Mobilization Of Resentments

The email with an attachment came to me Christmas morning. The forwarded message was titled, “I am honored to do this”. It was from a well-intentioned Christian friend. Unfortunately my friend was not as well informed as he could have been.

The radical right-slanted message presented two horrible lies about the ACLU while hiding behind the sacrifices of the military. Once again we see the dishonest and cowardly treachery of hateful “conservative” Americans. Their hatred for the ACLU, and for liberalism itself, is as blind as it is intense.

The words jumped out in huge letters.

Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely. They’re making great progress. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus’ name in prayer thanks to the wretched ACLU.

This was followed by photos of cemeteries, and photos of mourning troops at memorial services for their fellow soldiers who paid the ultimate price. The fallen were most likely victims of Cheney’s and Bush’s trumped up war in Iraq. Notice how their hatred is not directed at the politicians who sent the soldiers to their needless deaths.

They died because Bush, Cheney, the Neocon warmongers, sycophantic media, and all the other war profiteering politicians frightened the American people with lies. Those soldiers gave their lives because they were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They are dead because they were told they must go to war, because Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Remember those scary aluminum tubes?

They were slaughtered because they were told Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and would share them with Al Qaeda. They went to war because they were told Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda. Then they were sent to die in order to kill the Iraqis that would otherwise have come to kill us in America. Remember we had to fight them over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was really for neither Iraqis nor freedom. The war in Iraq was used for political gains for the Republican Party, and profit for Bush/Cheney cronies.

Now those troops are told to fight and die over in Muslim lands to protect our freedom. To protect our freedom? What freedom is that? Our freedom to scream medical care is socialism, communism and fascism? Our freedom to say our president is a secret Muslim who wants to destroy America? Our freedom to say the president is giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Our freedom to continue the lies of those who started the war? Our freedom to advocate racial profiling? Our freedom to be under warrantless surveillance?

That’s a lot of freedom for somebody. That’s a lot of freedom to scare and blame. That’s a lot of freedom to accuse, bully and threaten. That’s a lot of freedom for powerful economic elites to facilitate Nixonian “mobilization of resentments”.

This forwarded piece of propaganda is a classic example of mobilization of resentments.

Is this the freedom our troops are fighting to protect?

Republicans mobilized the resentments of angry white voters during the civil rights struggle. Republicans are employing the same strategy today with angry white voters. Resentment is being cultivated for an African American president and his entire party. Resentment is fueled by frightening terms like fascism, communism, and death panels. Resentment is mobilized toward the removal, and destruction, of all political opposition to the radical right.

The party targeted by obstruction and mobilization of resentments is the conservative party of the American government. That party would be the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party ifs fairly conservative, likes the status quo and looks after many of the interests of Big Money. Democrats, as a party, didn’t want to step on the toes of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in the health care debacle.

On the other hand, there’s the party of the radical right. The Republican Party works completely in lock step for the top one percent economic elite of the country. They always support wealthcare for billionaires, and war is often their first choice in foreign policy. The Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower cautioned against is a prime mover, beneficiary, and benefactor of the radical right Republican Party.

This is the purpose of free speech as utilized by right wing interests. It is intended for nothing short of complete nullification of the process of democracy represented by the majority of American voters. Radical right wing ideology is intolerant of any rule outside its narrow interests. It will obstruct, demonize, slander and libel any proponents of civil liberties and government service working for the public good. Education, healthcare, collective bargaining, environmental concerns, and the preservation of American jobs are all targets for the radical right. And their voices have dominated the media through the access provided by their vast wealth and economic leverage.

We have a grossly unbalanced information network dominated by indoctrination from radical right interests. A significant part of the population doubts the American birth of the president. A significant part of the population believes Obama and the Democrats are socialists, communists, and even fascists. A significant part of the population believes in death panels. A significant part of the population believes universal health care is a Nazi-inspired conspiracy.

Yes, as extreme and delusional as this seems, the abuse of free speech has successfully sown the seeds of anger, ignorance, and hatred. We hear them tell us Obama and the Democrats are socialists.

We hear from the same voices the line that Hitler and his henchmen were socialists. Never mind that every extremist in the last century, whether communist or fascist, claimed to be socialist. This is because democratic socialism was the middle ground between fascism and communism. This was what people wanted. The Great Depression taught them the lessons of unregulated capitalism. There had to be a better way. FDR”s New Deal was attacked as socialism but it gave many people jobs, and helped turn our country back from the abyss.

Now the radical right is crowing about Hitler the socialist.

Not much has changed. The radical right wingers still believe what Hitler said. The old Nazi still dupes ‘em.

Those concentration camps were filled with Jews, liberals, educators, socialists, communists, and anyone else who was not a war profiteering Nazi capitalist or enabler.

Or, maybe I’m wrong, and every government that promotes employment, education, and health care is a Nazi regime. Such is the absurdity of the radical right’s twisted logic.

But then, what would we call a regime that launched a war based on lies, without provocation, while profiting financially and politically from such action? What kind of regime would demand obedience and loyalty while imposing warrantless surveillance on dissident civilians in its Fatherland, or “Homeland”?

What kind of regime would have its chief law enforcement official warning, “Americans need to watch what they say”?

What kind of politician would accuse the other party of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? These are tough questions for anyone who can’t remember anything that happened over a year ago, or didn’t hear Dictator Dick recently on Fox propaganda.

Any sane, objective, or informed non-authoritarian personality will see the obvious fascism in the American radical right.

The radical right certainly reduces the freedom of speech to the level of vulgar and hateful propaganda. Where’s the counter balance to all this? Free speech cries out for the cause of equality and Constitutional liberty. But that free speech in support of democracy is in short supply in our corporate dominated media.

There are some progressive voices out in the corporate media, but they are a minority.

Who has the resources, time and access to the legal system to fight for the public’s civil liberties and right to know what the government is doing? This brings us back to the “wretched ACLU”.

Here’s what Glenn Greenwald said about the ACLU.

I can say with certainty that most of the evidence now in the public record has come from compelled disclosures by the ACLU’s FOIA litigations:

DOJ documents authorizing the “use of military force inside the U.S.”

