Living under the imperial presidency
Where Bush's arrogance has taken us
Also in this issue:
- POSTER: Are you safe yet?
- WHY DEMOCRATS LOSE
- THE CRAZY WAR ON MARIJUANA
- RAISING THE BAR ON EXCLUSIVITY
- WHERE'S OSAMA?
- Public opinion
Now is the time for boldness! Instead, we're getting Baucusness. Sen. Max Baucus, that is--Montana Democrat, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and frequent spear-carrier for the corporate agenda. He has now been tapped to handle Obama's promised rewrite of America's warped, ineffective, and exorbitantly expensive health-care system.

POSTER: Are you safe yet?
Note: this is a text version of a full-sized poster that is available for download as a PDF.
To request hard copies of the poster, please contact Laura at Hightower's office, via our contact form (select "Copies of poster" from the drop-down menu).
more than 100 civilians killed per day
(The list includes such military powers as Angola, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Latvia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Solomon Islands, and Uganda.)
(Of these, 32 sent fewer than 1,000 troops. Many sent no fighting units, deploying only engineers, trainers, humanitarian units, and other noncombat personnel.)
(includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)
(An additional 7 have announced plans to withdraw all or part of their contingents this year.)
When signing a particular congressional act into law, a few presidents have occasionally issued a "signing statement" to clarify their understanding of what Congress intended. These have not had the force of law and have been used discreetly in the past.
Very quietly, however, Bush has radically increased both the number and reach of these statements, essentially asserting that the president can arbitrarily decide which laws he will obey.
(This is more than the combined total of all 42 previous presidents.)
These are secret executive writs that the infamous 2001 Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to issue to public libraries, internet firms, banks, and others. Upon receiving an NSL, the institution or firm is required to turn over any private records it holds on you, me, or whomever the agents have chosen to search.
Who authorizes the FBI to issue these secret writs? The FBI itself.
In 2001, Bush issued a secret order for the National Security Agency to begin vacuuming up massive numbers of telephone and internet exchanges by U.S. citizens, illegally seizing this material without any judicial approval or informing Congress, as required by law.
(NSA is tapping into the entire database of long-distance calls and internet messages run through AT&T and probably other companies as well.)
The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report "disgraceful" and declaring that revelation of his spy program "does great harm to the United States." The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a "Hate-the-Times" political campaign.
Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he'd just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions.
From the Bushites' ill-fated Total Information Awareness program (meant to monitor all of our computerized transactions) to the robust efforts by Rumsfeld's Pentagon to barge into the domestic surveillance game, America under Bush has fast become The Watched Society.
(They included such "threats" as peace demonstrators and 10 activists protesting outside Halliburton's headquarters.)
(TSA concedes that it's in the tens of thousands. In 2005 alone, some 30,000 people called TSA to complain that their names were mistakenly on the list.)
In 1966, a young Republican congressman stood against his party's elders to cosponsor the original Freedom of Information Act, valiantly declaring that public records "are public property." He said that FOIA "will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of government."
Who was that virtuous law maker?
Donald Rumsfeld!
Only eight years later, Gerald Ford's chief of staff strongly urged him to veto the continuation of FOIA. Who was that dastardly staffer?
Donald Rumsfeld!
Who is now one of the chief "secrecy-minded bureaucrats" who routinely violates OIA's principles?
Right, him again!
Plus $365,065 from members of its board of directors (99% to Republicans)
(highest in the corporation's 86-year history
(They include such stamps as CBU - Controlled But Unclassified, SBU - Sensitive But Unclassified, and LOU—Limited Official Use Only.)
(He claims he does not have to report this to anyone—not even the president.)
(a one-third increase over the 2004 backlog)