hell’s handmaiden

It doesn’t make sense, does it, that Bush would threaten to use Presidential Perogative to block access to White House material on Abramoff that information is ‘not relevant’? Why block the information at all if it doesn’t matter? Why threaten to block access to information for which prosecuters haven’t asked? Altogether, it doesn’t add up to anything good. Something is wrong.

Bush adviser Dan Bartlett said on CNN’s Late Edition that prosecutors investigating Abramoff have not asked for any White House records. “They haven’t done that because they’re not relevant,” Bartlett said.

And I bet you know what it means also. Our President, large parts of our government, and the governments of several other nations don’t seem to grasp the concept however.

During a 20-minute interview in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Mr. Bush took a hard line against Iran’s nuclear ambitions: “The Free World cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he said.

KGMB9 - Hawaii’s Severe Weather Station | KGMB9 Top Stories

President Bush has spoken out again in defense of his use of Presidential Perogative. Lets assume for the moment that he is justified in invoking that perogative in the case of domestic spying. I don’t believe that he is, but lets avoid that contraversy here and look at two other issues where he is claiming presidential perogative.

Not counting the spying, he is claiming presidential perogative to block an investigation into the hurricane Katrina embarrassment, and to restrict information that might shed light ethics violation in the White House.

An excerpt from a post on a site which I began to read only just recently but which I quit enjoy…

But here%u2019s where the contradiction comes in: Scalia is on record as being strongly opposed to the court giving deference to legislative intent by looking at the legislative history of a law. He has forcefully argued that the only thing the court should look at is the text of the bill itself, not the debate leading up to it or statements of intent or meaning from those who wrote it, even if there is a dispute about the Congress%u2019 intent in a particular passage. As one source notes:

Although the Discovery Institute supports the right of teachers to discuss intelligent design (ID) voluntarily, it has vigorously opposed efforts to mandate ID’s inclusion in public school science curricula…

Evolution News & Views: Weekly Standard Prints West’s Response to Wolfson

The opinion expressed here by John West, of the Discovery Institute, and posted both at The Weekly Standard and at Evolution News and Views, is becoming increasing common among those promoting the teaching of creationism in public schools.

And, by the way, I defend my use of the term ‘creationism.’ ID theorists seem to dislike the association, but a theory which invokes a creator, call it what you will, is a species of creationism.