The notorious Yoo and Bybee memos purporting to legalize torture in gruesome detail.

The CIA Inspector General’s Report describing the brutality in how those techniques were used.

The funny thing about this forward was a comment down in the chain from a guy named Mike saying, “You should check some of this stuff out. Snopes.com says this is false and the ACLU (as stupid as they can be at times) have never sued over this issue.”

Yet more proof the radical righties don’t care to read, as much as they don’t care about passing along falsehoods.

Knowing well enough that few would read what I wrote, I still added my two cents and hit “reply all”.

If you read below, you see Mike is right.

Anger and hatred is contagious. It is much easier for angry Right Wingers to spread lies and get other people angry, than it is to investigate the reality of an issue. This is one reason why Dick Cheney is not in prison.

Instead of blindly hating the ACLU, remember they even defended the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North when they saw their Constitutional rights threatened.

The ACLU is defending through the courts the SAME BILL OF RIGHTS and Constitution our troops defend. If you support the troops, shouldn’t you also support what they swore upon oath to defend?

We have a Constitutional Democratic Republic, not a theocracy. Wrapping oneself in the flag, in religion, and in militarism is NOT conducive to freedom and equality for all.

By the way, you can thank the ACLU for recently stopping the strip searches of your daughters in school. (One girl was accused of possessing a motrin tablet and strip searched for it.)

Please, people, join us and support the ACLU. Become a freedom fighter, because freedom can’t protect itself.

Crossposted at Freedom Rants.

Sphere: Related Content

a lament for my country

not really- i haven’t ever written a lament and i doubt like hell anyone would want to read it anyway. many folks aren’t ‘into’ poetry anymore. but a few articles and oh, the past 9 years or so have brought ’round the issue of democracy versus police state and whether this country- and indeed planet- will or can survive.

there are a few of us out here in the middle who look at the world situation with america as a catalyst and wonder if it’s us who are crazy or everyone else. what’s the quote? ‘it’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world?’ there are those of us who are actual living, breathing, thinking human beings and nothing that is going on makes much rational sense. the way words and meanings are twisted or outright lies and propaganda are swallowed as fact- it’s bewildering to me, quite frankly. but it isn’t totally unexpected. not when you realize what the big picture is supposed to look like to the folks who are really in charge.

it isn’t obama or reid or pelosi. it isn’t sarkosy or brown or merkel. there is an oligarchical ruling class made up of old money and corporates who are running the show. as much as i hate rumsfeld and cheney, they were second tier at best carrying out orders. they aren’t smart enough to take down a whole country on their own. and what better way of explaining the apparent ‘deaf ears’ of the supposed left wing democrats to any popular hue and cry? seriously, they don’t have to answer to us- they answer to a ‘higher power.’

so, looking at the bigger picture, looking at the farce of voting and protesting and following the various distractions in the media, i mean domestic issues like health care reform, it stands to reason that voters don’t count. if what we wanted mattered, there would be universal health care for everyone sans penalties or taxes– like yesterday. seriously. as it is, we are being told it isn’t ‘american’ to want ’socialized’ medicine even though every poll to date says that that is exactly what we want.

i discount people on the right as even mattering these days and i am not apologetic for it. right wing is fear based and mean and there is no logic for it. i also dismiss people on the left these days and am unapologetic because left wing is based on willful ignorance to reality and deliberate naivete towards political relevance. the right wing is afraid of people of color and other religions and the left is afraid to admit that their idols have greedy feet of clay and are not saviors. the bottom line is- human beings all look alike on the inside but behave differently on the outside. some are genetically inferior to others and it is not by accident that these folks end up in positions of power.

mom and i have been discussing ‘people power’ versus ‘the power of one’ and we both agree that masses don’t have the power that one human being does. it only takes one person to take away the liberties and individual rights of millions of others. and all of the protests in the streets can be dispersed by the sonic cannons and tear gas and whatever operated by a single person. something to think about.

Sphere: Related Content

paradox or hypocrisy?

my mom is my partner in crime. i wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for her curiosity- and her admirable ability to stomach listening to hate media and christian media. i guess that i am perplexed at the christian right’s incredulity that more and more americans are turning away from their religion. i mean, despite their best efforts, folks are not sheeple to be fleeced. that’s reserved for special morons on the right- those twenty percenters who have difficulty spelling, i imagine.

anyhoo, many right wing christian types have argued that because the founders were largely christian or deist- the intent that america is a christian nation founded on christian principles is there. therefore, we should return to christianity to unite us in the common good through morals and ethics. except that argument falls very, very flat. the constitution may have been created by men who believed that there is a god- but they specifically, and deliberately stated that there will be no state religion. folks can worship as they please- but no one religion will dominate the other at the federal level. period. you can google it- it’s there.

and on the hypocritical end- well, let’s suffice to say- with all of the ‘family values’ scandals and the pious christian leaders succumbing to just about every deadly sin there is- and the fact that they assisted the politicians in ruining this once great country for worldly gain- that they are lacking quite a bit in the moral authority realm.

i guess that the biggest puzzle for me to try and piece together- is how they present christianity versus what they really stand for. i am going to guess that’s why folks are leaving in droves. the christian right alleges to stand for the right to life of all- because your life belongs to god and your body is his temple- and you need to keep it pure and clean for him. you don’t have the right to euthanasia or suicide- because your body isn’t yours to begin with. god will decide when you live or die. uh huh. jesus- and god- are love. they love you despite you being a sinner or a heathen- and flowers bloom and birds sing, yah, yah, yah. how then to explain the christian stance on 1) capital punishment and 2) torture.

so, let’s see- god is love but he sanctions the torture of other people at the hand of the folks who won. mmmmm…. which chapter and verse in the bible sanctions torture? i’ve read it through twice but i may have missed something. i do, however, distinctly remember something about ‘vengeance is mine, saith the lord.’ but it may be different now- i have a king james version bible. and please cue me in as to where god says- or jesus- that it’s ok to kill someone based on a crime they committed.

