and may in fact, do so Friday. It has gone through committee before but never gone to the floor. If this gets passed, there may well be very shaky relations for the United States and Turkey ahead. We keep discouraging Turkey's desire to move into Northern Iraq to quash the Kurdish communities there. They shouldn't anyway. It'd be an act of war, boneheads! Secondly, they've obviously slaughtered enough.

Turkey has recalled its US ambassador and there have been protests in the streets of Istanbul. Come on. Just forget about it like you did the Armenians. I mean this is pretty insensitive of Turkey I might add. Not to mention, nobody cares. Look how quickly they stopped talking about Myanmar or Burma. And they really have a gripe!

Not to mention, its or legislature. Not yours or the United Nations. We can say the sky is green. Does that make it true? I'm not saying that we do or that the Armenian genocide did not happen but protesting something that could be so insignificant looks like you're fishing for some excuse to act torked or it really happened and you're in denial.

OK, thats it. No “on this day” segment. I'm wiped. Have a good night y'all!