Ministry of Truth - INGSOC circa 2006

Red State Now "Gender Blind" - Same-Sex Marriage Now Legal in Iowa

2007-08-31T00:31:00.000-04:00

In the continuing debate over the rights of same-sex couples in the fight over the right to marry, the gay and lesbian residents of the State of Iowa scored a major victory! For the Iowa District Court for Polk County, IA, 5th Judicial District, Judge Robert B. Hanson ruled on Thursday 30 August 2007 that Iowa Code § 595.2(1) is unconstitutional and ordered that it be stricken from the law. This section specifically states that marriage is valid only between a man and a woman. The Court also ordered that the remaining sections of Iowa Code 595 must be reviewed and amended to be gender-neutral. A copy of the summary judgment and court order can be viewed at http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/legal/varnum/varnum-d-08302007-ia-district.pdf.

There are only four gender-specific references in Iowa Code 595, one of which applies only to pregnant females in cases of marriages of underage persons (minors.)

Additionally, by Judge Hanson’s order of striking the section of Iowa Code 595 that specifically states that marriage is between two persons of the opposite sex, it affects Iowa Code § 595.20 (Foreign Marriages – Validity). § 595.20 specifically states that “A marriage which is solemnized in any other state, territory, country, or any foreign jurisdiction which is valid in that state, territory, country, or other foreign jurisdiction, is valid in this state if the parties meet the requirements for validity pursuant to section 595.2, subsection 1, and if the marriage would not otherwise be declared void.” The specific exception in subsection 1 that is referenced in Iowa Code § 595.20 is now invalid, and thus, any same-sex marriage or civil union legally officiated in another state or country must be recognized in the State of Iowa. Effectively reinstating "legally married" status to gay and lesbian Iowans that were married in Massachusetts, Vermont, and Canada.

The following is a copy of Iowa Code 595 (as amended) as posted on the Internet site of the Iowa State Legislature. The changes required by the judge’s order have not been incorporated into the posted text as of 30 August 2007. (http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=IowaCode&input=595).

This week's MINILOVE doubleplusungood music

2006-07-09T01:57:00.000-04:00

INGSOC Word Of The Week

2006-07-09T01:48:00.000-04:00

SERENITY

The image of a peaceful society personified by witholding the truth of one's misery to infer prosperity.

Residence committee says sign is doubleplusungood

2006-03-12T12:41:00.000-05:00

Newsflash: 12.3.06
Minrec AOL Bureau

Residence committee says sign for our patriotic fighting men in Eurasia is doubleplusungood. Sister Stacey Kelley ridiculed and required to pay unjust penalties for patriotism. The Residence Committee is requested to meet with the INGSOC committee chair and answer to BB.

Inner Party High Committe Member Sends INGSOC Letter

2006-01-25T18:50:00.000-05:00

MINREC Newsflash - This Outer Party Brother received letter from Inner Party High Committee Member, Brother Warner (R-VA). Brother Warner's letter to this MINREC brother support goodspeak of the 1st INGSOC policy, and plusgood committee vote for monthsplus 6 extension of 1st INGSOC policy. Brother Warner speaks of pluswork togethergood of both Inner and Outer Parties to publish the 2nd INGSOC policy. Target date is 3.2.06 (3 Feb).

Translation: I received a letter today from Senator John Warner (R-VA). His generic form letter "expressed my concern" of the Patriot Act. Both houses of Congress are "working hard" to revise the so called "Patriot Act II" for passage before the expiration of the extension they put into place before the Christmas break. SENATOR WARNER SUPPORTED THE PATRIOT ACT AS PART OF THE 98 VOTE PASSAGE.

My concern is that the Patriot Act (INGSOC) is a load of crap! More safeguards are required to protect the general civil rights and privacy of the average American. (Like W is going to obey it like he did with his non-constitutional spying on the average person and warrantless searches in violation of FISA and EO 12333.)

Residents of Virginia: PLEASE write to Sen. Warner and tell him to either fix the Patriot Act to make it more difficult to have our civil liberties and privacy violated or LET IT DIE!!!

