(Link thanks to Charles Featherstone at the LewRockwell.com Blog 2005-11-02.)

It seems that the League of American Foxes is gathering in Argentina for a summit on hen-house protection; the caudillos of the United States and Venezuela are expected to have a bit of a row. Nevertheless, our Prince President made the following announcement to the press:

Bush OKs Nuclear Reactor for Venezuela

WASHINGTON – Despite tense relations with Venezuela, President Bush says it might be OK for the South American nation to have a nuclear reactor for peaceful energy uses.

Bush acknowledged he had not heard about Venezuela’s request for a reactor when asked about it Tuesday in an interview with Latin American reporters in advance of his five-day trip to the region. But he didn’t reject the idea, even though he has had numerous disputes with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

— Nedra Pickler, Associated Press 2005-11-02

In related news, I, Rad Geek, the Transportation Minister of this secessionist republic of one, would like to announce that it might be OK for the people of Wyoming to fly on airplanes for peaceful transportation purposes.

Also, in spite of our many differences, it’s OK by me if George W. Bush peacefully has a bowl of soup for lunch.

(I owe the link to Broadsheet 2005-10-27.)

We can start with the headline:

Bush Is Not Expected to Feel Need to Pick Woman Again

And it gets better: another bunch of anonymous professional blowhards, informing us that Bush, having gotten that whole woman thing over with by tossing an ill-considered and ineffective nomination to someone with two X chromosomes, can now get to the important stuff. You know, the politics:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 – In choosing a replacement for Harriet E. Miers, President Bush may feel less of a need to select a woman to fill the seat of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, several lawyers and analysts said Thursday.

The lawyers and analysts, all of whom have been involved in directly or indirectly counseling the White House about Supreme Court selections, also said that because of Mr. Bush’s desire to move quickly, he would probably choose from the roster of candidates whom he has considered before and whose backgrounds and records have been extensively researched.

The consensus among the handful of people who spoke about Mr. Bush’s situation was that in addition to deciding whether he had the leeway to replace Justice O’Connor with a man, Mr. Bush will have to deal with other more pressing political questions in making his selection.

And not a moment too soon. After all, who would want to get hung up on something non-political, like the gender makeup of the most powerful courts? You might as well try to have a political discussion about housework or childcare! What ever would all the analysts and lawyers assert their expertise and insider information on then?

Here, thanks to Scott at Scottish Nous 2005-09-07, we have the latest contribution of the Religious Right to a vibrant Christian culture in America:

No, I’m not kidding. This is for real. You can buy your own Bush Fish car magnet for $3.25, with discounts if you buy in bulk. (Of course, those who follow the comings and goings of creepy Freepers may note that this is not the first time that G.W.’s boosters have been aiming to save the right-hand seat for him.)

Meanwhile, Mike Tennant at Strike the Root 2005-11-09 brings us the following conversation, overheard on a Christian talk radio show out of Pittsburgh:

Caller: “[George W. Bush] led the country through 9/11 and Katrina in the most moral and righteous way possible.”

Host [Jerry Bowyer]: “I don’t think it would have been possible for him to do it in an immoral way. It’s his moral core.”

Apropos of nothing, here’s an item that was featured a while back in some obscure little left-wing rag that nobody pays attention to anymore:

9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made de the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, …

Also, while we’re at it:

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

And:

6 But when they said, Give us a king to lead us, this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.

10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.

The weirdest thing about the culture of the God-and-Country set these days isn’t even how chillingly statist it is. It’s how belligerently anti-Christian it is. Perhaps they need a new name for the civic religion they are creating; I’d like to suggest Caesarism, or perhaps simply blasphemy.

Further reading

• WikiPedia: ICHTHYS
• WikiPedia: Christian Anarchism
• Austro-Athenian Empire 2004-11-13: God and the State
• GT 2005-02-25: Old Time Religion
• GT 2004-10-28: Jesus
• GT 2004-10-18: Civic religion
• GT 2004-10-12: Humor for Hawks
• GT 2004-06-17: A Cheap Shot

I have shocking news to convey. The disturbing truth about the papacy of Benedict XVI was only the beginning. New photographic evidence from Rox Populi 2005-08-19 has shown unmistakably that this reaches to the very highest levels, not only of the Church, but also of the State:

The raftsmen little suspected what terrible cargo they carried down the valley…

Coffins! Coffins filled with earth!

The ship of death has a new captain.

It would explain a lot, wouldn’t it?

I add only that I do my best not to swallow the results of sausage-making, either.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
July 11, 2005

PRESS BRIEFING BY SCOTT McCLELLAN

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn’t actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could — if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don’t think you should read anything into it other than we’re going to continue not to comment on it while it’s ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, I’ve gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this — do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we’re not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just — I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you’re going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You’ve got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I’m well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation —

Q Why are you choosing when it’s appropriate and when it’s inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you’ll let me finish —

Q No, you’re not finishing — you’re not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson’s wife. So don’t you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn’t he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q Do you think people will accept that, what you’re saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I’ve responded to the question.

(Text thanks to Catallarchy 2005-07-11.)

Further Reading

• GT 2003/11/12: White House press flack tells all
• GT 2003/10/17: Who has the better argument? We report, you decide.