All Bush needs for Christmas is a brain

Ripped from the headlines*

Presidential IQs:

[Quote]

A report published Monday, by the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania, detailed its findings of a four-month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the educational community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.

There have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F.D. Roosevelt to G.W. Bush, who were rated based on scholarly achievements: 1. Writings that they produced without aid of staff. 2. Their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors, which were then scored using the Swanson/Crain System of intelligence ranking.

The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points. In order by presidential term:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D] 142,
Harry S Truman [D] 132,
Dwight David Eisenhower [R] 122
John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D] 174,
Lyndon Baines Johnson [D] 126,
Richard Milhous Nixon [R] 155,
Gerald R. Ford [R] 121,
James Earle Carter [D] 175,
Ronald Wilson Reagan [R] 105
George Herbert Walker Bush [R] 98,
William Jefferson Clinton [D] 182,
George Walker Bush [R] 91

In order of IQ rating:

182 . . William Jefferson Clinton [D]
175 . . James Earle Carter [D]
174 . . John Fitzgerald Kennedy [D]
155 . . Richard Milhous Nixon [R]
147 . . Franklin Delano Roosevelt [D]
132 . . Harry S Truman [D]
126 . . Lyndon Baines Johnson [D]
122 . . Dwight David Eisenhower [R]
121 . . Gerald R. Ford [R]
105 . . Ronald Wilson Reagan [R]
098 . . George Herbert Walker Bush [R]
091 . . George Walker Bush [R]

The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President George W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democratic presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126. No president other than Carter [D] has released his actual IQ (176). Note the institute measured him at 175.

Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President G.W. Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary [6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents], his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.

The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis.

"All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public
speaking."

The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F.Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist. For more information on the Lovenstein Institute, go to http://lovenstein.org.

[Unquote]

*Actually, send to me by my buddy Terence Lyons, a reporter for The Santa Monica Mirror. Thanks Ter. Oh, in case you were wondering, when I joined Mensa some years back, they tested my IQ at 165.

Update: Amost forgot: if you were wondering about Bush's emotional stability, you might want to check out Dr Justin Frank's book, Bush On the Couch (Harper-Collins, 2004). Bush is not just dumb, he's looney tunes big time.

No sleepy-bye for these bears

Oh oh, this is not good. Truthout.org is reporting that some bears have stopped hibernating.

Climate Change vs. Mother Nature:
Scientists Reveal That Bears Have Stopped Hibernating
By Geneviève Roberts
The Independent UK
Thursday 21 December 2006

Bears have stopped hibernating in the mountains of northern Spain, scientists revealed yesterday, in what may be one of the strongest signals yet of how much climate change is affecting the natural world.

In a December in which bumblebees, butterflies and even swallows have been on the wing in Britain, European brown bears have been lumbering through the forests of Spain's Cantabrian mountains, when normally they would already be in their long, annual sleep.

Bears are supposed to slumber throughout the winter, slowing their body rhythms to a minimum and drawing on stored resources, because frozen weather makes food too scarce to find. The barely breathing creatures can lose up to 40 per cent of their body weight before warmer springtime weather rouses them back to life.

But many of the 130 bears in Spain's northern cordillera - which have a slightly different genetic identity from bear populations elsewhere in the world - have remained active throughout recent winters, naturalists from Spain's Brown Bear Foundation (La Fundación Oso Pardo - FOP) said yesterday.

The change is affecting female bears with young cubs, which now find there are enough nuts, acorns, chestnuts and berries on the bleak mountainsides to make winter food-gathering sorties "energetically worthwhile", scientists at the foundation, based in Santander, the Cantabrian capital, told El Pais newspaper.

The resurrection of habeas corpus

Despite all the self-flagellation, teeth gnashing, pity wallowing, and name calling by civil libertarians lately (including Yours Truly), the Republic may not be in flames after all.

This is not to say that the Constitution-trashers (i.e., George “It’s Just A Goddamned Piece of Paper” Bush and the Cheney Cabal) aren’t still flicking their Bics, but some people may have rediscovered their cojones after all. Of course, having a newly installed Democratic majority standing behind you does afford some small measure of moral support. That said, Arlen Specter (R-PA), last seen begging the Supreme Court to clean up the shit pile he had left on the Senate floor with the Military Commissions Act, has announced (Da-Dah!) the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006.

