http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Over at TPMCafe, M. J. Rosenberg points our attention to two pieces of legislation winging their way through the House and the Senate The matching pieces of legislation declare the sense of the House and the Senate that “preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is a matter of the highest importance to the national security of the United States and must be dealt with urgently” and call for President Bush to

initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program

Now, as Rosenberg reasonably concludes from reading the legislation, this sounds an awful lot like a blockade, which I’m pretty sure (I’m not a lawyer) qualifies as an act of war under international law. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which reportedly has been pushing the legislation through the House and Senate, replies to Rosenberg by asserting that

AIPAC supports sanctions on Iran and favors a voluntary international effort lead by the United States to stop selling Iran refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran is highly vulnerable to such pressure. Sactions are the best way to persuade Iran to stop it’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. To suggest that AIPAC supports anything but tough economic sanctions on Iran is totally false…

I’m confused. The legislation calls for “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” Now, what sort of mechanism would police such a “prohibition?” If the shipment of refined petroleum products to Iran has been “prohibited,” and a tanker sails toward it anyway, what happens? Who will be enforcing the “stringent inspection requirements on all person, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran?”

I don’t know if I prefer the open warmongering to the hidden type. I suppose I like the honesty. It can make pointing it out easier at times.

http://www.sfgate.com/…

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan wants to snatch House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat from her in November, but first she’s going to need the help - and signatures - of 10,198 friends and supporters.Sheehan was at San Francisco City Hall on Friday to take out papers for her independent run for Congress, but without those signatures from voters in the district, her name won’t show up on the ballot.

“It’s an uphill battle,” said Sheehan, who vowed to run against Pelosi in July after the speaker refused to start impeachment proceedings against President George Bush. “But I’m excited about the signature-gathering process. It’s going to be an opportunity to talk to people about our campaign.”

I’ve no real clue as to her platform but given she was so adored for a time by the Democrats and lefties I suspect we’d not see eye to eye on a lot of things. However, I supporter her fully in her race. I’d love to see some polls of Pelosi’s district assessing her approval ratings. While the D’s and R’s are at each other’s throats both internally and externally the independents and 3rd party members will gain ground and hopefully… if for no other reason, like finding principles, this will move the major parties to take less fascist positions. Or in the least cause so much strife nothing gets done.

http://www.breitbart.com/…

Cindy Sheehan, the soldier’s mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.

Sheehan, who has never held political office, recently said that she was leaving the Democratic Party because it “caved” in to the president. Last week, she announced her caravan to Washington, an undertaking she calls the “people’s accountability movement.”

I fully support her and wish her the best. However she remains ignorant or delusional WRT the Democrats actions/plans. They didn’t cave… they did exactly what they planned. They played the anti-war card to help them get into Congress (and they hope the presidency in 2008) and did little once in office that would upset their power or make too big a wave. The R’s and D’s are two sides of the same coin. The center of both parties are practically the same. When it comes down to it they are like Edmund Burke. They will support an issue as long as it doesn’t threaten their establishment and comfort. They hold no real convictions. They go with the ebb and flow of public opinion which they believe will get them or keep them in office. I’m going to bet that Pelosi and the D’s in the House won’t impeach Bush. If they do I’m ready to argue that all of those in Congress who voted for the undeclared war should be brought up on the same charges. They gave the executive branch the power and money to carry it out. They skirt the issue by claiming he has overstepped his bounds but they can only do this because they didn’t require an official declaration of war. Sheehan’s complaints about the Lewis Libby commute are weak. I fail to see how it’s any worse then many which Clinton did or many other presidents. Doesn’t make this one right but it’s hardly an impeachable offense… in fact it’s the Presidents prerogative. In the least it probably saves the tax payers money.

• H.R.2916: Members of Congress Personal Fiscal Responsibility Act. For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2008 in the rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems. I’m all for them not raising their pay. They are welcome to change it to change it to the average pay increase percentage of the public at the beginning of each new session.
  
• H.R.2859: Prepare All Kids Act of 2007. “Investments in children and early education should be a national priority.” No… it should be a parents priority. Our current national public school system already screws kids up enough. We don’t need to start indoctrinating them earlier.
• H.R.2918: California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act. To permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the coast of the State of California, and for other purposes. Funny that out of all the House members all the sponsors are from California. Wonder how they have voted with regard to using Alaska and other areas. Looks like a NIMBY situation.
• H.R. 2905: Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007. To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. This sounds like a solid bill. The federal government has no business telling the private news organizations what to report on.

http://www.reflector.com/…

Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year’s elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.

As part of an ethics bill in 1989, Congress gave up its ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.

I wonder what Ron Paul’s position is on this? Keeping up with inflation  wouldn’t be a pay increase really. I’m not sure (and am too lazy ATM to look up) of what the formula is they use.