Outer Party High Committee Comrade and doubleplusungood victory BB candidate, Brother Kerry, starts new blog speak

2006-01-21T17:05:00.000-05:00

MINREC Newsflash - Brother John Kerry started a new blog speak with our MINREC Brothers at DailyKos. Brother Kerry's first newsflash reports on latest speak by the leader of the Eurasian Victory Rebellion League, Inner Party, and BB.

Brother Kerry's plusnew speak of first newsflash.

Leader of Eurasian Victory Rebellion League speaks; using BB and Party speak as weapon against Oceania and plusgood thought for Eurasian war

2006-01-21T16:27:00.000-05:00

Media Matters for America: Matthews, Gingrich, Hannity, others seize on new bin Laden tape to discredit war critics

MINREC Newsflash - From our Brothers and Sisters at Media Matters for America, MINREC speaks with Inner Party unhigh committee unleader, Brother Gingrich, and MINREC Brothers on reports of latest Rebellion leader (Osama bin Laden) speak recording.

MINREC reports of sources of O.b.L. rebellion speak comes from BB himself, Inner Party doctrine, and INGSOC principles.

Victory Scouts To Turn In Outer Party Members For Thoughtcrime

2006-01-18T09:49:00.000-05:00

MINREC Newsflash - 17.1.06: Ref per Brothers at DailyKos. Victory Scouts at plus school, UCLA, instructed to turn in Outer Party teachers as known unpersons for thoughtcrime.

Six-Minute Hate

2006-01-16T19:46:00.000-05:00

MINREC Newsflash - 16.1.06 - Goldstein untrue speech against BB and Inner Party. Goldstein doublespeak of BB first four-year thoughtcrime reduction plan.

Practice Unsexcrime

2006-01-11T17:29:00.000-05:00

Inner Party High Committee Speaks for MINILOVE Meetings With BB

2006-01-07T08:54:00.000-05:00

Inner Party leaders of High Committee, Brothers John McCain, John W. Warner Jr, and Lindsey O. Graham, party speak on 4.1.06 in MINREC paper, Boston Globe, for Room 101 meetings.

MINREC newsflash credit to Brothers and Sisters @ Impeach Bush Coalition

Blog New "The Impeach Project"

2006-01-07T08:33:00.000-05:00

MINITRUE/INGSOC plusthanks our brothers and sisters @ Impeach Bush Coalition and Brother Kagro X @ Daily Kos of blog new, The Impeach Project. Remember, Brothers and Sisters, to prepare for the rally tommorrow night to spread plusgood news of BB. (Guerilla Impeachment Day - 8.1.06)

Outer Party Leader, Brother Dean, submits true speak documents to MINILOVE

2006-01-06T17:15:00.000-05:00

Democrats.org has a post called "Delivering The FOIA Requests" that's worth checking out...

Shortly after the New York Times publicized the president's domestic-spying-without-a-warrant program, over 160,000 Americans signed a Freedom of Information Act Request along with Governor Dean in an attempt to determine just why President Bush believed he had the authority to...

Guerilla Impeachment Day - 8.1.06

2006-01-04T01:02:00.001-05:00

This comes from the Impeach Bush Coalition. Your mission, Brothers and Sisters, is to spread the goodword of BB (IMPEACH) for the Monday morning commute. Let our voices be heard through the written word and creativity of the soul, expressing our overwelming joy in support for our plusgood leader!

Abramoff Pleads Guilty to 3 Counts

2006-01-04T00:10:00.000-05:00

MSNBC: "The Abrams Report" (3.1.06)
Courteousy of: Crooks and Liars

Today (3.1.06), Jack Abramoff, unperson agent of Goldstein, confessed in MINILOVE of thoughtcrime charges true. Unperson charged with conspiracy count 1, mail fraud count 1, and tax evasion count 1. From unperson confession in Room 101, Abramoff agrees to cooperate and truespeak to Thought Police in MINILOVE of other collaborators, unparty INGSOC drafting group leaders and Inner Party members plenty, to minusmonths sentence.