Take it away, Arlen!

It is my view that the Federal courts will strike down the provisions in the legislation eliminating Federal court jurisdiction for a number of reasons. One is that the Constitution of the United States is explicit that habeas corpus may be suspended only in time of rebellion or invasion. We are suffering neither of those alternatives at the present time. We have not been invaded, and there has not been a rebellion. That much is conceded.

[…]

In the limited time I have today I will not go into great detail during the course of the argument as it appears in the Congressional Record as to why that does not maintain the traditional constitutional right of habeas corpus, a right which has existed in Anglo Saxon jurisprudence since King John in 1215 at Runnymede. The Supreme Court of the United States in the Hamdi case made it plain that these habeas corpus rights apply to aliens as well as to citizens.

[…]

It was my view as I expressed it at the time that with the severability clause the Federal courts would eliminate the restriction on their jurisdiction. But as a precautionary matter, to put the matter in issue, this legislation is being introduced at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that the summary of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

The bill is co-sponsored by Patrick Leahy (D-VT ), and is expected to be presented for a floor vote with the new Senate session, immediately after the end of the New Year’s break.

You may want to check out Leahy’s statement on his introduction of the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act of 2006.

Was Posse Comitatus really repealed?

FEMA prison camp?

As more and more of our privacy rights go down the drain, it looks like the president may have accrued another prerogative: the right to declare us enemy combatants and have (wait for it) the National Guard (!) throw us in concentration camps, said camps being under construction as we speak.

Ted Rall informs us (via smirkingchimp) of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, or Public Law 109-364:

"The [military] Secretary [of the Army, Navy or Air Force] concerned may order a member of a reserve component under the Secretary's jurisdiction to active duty...The training or duty ordered to be performed...may include...support of operations or missions undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or Secretary of Defense."

The National Guard, used to maintain order during natural disasters and civil disturbances and the sole vehicle available under U.S. law to enforce a declaration of martial law, has previously been controlled by state governors. They have now been stripped of that control. Thanks to the JWDAA, Bush or Rumsfeld can now deploy National Guardsmen in American cities without obtaining permission from state governors.

Section 526 of the Warner Act goes further still. It states that the "Governor of a State...with the consent of the [military] Secretary concerned, may order a member of the National Guard to perform Active Guard and Reserve duty..." The key word is "may." A governor can no longer deploy the Guard in his or her state without first getting Rumsfeld's permission.

Patrick Leahy (D-VT) sounded the alarm during senatorial debate, but U.S. state-controlled media ignored him. The Warner Act, he said, "includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law...We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the states, when we make it easier for the president to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

Only one governor, Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, made a fuss over the Warner Act. A spokesman for the National Governors Association requested a wimpy "clarification" concerning what circumstances might prompt Bush to impose martial law. As far as I can determine this column marks the first time the JWDAA has been mentioned in the mainstream media.

Now the dark men who engineered America's post-9/11 police state have watched the public reject their policies. The incoming Democratic majority Congress will be able to hold hearings and launch investigations that could lead to their indictments and removal from office. John Dingell, the liberal incoming chairman of the Commerce Committee did nothing to dissuade GOP fears of "a blizzard of subpoenas": "As the Lord High Executioner said in 'The Mikado,'" Dingell recently joked, "I have a little list."

[ENDQUOTE]

On the other hand, the law may not in fact be a law after all.

tobefree posts at democraticunderground.com, (in response to an article by Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor at cq.com):

15. It's not actually a real law!!!

I've been lurking on DU for a year or more and only recently registered to join in order to have an active voice. This subject is one that I feel there is solid ground on which to actually render the law null and void immediately.

From the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 7: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevents its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays). If he does not, then it becomes law by default. The one exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days are up. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. Ignoring legislation, or “putting a bill in one’s pocket” until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto.

Case Point 1: Congress passed H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act, on September 29th, presented it to the President on October 10th, and adjourned on October 13th. Bush signed it on October 17th, the week after Congress had adjourned, thereby rendering it vetoed by constitutional standards.

Case Point 2: Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was also signed by Bush on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006 noted above.Both of these laws are constitutionally NULL and VOID right now, as we speak. At least that's my humble opinion.

So there you have it: is it a law, is it a signing statement, is a jet plane? One thing for sure: it’s a puzzler.