i am an admitted ‘heathen’- athiest, i suppose to those who must label. i oppose the death penalty and torture. i also would not personally have an abortion but i am completely in favor of contraception. i also support euthanasia- under restrictions and suicide- because it’s a personal choice. now, that’s not to say i advocate either- but each human being is autonomous. they have the right to decide their own fate. they do not have the right to torture and kill other human beings- or other beings- wantonly and at their whim.

i also have a real problem with christians blaming victims for man made disasters. for example, the christian right blaming the victims of hurricane katrina for the army corps of engineer’s failure to make the levees safe. their ’sins’ did not bring the wrath of god down upon them- climate change did. and the levees breaking was most decidedly not the fault of gay folks. get real.

i have a feeling that many run as far away as they can from christianity these days because these folks come off like a band of thugs- forcing their way of life on others and ganging up on minority groups- like gay folks, immigrants, non wasps, etc. they behave like the crazy relative that folks don’t invite to family holiday dinners. and it’s unfortunate because i really believe in the constitutional right for folks to worship as they please- but these folks are turning the houses of worship into extremist group havens where they are tax exempt- and can plot their course with impunity.

the ’say one thing and do another’ philosophy is what is driving thinking folks away from religion- especially christianity. just an fyi. my fervent hope is that religion extincts itself- and i hope i am around to see it happen.

Sphere: Related Content

news crew arrested for covering news story

just when you thought it was back to having civil liberties- bam!  reality takes over and you realize that not much has changed here in the new america.  nope.  we have paramilitary swat and other special task forces all over america; we have municipalities hiring private security instead of police forces; we have our very own military patrolling within our borders for the first time in our history- and i won’t even go into the homeland security forces.

do we really need that much ’security?’ or is it security for the folks who keep shafting us over and over and over?

at any rate, the few independent journalists who are trying to do their job- get arrested and manhandled for their efforts- ala amy goodman.  i highly doubt that this was a ‘rogue’ cop using ‘misjudgment’- my gut tells me it’s more rampant like the rodney king cops.

Sphere: Related Content

No one is above the law.

The day they took office the Obama administration had a legal problem. In fact they had several, left behind by their predecessors. These problems did not grow out of the rule of law, but outside of the rule of law. All of the current shocking news about the Bush administration is the result of revelations of law breaking. The Geneva Conventions were ignored, Americans were spied upon without a court order, and prisoners were kept in custody for years without charges being filed. And they were tortured. All kinds of government materials were classified that were embarrassing but not secret, and Congress was not kept legally informed for its oversight purposes. The U.S. military was prepared to act against its own countrymen. Our personal phone calls, e-mails, medical and financial records were surveilled by mass means, illegally and without privacy protection.

Rather early on President Obama and Attorney General Holder reaffirmed that no one is above the law. For that reason, the Obama lawyers must not give undue weight to the Bush lawyers’ extra-legal opinions and the positions of his Office of Legal Counsel should not be assumed to have legal standing.

Claiming state secrets, over classification of materials, threats to national security, warrantless wiretapping, can never trump the rule of law coming solidly out of the Constitution. This is where the three co-equal branches of government come in. Here are some simple examples:

Duly sworn judges have the right to rule on evidence. They have security clearances, in effect. Duly elected members of the legislature have the right to practice oversight of the executive branch’s execution of the laws passed by Congress. They also have security clearances in effect. Disagreements go to court to be adjudicated. Neither the executive branch nor the courts make laws. Courts interpret the laws. Legislators ratify U.S. treaties into international law. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable search or seizure, and limits what the military can do within the U.S. Bill of Rights civil liberties cannot be permanently abridged by mere executive fiat.

Lawyers in the current administration who come out with legal arguments in adherence to a number of Bush positions are on shaky ground. Protecting Executive power prerogatives is not a good enough argument when those Executive powers are clearly not legal. This means that today’s lawyers and courts must look to the experts and go further back to find precedents that are on solid ground. The Justice Department’s move to try a detainee on formal legal charges is the kind of legal decision making that is a step in the right direction.

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee – Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics national security legal justice department office of legal counsel bill of rights

Sphere: Related Content

Double Binds

The question of what to do about the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has been on the minds of both the previous and current administrations. Shortly after being sworn in President Obama instructed military prosecutors to ask that the proceedings be delayed in order that a full review could take place. This from TPM Muckraker, (2/6/09) explains the most recent events: “Thanks To Obama’s Order, Military Drops Charges In Gitmo Trial.” It settles the question of whether military tribunals will be the justice method of the Obama administration. At the same time the 9/11 families were not happy about it when they recently met with the President. To quote:

All but one judge complied with the prosecutors’ requests. That one, Army Colonel Jame Pohl, declined to do so.But now, the Associated Press reports, Susan Crawford, the top legal authority for Guantanamo’s proceedings, has decided to drop the charges in the case over which Pohl is presiding, thereby bringing the case into compliance with Obama’s order.

Shedding additional light on these dilemmas for the administration, are columns at Salon.com, by Glenn Greenwald. In his 2/6/09 piece, “Counter-terrorism logic” (Update section), Glenn debunks the claims that 61 released detainees have returned to the battlefield. In an earlier (2/4/09) column entitled “Various Items,” several pertain to today’s subject here: Item 3 — regarding the Obama administration’s position on rendition of detainees, Item 5 — regarding the US Government erecting a wall of secrecy around what it has done to torture detainees, and demands that “other countries [the UK] do the same, upon threat of being punished,” and Item 6 regarding an ACLU letter to Secretary of State Clinton regarding the US/UK matter in Item 5 above. (See ACLU Blog for more on the Gitmo Truth Out)

Another illustration of the difficulty in which the administration finds itself is the quandry of a public opposition to torture and secret detentions, colliding with a legal requirement to defend former government employees under certain conditions. John Yoo, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and John Ascroft will get help in the Jose Padilla lawsuits over his alleged torture. The story is from Wired – Threat level (2/4/09): “Obama: Reject Torture, defend Torturers.” To quote:

The new U.S. president has renounced those Bush administration practices, but government lawyers continue to defend the previous administration’s top officials accused of authorizing and carrying out those policies.