Official MINILOVE records of Charges and Plea Agreement are available on www.washingtonpost.com and www.findlaw.com.

MINREC News Flash: http://www.washingtonpost.com/, Sister Schmidt and Brother Grimaldi, 03.01.06

Translation: 3 Jan 06, Jack Abramoff, Washington Lobbyist, pleaded guilty in the Federal District Court to 1 count each of conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion. As part of his plea agreement, (paras. 14 and 15) he agrees to testify in court of other persons involved in an influence peddling conspiracy, including some influential Washington insiders and congressmen.

The buck stops here. But how many will fall? The Republicans might as well give up any hope of getting reelected. The shit is hitting the fan, and it’s on high; flinging it in everyone’s face. Ratting out CIA ops, secret CIA prisons, torture, fucking up coordination and execution of relief efforts for hurricanes Katrina and Rita, wiretapping without warrants, and now bribery?! How else do you think the budget gets loaded with PORK, like the “Bridge to Nowhere?”

MINREC "Newspeak" think speak with BB unplus Leader, Brother Cheney

2006-01-02T02:12:00.000-05:00

BB heir apparent on latest edition of party INGSOC plusmanditory read magazine. Collective speak with brother MINREC press worker on newyear BB and Inner Party agenda.

Inner and Outer Party elections November for High and Lower committees. Outer Party predicts plus seats in Lower committee.

Inner Party's now agenda is reaction meetings to BB speak of latest four year thoughtcrime reduction plan and new MINILOVE High justice Brother Alito, for old High justice Sister O'Connor. Plan think meetings for plus agree on plusfirm terms of latest INGSOC priorities. High committee closed official meetings for year with INGSOC plan current monthsplus 6. Plus affirmation and Higher and Lower committee plusacknowlege meetings for INGSOC plan, thoughtcrime reduction meetings, and new MINILOVE justice decision meetings will plusstart with committees in weeksplus 3.

MINITRUE acknowledge plus thanks to CensureBush.org (After Downing Street) for MINREC party magazine cover.

BB think speak on successor: Plusgood Brother of Inner Party, and doubleplusgood respect to Oceania.

Translation: I just love the magazine covers that have come out in the last few days, along with the articles and videos (Ignorant Hussy) in the MAINSTREAM media on BB's and Darth's most recent fuckups. I'll set up a poll within the next few days on "Who should sit in the Big Chair if the R's in both houses pull their heads out of their fifth point of contact (where the sun doesn't shine) or Cranial Rectal Extraction procedure, and vote for what is right, and not the party line or loyalty."

Is BB new of old BB minusyears 30?

2006-01-01T04:16:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com

Friday 30 December 2005

Both claimed that a president may violate Congress's laws to protect national security

On Friday, December 16, the New York Times published a major scoop by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau: They reported that Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans without warrants, ignoring the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

It was a long story loaded with astonishing information of lawbreaking at the White House. It reported that sometime in 2002, Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA to track and intercept international telephone and/or email exchanges coming into, or out of, the U.S. - when one party was believed to have direct or indirect ties with al Qaeda.

Initially, Bush and the White House stonewalled, neither confirming nor denying the president had ignored the law. Bush refused to discuss it in his interview with Jim Lehrer.

Then, on Saturday, December 17, in his radio broadcast, Bush admitted that the New York Times was correct - and thus conceded he had committed an impeachable offense.

There can be no serious question that warrantless wiretapping, in violation of the law, is impeachable. After all, Nixon was charged in Article II of his bill of impeachment with illegal wiretapping for what he, too, claimed were national security reasons.

These parallel violations underscore the continuing, disturbing parallels between this Administration and the Nixon Administration - parallels I also discussed in a prior column.

Indeed, here, Bush may have outdone Nixon: Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope. First reports indicated that NSA was only monitoring foreign calls, originating either in the USA or abroad, and that no more than 500 calls were being covered at any given time. But later reports have suggested that NSA is "data mining" literally millions of calls - and has been given access by the telecommunications companies to "switching" stations through which foreign communications traffic flows.

