Executive Orders to the Nth Degree

This past week, George W. Bush made it absolutely clear what he thinks of the US Constitution and the "separate but equal" branches of government.

As reported in the Washington Post, Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday [July 19, 2007] in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

Uh, excuse me? Well I guess I didn't realize the Justice Department worked for the White House... oh wait, IT DOESN'T. But Gonzo does.

...Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

This comes on the heels of the latest executive orders, which state that the government can seize your assets and block "property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq" without prior notice.

What does that mean? And who gets to decide what the definition of "threatening stabilization efforts" is? Is it protest? Does it mean dissent of White House policies? Can Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's assets be seized for vocalizing anti-Iraq war sentiments while they campaign? And the topper is that anyone who attempts to aid someone who is in this situation can have their assets frozen as well. So if I am deemed a threat to stabilization efforts in Iraq due to this blog, I can have my assets frozen. If my friend lends me money to pay my mortgage so I don't default on my loan, he can have his assets seized as well.

In his latest speech on July 24th in South Carolina, W. mentions "Osama bin Laden" 23 times and "terror" or "terrorists" 39 times in a twenty-nine minute speech. This from a man who admitted he didn't "spend that much time on [bin Laden]" only 6 months after the 9/11 attack. It seems the only time he mentions Osama bin Laden is at a local Bush supporter rally to further his ill-fated ideological cause. Bin Laden is not important to W. unless his name can be used to frighten the public at hand.