. . . Chief among those enjoying a taxpayer-funded defense is John Yoo . . . As a Bush administration lawyer, Yoo wrote the so-called torture memos the previous administration invoked to rationalize torture of enemy combatants.

. . . in federal court in San Francisco, in a lawsuit (.pdf) brought by Jose Padilla. The one-time alleged “dirty bomber,” Padilla claims Yoo’s internal legal opinions paved the way for his harsh interrogation while he was secretly held without charges at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

Government lawyers are also defending former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other Bush administration officials in a second lawsuit by Padilla accusing (.pdf) them of violating his constitutional rights.

Double binds, where we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t, appear to be a fact of life for the new administration. That is the inevitable outcome of the Bush administration’s failure to adhere to the rule of law. The future will not be easy, but the Constitution stands as bedrock to help solve these double-bound legal dilemmas.

See also a collaborative post today about this same subject called, “Bush Leftovers For Sunday Dinner” at my brand new blog, Behind the Links.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics rule of law national security guantanamo

Sphere: Related Content

As long as the Constitution stands —

In the Constitution — Article I lays out the role of Congress and Article II lays out the role of the President, not the other way around.  Thus Congress has a great deal of power to lead right now, if Senators and Members would only exercise their governing rights under the Constitution.  But for too long we have vested far too much power in in our Presidents.  And we are wanting to vest more power in the hands of our President-elect right now than he can have.  He, like all of us, is bound by Constitutional processes, and he understands them full well, having taught Constituional law for several years himself.

The Constitution specifies in whom are vested the various powers, the dilemma being lived out during this crisis laden period of transition: Likewise, the Constitution has been amended 23 times, but nowhere does it specify that the President can check out early and turn governance over to the President-elect.  President Bush has the responsibility to serve for another 57 days.

The Presidential Oath or Affirmation is written in the document under which we all operate.  When President-elect Barack Obama becomes the actual President in January 2009, he will stand in front of the nation and say,

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution specifies both rights and responsibilities – The peoples’ basic rights as citizens are laid out in the Bill of Rights, the first ten Constitutional amendments.  Amendment X specifies:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The role of the judicial branch of our government is laid out in Article III of the Constitution.  All of us are bound to live under the rule of law.  That includes our public officials.  Most recently it even included Senator Ted Stevens, who had represented Alaska for decades.  Under the law his name stayed on the ballot, but his constituents (the people) defeated him at the ballot box.

As long as the Constitution stands we are bound by the rule of law.  All three branches of government must share equally the responsibility to make things work, however, on behalf of we the people.  Congress makes the law and exercises oversight (as representatives of the people) over the other two co-equal branches of government. The President executes the laws passed by Congress and as adjudicated by the courts.  Congress and the courts may be asked in the future to hold up the current administration to the scrutiny of the rule of law.  And it is not the responsibility of the executive branch to prosecute those who have broken the law, except through the Justice Department, acting as the peoples’ lawyers.  We must remember and trust the process.  Thus we must wait to see what happens.  We must remind or remove officials as needed at the end of their terms, or by demanding impeachment.

Sphere: Related Content

Mickey Edwards on the Constitution and the Presidency

To my readers:  This “S/SW Classic” post was first published on Jan. 12, 2008.  It seems to me to have pertinence to the current circumstances.

An outstanding program was presented by former U.S. Representative Mickey Edwards, (R-OK), January 7, 2008, at The Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars and broadcast on C-SPAN. Edwards’ lecture focused on the U.S.Constitution and the current presidential races.

is a Constitutional scholar and journalist who wrote a yet to be released book, “Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American political Movement Got Lost–And How It Can Find Its Way Back.” Currently a Vice President at the Aspen Institute and on the faculty at Princeton, Edwards served as a Republican U.S. Representative from Oklahoma from 1977-1993. He was on the Appropriations Committee and in the Republican leadership.

I took four pages of notes during the broadcast which I am presenting here in essay form, as I have in the past with congressional hearings. I paraphrase Edwards when I did not get exact quotes. I have also developed a number of links that relate to the material Edwards presented that lend standing to his points. And I have rearranged his points for flow and clarity. I have tried for as much accuracy as I can, because he presented important material in a brilliant manner. He begins with this:

“American Exceptionalism” is illustrated in our constitution. It really began 11years after America declared its independence in 1776. No other country had tried this before. The Constitution is designed to prevent dictatorship. Henry V was a dictator.

Edwards quoted the journalist Dana Milbank on the idea of “head of government vs. head of state. Our president is the head of state, but not the head of government. Our president heads only one of the three co-equal branches of government. The Kenneth Branagh movie, Henry V had an episode illustrating why the founding fathers decided that the United States would not be a monarchy: In the film, a friend of the King’s stole something during a battle. This was against a royal decree and punishable by execution, which was carried out. In this system the King and the elites decide; the people have no say. All the decisions come through kingly decree.

This is the way our founding fathers did it: We said the people would be in charge of their own destiny through their representatives. In the American system the people decide whether to go to war; they make spending and taxing decisions through their elected representatives. The Bush presidency is absolutely unprecedented. He declares he is “the decider, the chooser.” With Presidential signing statements Bush says, “I have the right to determine whether the law is binding on me. Regarding torture, for example, I will determine whether the law is binding on me or not.”

Bush made 1100 signing statements, more than all the former presidents combined. Edwards testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the presidential use of signing statements to circumvent the law. Edwards served on an American Bar Association Task Force (that included a lot of Republicans) studying this question. It found that such signing statements violate the constitution: Article One, Section Seven says the president can do one of two things with a law passed by Congress. He can sign it into law or not sign it (a veto). It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to overturn a veto. The President does not have a constitutional option to sign something into law and then ignore it.

Unitary Executive Theory means that Bush does not feel bound to follow the law. The president claims that officials work for the president, and are not bound to obey Congress. The General Accounting Office took a look at what happened to the 2006 Appropriations bill. It found that fully 1/3 of Congressional directives had been ignored by executive agencies. Bush said I can decide. He decided they did not need to go to court to conduct surveillances, and that some people were not entitled to habeas corpus protections.