In sum, this is big-time, Big Brother electronic surveillance.

Given the national security implications of the story, the Times said they had been sitting on it for a year. And now that it has broken, Bush has ordered a criminal investigation into the source of the leak. He suggests that those who might have felt confidence they would not be spied on, now can have no such confidence, so they may find other methods of communicating. Other than encryption and code, it is difficult to envision how.

Such a criminal investigation is rather ironic - for the leak's effect was to reveal Bush's own offense. Having been ferreted out as a criminal, Bush now will try to ferret out the leakers who revealed him.

Nixon's Wiretapping - and the Congressional Action That Followed

Through the FBI, Nixon had wiretapped five members of his national security staff, two newsmen, and a staffer at the Department of Defense. These people were targeted because Nixon's plans for dealing with Vietnam - we were at war at the time - were ending up on the front page of the New York Times.

Nixon had a plausible national security justification for the wiretaps: To stop the leaks, which had meant that not only the public, but America's enemies, were privy to its plans. But the use of the information from the wiretaps went far beyond that justification: A few juicy tidbits were used for political purposes. Accordingly, Congress believed the wiretapping, combined with the misuse of the information it had gathered, to be an impeachable offense.

Following Nixon's resignation, Senator Frank Church chaired a committee that investigated the uses and abuses of the intelligence derived from the wiretaps. From his report on electronic surveillance, emerged the proposal to create the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The Act both set limits on electronic surveillance, and created a secret court within the Department of Justice - the FISA Court - that could, within these limits, grant law enforcement's requests to engage in electronic surveillance.

The legislative history of FISA makes it very clear that Congress sought to create laws to govern the uses of warrantless wiretaps. Thus, Bush's authorization of wiretapping without any application to the FISA Court violated the law.

Whether to Allow Such Wiretaps Was Congress's Call to Make

No one questions the ends here. No one doubts another terror attack is coming; it is only a question of when. No one questions the preeminent importance of detecting and preventing such an attack.

What is at issue here, instead, is Bush's means of achieving his ends: his decision not only to bypass Congress, but to violate the law it had already established in this area.

Congress is Republican-controlled. Polling shows that a large majority of Americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to prevent another terror attack. The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?

The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans.

No president before Bush has taken as aggressive a posture - the position that his powers as commander-in-chief, under Article II of the Constitution, license any action he may take in the name of national security - although Richard Nixon, my former boss, took a similar position.

Presidential Powers Regarding National Security: A Nixonian View

Nixon famously claimed, after resigning from office, that when the president undertook an action in the name of national security, even if he broke the law, it was not illegal.

Nixon's thinking (and he was learned in the law) relied on the precedent established by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Nixon, quoting Lincoln, said in an interview, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation."

David Frost, the interviewer, immediately countered by pointing out that the anti-war demonstrators upon whom Nixon focused illegal surveillance, were hardly the equivalent of the rebel South. Nixon responded, "This nation was torn apart in an ideological way by the war in Vietnam, as much as the Civil War tore apart the nation when Lincoln was president." It was a weak rejoinder, but the best he had.

Nixon took the same stance when he responded to interrogatories proffered by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations To Study Intelligence Operations (best know as the "Church Committee," after its chairman Senator Frank Church). In particular, he told the committee, "In 1969, during my Administration, warrantless wiretapping, even by the government, was unlawful, but if undertaken because of a presidential determination that it was in the interest of national security was lawful. Support for the legality of such action is found, for example, in the concurring opinion of Justice White in Katz v. United States." (Katz is the opinion that established that a wiretap constitutes a "search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment, just as surely as a search of one's living room does - and thus that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements apply to wiretapping.)

Nixon rather presciently anticipated - and provided a rationalization for - Bush: He wrote, "there have been - and will be in the future - circumstances in which presidents may lawfully authorize actions in the interest of security of this country, which if undertaken by other persons, even by the president under different circumstances, would be illegal."

