Can anyone tell me why we have a Congress, or a Supreme Court, for that matter? Either or both seem to be expendable on the grounds of efficiency and cost-cutting. Constitutional interpretation can be (is) handled by a small group within the Justice Department (sic) of recent graduates from Pat Robertson's law school. Pelosi and Reid's Congress can be replaced by a GS-9 with a rubber stamp.
No president in history comes close to Dubya in the number, frequency, and magnitude of "high crimes and misdemeanors", yet the Congressional leadership refuses to avail itself of our only remedy. Don't worry; it'll all be over soon.
This week, a "compromise" by the Democratic Congressional leadership on FISA shredded and flushed the Constitution, one which allows the Attorney General to forbid federal courts from considering questions which he/she asserts concern "national security", and which removes private entities and public officials from any future liability for their crimes. The Democratic nominee endorses it, though he claims it's not perfect. One "supplemental funding" bill after another sails through Congress to continue the war, while members of the armed forces continue to be victimized by multiple tours and the denial of appropriate services and treatment by administration officials, including "medical professionals." A suicide bomber killed more than fifty people in Iraq a day or two ago, an Iraqi government official killed a U S soldier and wounded 5 others South of Baghdad yesterday, while U S politicians talk of the "progress" we're making there, as the resurgent Taliban controls more of Afghanistan. Meanwhile, reporters in the war zone such as CBS's Lara Logan complain they can't get these stories on TV. She did, on the Comedy Channel, thanks to Jon Stewart.
For some time, perhaps years, most Americans despise Congress even more than the rest of the damned guvmint; the numbers I saw this week are between 70 & 80% for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. In 2006, we voted for a new set of rascals with the demand they do something about all of this; again, why do we bother electing them?
With so few signs of hope from the princes of this world, what from the princes of the church: specifically, from the Anglican Communion? The recent GAFCON meetings in Jordan and Jerusalem did well as farce, with Big Pete trying to enter Jordan while under suspicion of at least condoning, if not directing, a massacre of Muslims in Nigeria and pointedly ignoring the Bishop of Jerusalem's requests not to meet in the Holy Land.
All this is described, in his opening address, as a sign of God's working through "orthodox biblical Anglicans" (such as Santa Barbara's Ahramson and Virginia's Minns) to restore the "church" destroyed by teh Evil Gay Menace headquartered in the U S and Canada. The Communion leadership, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been so grossly negligent in punishing these miscreants, despite the patient pleas of the faithful (mostly from Nigeria through Uganda to Kenya) that outside measures, such as GAFCON, have been forced upon True Biblical Orthodox Anglican Leaders, Big Pete being first among them. Nonetheless, as one observer noted, none of them seem to be willing to leave the cesspool of depravity the Anglican Communion has become in their eyes, no matter how much so many of us long for it. In this, it seems to me, that we are not dividing or destroying the church or the Anglican Communion, but recognizing that, in their thought, word, and deed, such as are in GAFCON have already done so.
I don't often say so, but I'm really fed up.