Regarding presidential executive orders – Edwards feels that, “These are perfectly fine when confined to the executive branch. Things like secrecy and privacy are justified as long as they do not intrude into the judicial or legislative branches, or on the people.

Regarding executive privilege – It is OK. But there are limits to it. For example, Harriet Myers was subpoenaed to come before a congressional hearing and testify about certain communications within the Justice Department. She ignored the subpoena, citing executive privilege. However, the President was never involved in the communication under question. The claim was made that executive privilege extends to everyone in the executive branch – all who are working under the president – not just to communications between the president and his subordinates.

The rule of law and the Judicial Branch – What happens when the President will not obey the law and Congress tries to go to court to make the President follow the law? What is our recourse? The problem is that the courts make access so difficult. The issue is that the Supreme Court and the other Federal
courts have Constitutional rules of “standing,” entitlement to bring suit in that court to settle “cases and controversies.” When Edwards was in Congress he and a number of other legislators wanted to sue President Carter in “Edwards v. Carter.” They lost because the courts said they did not have standing. They had not been personally injured. We do not know whether we have been wire-tapped, for instance. And the courts have twice not upheld the line-item veto for a president.

The President has no power not to implement any of the laws. He has no power to violate any law that he has signed. In the Jackson Supreme Court decision, it said that when Congress speaks on an issue, presidential power is then at its lowest ebb. The three branches are equal.

So, if going to court is not practical, what can a Congress, that does not have “standing,” do to force a President to follow the law? Edwards’ suggestion is that Congress use the power of the purse.It would go something like this: Congress could say, “We will cut $25 million out of the office of the Secretary of the Interior. Or we will not fund the office budgets of three such departments. And we will begin to issue a number of subpoenas, and hold a number of hearings.”

Congress has enormous powers that they do not use effectively. Edwards declared that “this Congress valued loyalty more than the Constitution. The powers of Congress are an obligation imposed on the members of Congress to fulfill. It is their responsibility to exercise it under the Constitution.”

How did we get where we are today? Edwards said, “We have lost track of what our system is and why it is different than what went before.” We have forgotten that the President is not the head of government. The Constitution was designed to keep the power in the hands of the people, through their elected representatives. For example look at Congressional earmarks. Congress is to decide on spending, as opposed to letting the Executive branch decide, OMB, for example.

We are too ignorant of our system of government. Students have not been taught, and the press does not point out such things.

What about Iraq? The war was justified under false claims. It was called a” preemptive” war. But that is when we go to war because someone is presenting an active threat to the U.S. It was actually a”preventive” war. That is when we go to war against someone who may become a threat. Edwards said that as he has traveled in the Middle East, he learned that there is almost universal anger at the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq. The leaders were opposed to us going in; but now these same leaders are against our arbitrarily leaving prematurely.

The 2008 presidential election — Regarding the current criticism of Barack Obama’s “vision over specifics:” Edwards says, “Hooray for him.”

Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe was the one who discovered how widespread the Bush use of presidential signing statements is [and won the Pulitzer for it]. In his recent article he asked all the current presidential candidates what they would do regarding signing statements.

People need to ask the current candidates this question: “Where do you understand the limits of your powers to be?”

Some will say that the current threats mean that “We need a strong leader.” Professor Richard Neustadt says that such strength is embodied in a power to persuade, the power to stir the people.

Today is actually not an unprecedented threat for the U.S. In 1776 if Britain and France had combined forces against America we could have easily been defeated. In the face of even that possibility, the founding fathers decided we would not have a monarch. The other point is that in a time of unprecedented threat, isn’t there a risk in having only one person be the decider? We need more heads than just one. What if that one is of sub-par intelligence?

The U.S. needs to defend itself, of course. And we may even need to curtail liberties for a short time. But that is a decision to be made by the representatives of the people. We said yes back in the ‘70’s, but that such surveillance can only be done if the executive branch goes before a court to get the authority.

When asked who among the current candidates would be the strongest, Edwards first said, “none of the above.” He also said, however, that we will have plenty of opportunity to evaluate people over time. He then added that he would take a lot of heat for saying it, but would have to chose Hillary Clinton. Edwards likened some candidates to Henry V, including Rudy Giuliani “and perhaps McCain.”

He said that “reaching across the political aisle would be essential,” naming Obama, McCain or Huckabee as the strongest in that area. Edwards continued saying that the next president just cannot insist on going it alone. He or she will have to build support.The President can have a big influence of members of Congress. The President should meet regularly with the leadership of Congress before coming out with any program. Edwards said the Bush tried only to reach out to his Republican base, and that he actually does not know who that is. He also pointed out that “he has no problem trying to get Middle East leaders such as Olmert and Abbas to shake hands, but would not think of doing the same with Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner.”

Mickey Edwards found out how to reach across the political aisle to me, a Progressive Democrat. Don’t we wish there were more like him?

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics bush 2008 election presidential candidates conservative mickey edwards

Sphere: Related Content

Constitutional protections under fire in this election, or not?

Is the United States Constitution powerful enough to be a bulwark against the threats of its internal enemies? TPM Muckraker published (10/31/08) the Department of Justice’s list of counties where DOJ election monitors will be deployed, adding that it “looks on the level.” This sounds good. Five counties in Texas will be involved. Other TPM Muckraker related election stories do not sound so good:

• News that the state of Georgia may be trying to suppress voters by refusing to extend voting hours
• Colorado continued to purge voter lists, despite a settlement with voting rights groups
• Wisconsin will attempt to intimidate poll watchers with prosecutors and agents “looking for voter fraud.”

“Even the least of these” — Diverse Americans must come under the protection of of the eagle’s wings. Racism does not die easily, as this election has unfortunately shown. This is a wonderful piece that illustrates my point: “Commentary: Republicans summon ugly old ghosts#” is by my favorite, Joey Galloway, a McClatchy columnist extraordinaire. He concludes with wise words:

Here’s a prediction for you, for them: McCain and Palin will go down to defeat by 15 to 20 points, and they’ll take a heap of Republicans down with them.

The financial collapse and the painful fallout that’s stalking the nation won’t be righted overnight, however. Putting Barack Obama in the White House and giving the Democrats a veto-proof majority in Congress won’t mean that happy days are here again.