Even if we accept Nixon's logic for purposes of argument, were the circumstances that faced Bush the kind of "circumstances" that justify warrantless wiretapping? I believe the answer is no.

Is Bush's Unauthorized Surveillance Action Justified? Not Persuasively

Had Bush issued his Executive Order on September 12, 2001, as a temporary measure - pending his seeking Congress approval - those circumstances might have supported his call.

Or, had a particularly serious threat of attack compelled Bush to authorize warrantless wiretapping in a particular investigation, before he had time to go to Congress, that too might have been justifiable.

But several years have passed since the broad 2002 Executive Order, and in all that time, Bush has refused to seek legal authority for his action. Yet he can hardly miss the fact that Congress has clearly set rules for presidents in the very situation in which he insists on defying the law.

Bush has given one legal explanation for his actions which borders on the laughable: He claims that implicit in Congress' authorization of his use of force against the Taliban in Afghanistan, following the 9/11 attack, was an exemption from FISA.

No sane member of Congress believes that the Authorization of Military Force provided such an authorization. No first year law student would mistakenly make such a claim. It is not merely a stretch; it is ludicrous.

But the core of Bush's defense is to rely on the very argument made by Nixon: that the president is merely exercising his "commander-in-chief" power under Article II of the Constitution. This, too, is a dubious argument. Its author, John Yoo, is a bright, but inexperienced and highly partisan young professor at Boalt Law School, who has been in and out of government service.

To see the holes and fallacies in Yoo's work - embodied in a recently published book - one need only consult the analysis of Georgetown University School of Law professor David Cole in the New York Review of Books. Cole has been plowing this field of the law for many years, and digs much deeper than Yoo.

Since I find Professor Yoo's legal thinking bordering on fantasy, I was delighted that Professor Cole closed his real-world analysis on a very realistic note: "Michael Ignatieff has written that 'it is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.' Yoo persuaded the Bush administration to untie its hand and abandon the constraints of the rule of law. Perhaps that is why we are not prevailing."

To which I can only add, and recommend, the troubling report by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, who are experts in terrorism and former members of President Clinton's National Security Council. They write in their new book The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting It Right, that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to close the venerable loopholes available to terrorist to wreak havoc. The war in Iraq is not addressing terrorism; rather, it is creating terrorists, and diverting money from the protection of American interests.

Bush's unauthorized surveillance, in particular, seems very likely to be ineffective. According to experts with whom I have spoken, Bush's approach is like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. As sophisticated as NSA's data mining equipment may be, it cannot, for example, crack codes it does not recognize. So the terrorist communicating in code may escape detection, even if data mining does reach him.

In short, Bush is hoping to get lucky. Such a gamble seems a slim pretext for acting in such blatant violation of Congress' law. In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress - discover that he is using them?

Goodcome to MINITRUE

2005-12-30T23:02:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Ministry of Truth (MINITRUE in Newspeak). The staff takes pluspride in informing the citizens of Oceania of:

The news of the day
Principles of INGSOC
Latest BB day orders
BB plans for plusgood prosperity
Status of current BB plans
Status of Oceania MINI Bureaus
Status of war efforts in Eurasia
Relations with plusgood friends in East Asia
MINIPEACE Baghdad Bureau
MINIPEACE Kabul Bureau
MINITRUE Baghdad Bureau
MINITRUE Kabul Bureau

Truth: The purpose of this blog is it’s a forum for venting frustration of the crock our government (USA) has become, and the farce that operates out of 1600 PA Ave NW, Washington, DC (White House). The primary targets are President George W. Bush, A.K.A. Big Brother, BB, W, Bush 43, Bush II, Asshole, and Vice President Dick Cheney, A.K.A. Darth Cheney or “Go Fuck Yourself” boy, but isn’t exclusive. Any member of the Administration, or any other government official is fair game. If it falls into the principles of INGSOC, it will be picked on. Your input is appreciated and encouraged. You can also check out the blog I share with Phinky, Ignorant Hussy.