Hard work, sacrifice and suffering lie ahead. It could take a decade or more to repair all the damage that Bush, Dick Cheney and all their henchmen in prison, out of prison and on their way to prison have done to our economy, our military, our standing in the world, our Constitution and to civil discourse, common decency and competent governance.

In the meantime, we Americans would do well to try to remember all those things that our grandmothers told us about how to get by in hard times.

How to get by on a lot less.

How to grow a vegetable garden.

How to squeeze a nickel till the buffalo bellows.

How to appreciate the small joys of family and friends.

How to share what you have, no matter how little you have, with those who have nothing.

Someday we may be able to tell our grandchildren about the Election of ‘08 when we, the people, turned away from anger, hate and greed and once again embraced the better angels of our nature.

Defending their rights to say these awful things is tough but necessary. Sarah Palin made a head-spinning statement in a radio interview Friday that Glenn Greenwald brilliantly explored in a recent post. Palin’s comment was to the effect that press freedom is a threat to the First Amendment. Unfortunately, this time the Constitution protection of free speech may be on the side House Minority Leader John Boehner’s recent use of an expletive to describe Senator Barack Obama#. It may also be on the side of Elizabeth Dole’s vile campaign ad#. Her opponent has every right to go to court protesting that she has been defamed, but candidates open themselves to being unfairly targeted when running for office.

Equality under the law – Another right-winger, Dennis Prager’s comment, that “Equality is a European value*,” is also allowed. But, thankfully, others, such as Ali Frick at Think Progress, can rebut the statement with sarcastic irony:

Or if they had looked to the United States Constitution, they may have erroneously thought “equality” was an important American value:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thankfully, Dennis Prager is here to protect and defend American inequality.

Help is on the way — Thinking ahead and probably assuming that OBama wins (I cannot imagine MCCain would be interested), Anthony Romero of the ACLU announced that his organization has developed an action plan for helping the next administration to restore the Constitution. To quote his e-mail:

October 31 , 2008
ACLU Releases Presidential Transition Plan to Restore Civil Liberties

In anticipation of the presidential election, the ACLU released a set of recommendations detailing steps that the new president should take to “clean house,” renew freedom, and restore the nation’s reputation.

“This past administration has left us with a disastrous legacy of bad policy, abuse of power, and civil liberties violations,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington Legislative Office. “The next president, whoever he is, must immediately begin the process of undoing this far-reaching assault on our nation’s freedoms and core values, and the ACLU’s ‘to do’ list provides a detailed roadmap for achieving that.”

”Actions For Restoring America,” outlines actions to be taken by the next president on his first day in office, in his first 100 days, and in his first year.

The 83-page document proposes actions across a wide variety of topics, including national security, human rights, women’s rights, civil rights, drug policy, the rights of LGBT Americans, immigrants and prisoners, privacy and free speech.

Read the entire ACLU transition plan including suggested executive orders, mandates and directives from the president.

A few ideas on other questions posed in my post — “When Judges Make Foreign Policy - United States Supreme Court,” is a great analysis of how important constitutional checks and balances in foreign policy have become in recent years. Worth the read, it was written by Noah Feldman at The New York Times (10/28/08). Feldman begins,

Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.

. . . how the justices will address critical issues of American foreign policy in the future hangs very much in the balance. This may seem like an odd way of thinking about international affairs. In the coming presidential election, every voter understands that there is a choice to be made between the foreign-policy visions of John McCain and Barack Obama. What is less obvious, but no less important, is that Supreme Court appointments have become a de facto part of American foreign policy. The court, like the State Department and the Pentagon, now makes decisions in cases that directly change and shape our relationship with the world. And as the justices decide these cases, they are doing as much as anyone to shape America’s fortunes in an age of global terror and economic turmoil.

. . . Charged with interpreting the Constitution and therefore shaping its contemporary orientation, the Supreme Court needs to be extraordinarily sensitive to the demands of history. When the court gets it wrong, the consequences can be serious. The Constitution we get will still be the one we deserve, but our deserts need not be good ones. The Constitution, let us not forget, gave us slavery and segregation. It gave us dysfunctional limitations on progressive legislation that was desperately needed in the years before the Great Depression. We like to think the Constitution is always leading us toward a more perfect union. But this has not always been the case, and as with any experiment, there is no guarantee that it will be in the future.

My conclusion today is that the Consitution will be up to the current challenges, ALL of them. Bring on the election!

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are “betmo*” and Jon#.

View my current slide show about the Bush years — “Millennium” — at the bottom of this column.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics constitution republicans courts 2008 elections

Sphere: Related Content

next stop – martial law

Alright Jones, recess is over, but Re-cess-is-on, so fuc the dumb shit. And before I go any further, would like to formally request that all bich azz ni double G a’s leave the room. I will wait. Now as you may have concoursed, I take pride in rumination and critical thought – that is to say beyond thought just to think. Meaning I’m not a pedantic. Nor have I ever considered myself to be a prognosticator, nor have I ever had the desire to tell some one that they would fuc they momma and kill they daddy as the Sooth Sayer did informed Oedipus in Oedipus Rex. Although I did attempt in vain for the past 16 months to acquaint readers with the anticipated collapse of the US financial sector, and maybe even the government. Now I got one more for you in two words – martial law.

Martial law has been defined as: military rule that is imposed on a civilian population when the civil authorities cannot maintain law and order, as during an emergency. If such occurs, based on my knowledge of some past Executive Orders, we can expect that: all communications media will be seized by the Federal Government including radio, TV, newspapers, telephones, and the internet. Meaning no More making of the band or Reality TV (not even twitter), for they will be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment will be suspended indefinitely (Executive Order 10995). Executive Order 11000 states that all civilians can be used for work under federal supervision. Executive Orders 10998 and 10999 state that all food resources, farms and farm equipment will be seized and that all forms of transportation will go into government control.

Yes martial law can be declared even if the STOCK MARKET crashes. Now true, martial law aint exactly mentioned in the Constitution, but the suspension of habeas corpus is in Article 1, Section 9, and the activation of the militia in time of rebellion or invasion is in Article 1, Section 8. Article 1, Section 9 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Habeas corpus basically says that a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held.

Add to that the facts that the Feds got a little practice in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina after it hit New Orleans. Folk here also know that Beginning in 1999, the government negotiated into a series of single-bid contracts ($385 million) with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations INSIDE the United States. The KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME.

If one of these centers/sites/camps aint been built around your area, no fear, they will likely use the Post Office. I mean next time you go to the Post Office (in pic) look in the back and see if they got fencing with barbed wire on top that can be locked and gated – LMBAO. Plus we already know (at least I do) that the A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was updated for developing a “template for developing agreements” between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.” And to top it off, the current President, signed into law Public Law 109-364, or the “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” (H.R.5122) (2) 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.”

Now I aint trying to scare nobody, but as I said in the first paragraph, I take pride in rumination and critical thought. So yawl enjoy the debate, I aint watching. I mean like Obama but he is disappointing and cant see the forest for the trees – meaning, he cant see that no matter what he does, we in this economic mess for the next ten years at a minimum. And McCain, he has PTSD. Have read each and every proposal and plan both have put out – I mean them ALL. So enjoy the debat and I betcha by golly wow, no one mentions or talks about the likelihood of the suspension of Habeas Corpus, but recant, your folk here did, just like I told yawl for the last 16 months what was gone happen to our economy, even naming banks that was gone fail before they was on the news. Ignorance and freedom is incompatible. So no post until Friday or Saturday folk – so marinate on this jones mane, fore real though, for the next stop, like the MARTA train, maybe martial law.

PS: Good look for awarding me the Black Weblog Award for best blog on politics 2009.

Crossposted from Torrance’s blog-RawDawg Buffalo.

Sphere: Related Content

Why bother with a Constitution?

More Power to you, Mr. President? Actually, we the American people do not think so. We believe we still have the constitution.  According to Matt Berman, who writes “The Daily Muck” (9/15/08) at TPM Muckraker,

A new AP-National Constitution Center poll shows that a majority of Americans are opposed to giving more power to the President, even at the expense of national security or the economy. The poll shows that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to shifting the balance of government towards the executive, evidence of wide-ranging skepticism of the advances in executive power during the Bush years. The poll also found more of a split when Americans were asked if Congress should be awarded greater power in times of economic or national security hardships. (AP)

I am a Constitution Voter Campaign — At the ACLU Blog, , 9/15/08, Caroline Fredrickson on Salon Radio, on the Constitution Voter Campaign talks about how useful it would be to have the presidential candidates talk about Constitutional issues. To quote:

Today on Salon Radio with Glenn Greenwald is an interview with Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. Caroline talks about the launch of our new campaign, “I’m a Constitution Voter,” our effort to get candidates to discuss constitutional issues during this election season.

Our current president (OCP) started ignoring the Constitution by spying on Americans without a legal warrant some time ago.  A great post illustrates an example.  It cleverly and succinctly summarizes the new Barton Gellman material, with a “quick stock of some of the vitals,” the five main points of the revelations. It came from ACLU Blog, and was written by Amanda Simon (9/15/08): “Ashcroft Defends Constitution in Spying Clusterfrack. Happy Opposite Day!”

Our current president (OCP) had massive help from the private sector in shredding our Constitution privacy protection — At the website, Dandelion Salad [by Tom Burghardt, of Global Research, September 11, 2008], using another source, “Antifascist Calling…” comes the sordid story: “Multibillion “Homeland Security” Market: Telecoms Assist in NSA Spy Operations.”  To quote:

What do the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program and enterprising capitalist grifters have in common? Workarounds…and lots of them. The kind that aren’t covered by any law.

Two highly-disturbing reports by CNET and the London Review of Books describe how government intelligence agencies and niche telecom providers have teamed-up to subvert our privacy rights-while providing security agencies with real-time cell phone tracking capabilities.

. . . And with a swarming multitude of new companies crawling out of the woodwork to “service” the “homeland security” market, why its a snap. Firms such as ThorpeGlen, VASTech, Kommlabs, and Aqsacom all sell what CNET’s Chris Soghoian describes as “off-the-shelf data-mining solutions to government spies interested in analyzing mobile-phone calling records and real-time location information.”

Called “passive-probing” data mining, these companies are carving-out lucrative niche markets. Only there’s nothing “passive” about these intrusive operations undertaken in concert with a veritable army of state and corporate spooks.

. . . And there you have it. Niche telecom providers are the latest players in the West’s burgeoning “terrorism industry,” one that “keeps us safe” by destroying our privacy and our rights with hefty profits all around. Call it another seamless victory for the market’s “invisible hand” that clenches as it morphs into the state’s iron fist wrapped in American flags and blood-drenched corporate logos.

Congress has sometimes been complicit with OCP in the business of warrantless wiretapping, even when Democrats were in charge.  To give them their due, however, they have held many hearings revealing some the truth, about the extent of damage to the principles of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.  For example, hats off to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) for recently holding this Judiciary subcommittee hearing: “Restoring the Rule of Law#.” It was this desire to dial back the executive power overreach that was Bush’s primary governing philosophy that led Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to call together nearly a dozen experts Tuesday morning for the Judiciary subcommittee hearing.  To quote:

Some Democrats — frustrated at banging their heads against a wall much of these last eight years, as they’ve watched George W. Bush run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law — are determined to return some semblance of order once the president leaves office next year.

The FBI became the agency charged with domestic intelligence gathering during the post-9/11 reorganization of the government’s intelligence and homeland security programs. But like other organizations in the executive branch, they have become less and less interested in civil liberties over the years. The following story is an illustration of what Congress is trying to do about that.  “Mueller Grilled Over Claims New FBI Powers Amounts to Racial Profiling, More Spying,*” by Robert Chlala for The Public Record on September 19, 2008. To quote:

. . . what the new framework Mueller described would actually do is allow agents to begin “assessments” and surveillance without first obtaining factual evidence. Additionally, the guidelines would permit agents to use race and ethnicity as a factor for triggering investigations.

Despite the concerns raised during the hearings and pressure from civil rights groups, Attorney General Michael Mukasey plans on signing the guidelines into law on Oct. 1.

These guidelines represent only some of a series of changes in law enforcement set in place the last year, increasing the power of federal, state and local authorities. Other new policies include the proposal to eliminate restrictions on local and state law enforcement intelligence gathering, the recruitment of over 15,000 new informants, and the creation of local-level “fusion centers” that gather and monitor masses of criminal and non-criminal information on individuals.

While the FBI guidelines have not been released to the general public, several members of Congress and key staffers from the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate pressed and received limited access to the draft. Department of Justice briefings and a speech by Attorney General Michael Mukasey in August also shed light on the topic.

Evidently protest is not protected in the copy of the Constitution carried by OCP. The Secret Service is under the Treasury Department in the executive branch.  They are charged with the protection of the President and Vice President, as well as of the candidates currently running for those offices.  They are very good at taking their marching orders from OCP, who ignores Constitutional rights under the guise of maintaining safety.  This is a perfect example: “Secret Service order police to block McCain protesters*” was a post at The Raw Story by David Edwards and Muriel Kane on September 17. To quote:

. . . Leaders of the protest, which had been arranged and publicized by local unions and the Ohio Democratic Party, said that as many as several hundred people had been expected to attend, but police were not letting them through roadblocks surrounding the area.

ACLU Calls for Investigation into Civil Liberties Violations at RNC – During the Republican National Convention there were mass arrests, police raids on private homes and the detention of several journalists. This comes from my ACLU newsletter, and is a reminder why I am so grateful for the ACLU’s long battle to protect our rights under the Constitution. To quote:

“Attempts by law enforcement to squelch lawful political speech and stifle the press have no place in our democracy and are unacceptable,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “Political conventions should be a showcase for free expression, not a venue for bullying and intimidation.”

The ACLU specifically called for an investigation into possible violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, including:

* The arrest of reporters trying to gather the news;
* The mass arrest of hundreds of peaceful protestors;
* The surveillance and subsequent raids on several activist groups and private homes; and
* The confiscation by law enforcement agents of constitutionally-protected private property.

The ACLU affiliate office in Minnesota has assembled legal counsel for many of the reporters and peaceful protestors arrested at the protests and has also filed a lawsuit in federal court calling for the release of boxes of literature that were confiscated during raids.

Why bother with the Constitution at all when Homeland Security, under the cover of Keeping Us Safe, can intrude into Sesame Street, of all things?  I give up.  “Homeland Security, Sesame Style*,” by Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin, September 18, 2008, at DC Examiner To quote:

In a move that will make Bush administration detractors bring back those duct tape jokes again, the Department of Homeland Security has partnered up with the famous children’s show.

“We all want our children to feel safe in this world,” said Meryl Chertoff, wife of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, at a ceremony held at the John Tyler Elementary School to announce the partnership. “And who better to do that than our Sesame Street friends, Grover and Rosita!”

. . . As you can imagine, the partnership is aimed at children, and seeks to encourage family preparedness plans in the case of emergencies.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are “betmo*” and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics bush constitution domestic surveillance fbi aclu bill of rights

Sphere: Related Content

not to rain on anyone’s convention

focus on the family’s prayers notwithstanding- (and since it didn’t rain does that mean god didn’t approve of that message?)

but gore vidal lays america out in lavender- past, present and future-

“American essayist Gore Vidal says that despite the US claim that it is making the world safer by perpetuating democracy, the country never had any democracy. “

Sphere: Related Content

citizen soldiers

the neocons don’t know what to do with americans these days. there are fewer and fewer people who actually believe anything coming out of washington these days- with good reason. this administration has used propaganda and untruths and made them in to art forms via a bought and paid for press. they have used staged photo ops, forged documents, secrecy, bullying and blackmail for their coup d’etat- and they have been successful for the most part.

but there is one thing that they forgot- not all of us are morons. there are some of us who seek the truth and remember history. there are some of us who actually believe in the tenets of the constitution and the freedoms that they have afforded millions. there are some of us who are not simple enough to believe news taken at face value. and we are a thorn in their sides. we, who utilize technology and reach out to other countries and other peoples and share the ideas and truths that this country was founded on- we are viewed with suspicion and fear. we are most assuredly on a list of theirs somewhere but we will continue to do the right thing- simply because it’s the right thing to do.

people like robert rouse- left of centrist- scare the bejesus out of them. thank you robert

Sphere: Related Content

happy monday

front group associated with cheney calls for bush to be dictator… for life

“Family Security Matters a neo-conservative based think tank has published an article advocating that George W. Bush should be a dictator for life. The organization has since taken the article down, but is still viewable via this cached link.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy: By Philip Atkinson

The article written by Philip Atkinson states that Bush would fail his country by becoming an ex-President or can achieve greatness by becoming President-for-Life Bush in order to bring sense to Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Atkinson is bluntly advocating that Bush should become dictator for life with these outrageously anti-American statements.”

Sphere: Related Content

j. edgar hoover is smiling

my buddy and i email news stories back and forth and chat about them. he sent me this yesterday-

court orders youtube to turn over video logs

and it dovetails with what my suspicions have been all along- communism is alive and well in new america. i was born in the 1970’s and i grew up in the 1980’s. in fact, the berlin wall fell the year i graduated high school. and we all cheered. we cheered when that little man stood up to the tank in tianamen square in china- because freedom couldn’t be stopped or silenced. so, i guess i am in a quandary as to what happened in the 20 or so years since the fall of communism- and why it is exactly that americans are so very willing to embrace that ideology.

because let’s face it- the fascist-communist corporate oligarchy we have running our country- isn’t a representative democracy. the constitution and all that we held dear- gone. you can’t tell me that a country that behaves as we do- is free. we got our torture techniques from china and our nsa has spied on us for decades in ways that would make the kgb blush. the 20th century saw the fall of communism in one incarnation and the 21st century is seeing world totalitarianism rise again. and it only stands to reason- america has many, many natural resources. whoever controls them- well, pretty much survives the longest.

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »