Everyone should strongly support Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director.
Here is what Americans United is Fighting For --- (and Against).
In the words of Americans United:
"When Religious Extremists like Pat Robertson and James Dobson get their way:
"Tax funded "faith-based" initiatives force citizens like you and me to pick up the tab for the Religious Right's ideology-based social agenda;
"Marriage amendments" bring out to the polls many anti-gay voters, and decide elections;
Houses of worship endorse political candidates, violating their tax-exempt status;
More restrictions are imposed on reproductive services, destroying a woman's right of choice;
Medical interference by far-right politicians who meddle in the private decisions of families like Mrs. Terri Schiavo's;
Meddling pharmacists at the drugstore who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on "moral grounds";
Religion instead of science in our classrooms, where teaching Creationism makes us all look like monkeys;
Misguided public funding for religious schools through school vouchers.
Advocates of Creationism are pushing school boards to adopt a so-called "academic freedom" policy -- thereby sneaking in fundamentalism through the back door. Americans United recently won a landmark case against a Dover, PA school board, defeating their efforts to teach "intelligent design" in science classes.
Days later, it was learned that a gym teacher was offering a Creationist course at a California high school, showing 24 videos of Creationist propaganda to students, and bragging how "the Lord" wanted her to teach this class. The California school officials had approved this course, until Americans United forced them to cancel it.
Ex-Watergate felon Chuck Colson was running a Fundamentalist program in an Iowa prison -- until a successful lawsuit by Americans United put a stop to it. Tax dollars were being used to teach inmates that the Bible ordains men to run households; homosexuality is a sin; non-Christians are of Satan; and only people who are baptized as adults can get into Heaven."
No wonder my dear friend, Ray Gun, is so Anti-Religion. The way American Fundamentalists misuse and misinterpret the language of the Bible -- and the way they try to shove their distorted views down the throats of all the rest of us ---- who wouldn't despise religion?
These Christian Fundamentalists have transformed a Book of Love into a Book of Hate. They actually share the exact same religion as Moslem Jihadists. I wonder if Christian Fundamentalists have 24 virgins waiting in Heaven for them, too.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Bush-Cheney Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight Is Gone
Who is weak on fighting anti-terrorism: the Bush-Cheney Con Chickenhawks who invaded Iraq in response to an attack on America launched from Afghanistan --- or the Obama administration which is now demolishing the Taliban where they live, in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Here's the latest:
"Revenge on the Taliban, from 10,000 feet
By David Ignatius -- The Washington Post
Thursday, February 4, 2010
In their joint operations against Taliban militants hiding in the tribal areas, the United States and Pakistan seem to have embraced a classic bit of battlefield advice: Don't get mad, get even.
Since the beginning of 2010, the United States has stepped up the pace of its Predator strikes, with quiet Pakistani support. These attacks appear to have killed Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, top lieutenant Qarimullah Hussain, who trained Taliban suicide bombers, and other key members of the insurgency, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
Though the Predators launch their Hellfire missiles from the lofty altitude of 10,000 feet, make no mistake: This is an intense and unrelenting campaign of assassination. It continued Tuesday with a fusillade of at least 17 missiles in North Waziristan, in an apparent assault on senior al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
The Predator blitz this year followed a Dec. 30 suicide attack on a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, that had been active in targeting the Taliban insurgents across the border. That attack killed eight CIA personnel and left the agency eager to settle scores. The agency, backed by Pakistani intelligence, has done just that.
Hakimullah, who was hit Jan. 14, had posed in a taunting video with the Jordanian double agent who carried out the Khost bombing. Hakimullah also took credit for a wave of terrorist attacks across Pakistan that traumatized that nation.
Although Pakistan publicly criticizes the drone attacks, the administration official argued that the recent campaign "is being done in full concert and cooperation" with the Pakistani government. "We've been very pleased with the extent of the cooperation," the official said, adding that the "box" of geographical coordinates within which the Pakistanis allow the Predators to operate was wide enough to permit attacks on targets that are "geographically dispersed."
The Pakistanis have their own heavy score to settle with the Taliban, whose bombing attacks have stretched from Peshawar to Lahore. The Pakistani spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, has been a special target, with attacks on some of its senior officers and regional headquarters. That's one reason the Pakistanis have been cooperative; they're angry and they want revenge.
"It became personal for the ISI," said the senior administration official. Enraged by the attacks on their colleagues, Pakistani officers have helped the CIA gather intelligence in the tribal areas. The Predator barrage "has given the Pakistanis some breathing room," the administration official said.
U.S. officials were frustrated last year that although Islamabad blessed attacks on the Pakistani Taliban fighters who were setting off bombs at home, the Pakistanis were reluctant to strike insurgents linked with the Afghan Taliban, such as the Haqqani network and the so-called Quetta Shura, who were killing U.S. soldiers. This still concerns U.S. officials, but they note some expansion of targets.
The Pakistanis now recognize that there is "more of a blending together and a co-location of these groups," the senior official explained. "There's much more mingling, and to us, it demonstrates the collusion." He said the Pakistanis, too, had come to "recognize that militant organizations are operating across groups."
The U.S.-Pakistani cooperation extends to other activities as well. A senior Pentagon official said Tuesday that in Bajaur, a tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the two countries' military operations were "much more coordinated" across the two sides of the border.
The collaboration comes despite public accounts of friction, as was the case during the recent visit to Pakistan by Defense Secretary Bob Gates. Officials from both countries said Tuesday that those reports had been overdrawn. A Pakistani military official said, for example, that a day after stories that the Pakistanis would delay any offensive in North Waziristan, they launched an airstrike there. North Waziristan has also been a target for the Predator salvos.
American military involvement in Pakistan surfaced in a bloody incident Wednesday in which three American soldiers were among those killed by a car bomb in a border district known as Lower Dir. The soldiers were part of a group of about 80 Special Forces members who have been training the Pakistani Frontier Corps, which operates in the tribal areas. The Frontier Corps has been stepping up operations against insurgents in tribal areas such as Bajaur, Orakzai, Kurram and Khyber, a Pakistani source said Tuesday.
The tensions in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship remain, and it's unlikely that Islamabad will be trumpeting publicly the success of the drone attacks. But the slaughter of Pakistani civilians and the brazen attacks on the country's military have made the Pakistanis want to fight back.
"Drone attack" has become a vernacular phrase in Urdu, but it may not be spoken with quite as much vituperation today as it was a few months ago, before the suicide bombers went about their bloody work in Pakistan's cities and towns."
"Revenge on the Taliban, from 10,000 feet
By David Ignatius -- The Washington Post
Thursday, February 4, 2010
In their joint operations against Taliban militants hiding in the tribal areas, the United States and Pakistan seem to have embraced a classic bit of battlefield advice: Don't get mad, get even.
Since the beginning of 2010, the United States has stepped up the pace of its Predator strikes, with quiet Pakistani support. These attacks appear to have killed Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, top lieutenant Qarimullah Hussain, who trained Taliban suicide bombers, and other key members of the insurgency, a senior administration official said Tuesday.
Though the Predators launch their Hellfire missiles from the lofty altitude of 10,000 feet, make no mistake: This is an intense and unrelenting campaign of assassination. It continued Tuesday with a fusillade of at least 17 missiles in North Waziristan, in an apparent assault on senior al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.
The Predator blitz this year followed a Dec. 30 suicide attack on a CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan, that had been active in targeting the Taliban insurgents across the border. That attack killed eight CIA personnel and left the agency eager to settle scores. The agency, backed by Pakistani intelligence, has done just that.
Hakimullah, who was hit Jan. 14, had posed in a taunting video with the Jordanian double agent who carried out the Khost bombing. Hakimullah also took credit for a wave of terrorist attacks across Pakistan that traumatized that nation.
Although Pakistan publicly criticizes the drone attacks, the administration official argued that the recent campaign "is being done in full concert and cooperation" with the Pakistani government. "We've been very pleased with the extent of the cooperation," the official said, adding that the "box" of geographical coordinates within which the Pakistanis allow the Predators to operate was wide enough to permit attacks on targets that are "geographically dispersed."
The Pakistanis have their own heavy score to settle with the Taliban, whose bombing attacks have stretched from Peshawar to Lahore. The Pakistani spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, has been a special target, with attacks on some of its senior officers and regional headquarters. That's one reason the Pakistanis have been cooperative; they're angry and they want revenge.
"It became personal for the ISI," said the senior administration official. Enraged by the attacks on their colleagues, Pakistani officers have helped the CIA gather intelligence in the tribal areas. The Predator barrage "has given the Pakistanis some breathing room," the administration official said.
U.S. officials were frustrated last year that although Islamabad blessed attacks on the Pakistani Taliban fighters who were setting off bombs at home, the Pakistanis were reluctant to strike insurgents linked with the Afghan Taliban, such as the Haqqani network and the so-called Quetta Shura, who were killing U.S. soldiers. This still concerns U.S. officials, but they note some expansion of targets.
The Pakistanis now recognize that there is "more of a blending together and a co-location of these groups," the senior official explained. "There's much more mingling, and to us, it demonstrates the collusion." He said the Pakistanis, too, had come to "recognize that militant organizations are operating across groups."
The U.S.-Pakistani cooperation extends to other activities as well. A senior Pentagon official said Tuesday that in Bajaur, a tribal area bordering Afghanistan, the two countries' military operations were "much more coordinated" across the two sides of the border.
The collaboration comes despite public accounts of friction, as was the case during the recent visit to Pakistan by Defense Secretary Bob Gates. Officials from both countries said Tuesday that those reports had been overdrawn. A Pakistani military official said, for example, that a day after stories that the Pakistanis would delay any offensive in North Waziristan, they launched an airstrike there. North Waziristan has also been a target for the Predator salvos.
American military involvement in Pakistan surfaced in a bloody incident Wednesday in which three American soldiers were among those killed by a car bomb in a border district known as Lower Dir. The soldiers were part of a group of about 80 Special Forces members who have been training the Pakistani Frontier Corps, which operates in the tribal areas. The Frontier Corps has been stepping up operations against insurgents in tribal areas such as Bajaur, Orakzai, Kurram and Khyber, a Pakistani source said Tuesday.
The tensions in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship remain, and it's unlikely that Islamabad will be trumpeting publicly the success of the drone attacks. But the slaughter of Pakistani civilians and the brazen attacks on the country's military have made the Pakistanis want to fight back.
"Drone attack" has become a vernacular phrase in Urdu, but it may not be spoken with quite as much vituperation today as it was a few months ago, before the suicide bombers went about their bloody work in Pakistan's cities and towns."
Tea Party Tea Bagger Lickers
I'm not sure that those Tea Party Tea Baggers really are Lickers.
To me, it's much more likely that nearly all of them are Suckers.
To me, it's much more likely that nearly all of them are Suckers.
Conservatives Can Still Destroy America
Defining the Second Great Depression
By Dylan Loewe
The Huffington Post -- February 3, 2010:
"From the moment he was sworn into office, President Obama had a pretty overwhelming task ahead of him. In that month, the economy lost 700,000 jobs. It lost nearly as many the month before. The credit markets had frozen; the financial institutions and auto industry would need undeserved bailouts. Saving the economy from a Second Great Depression would require an enormous effort, huge chunks of political capital, all with no guarantee that any of it would work.
A year later, it has worked. The Second Great Depression was averted. But no one seems to have noticed.
That's certainly understandable. Unemployment is still hovering at 10 percent. The president's budget forecast now predicts that unemployment won't drop below 10 percent until the end of 2010, and won't drop below 8 percent until the year 2012.
This straddles the administration with an especially difficult political problem. The economy is in a dramatically better place than it would have been without the administration's intervention. But because it is still in such a crummy spot, no one is giving the administration any credit.
That, by the way, seems to be as much the administration's fault as anyone else's. Anytime positive economic numbers are reported, administration officials are weary of taking a curtain call. When it was announced last week, for example, that the economy grew 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 -- an extraordinary achievement -- Larry Summers described it as a "a statistical recovery and a human recession." The administration's talking points about the budget includes this point: "A year later, the economy is back from the brink -- and is growing again. But this economic growth is cold comfort for the millions of Americans who have lost their job."
All of this is understandable. From a political standpoint, the last thing the administration needs is to sound tone deaf on the economy, to give the Americans the impression that they believe the current state of affairs deserves a mission accomplished banner.
But there is also a substantial risk in having only one possible response to economic news, whether it's good or bad. That kind of dynamic makes it difficult, if not impossible, for voters to have any faith in the economic policies that have worked so effectively thus far.
The other problem is this: Having avoided a Second Great Depression is obviously a big deal. But it's totally abstract. It could have been worse, sure, but how much worse is unclear to almost everyone, even those who are dialed into the daily debate.
The Democrats cannot afford to spend the next two years with the same basic posture about economic progress, without having clearly defined for the American people exactly what it was that we avoided with the Obama economic program.
It won't be easy, but there are already some clear markers that can be used as jumping off points. For example, Hank Paulson, who served as President Bush's Treasury Secretary and who orchestrated the first round of bailouts, has said in recent interviews that, absent the bailouts, he believes the unemployment rate in the country would have hit 25 percent.
Twenty-five percent!
We know that the stimulus bill created or saved two million jobs. But Paulson is making a much grander argument. With a workforce of more than 150 million people, Paulson is suggesting that the administration's continuation of the TARP program saved almost 23 million jobs.
That's what the Second Great Depression would have looked like. Not 15 million people unemployed. Closer to 40 million.
We know that climbing out of the economic hole we find ourselves in is going to take years. We also know that during that time, Republicans will be able to capitalize on economic populist anger to maintain their still relatively weak grip on power.
But if Democrats can't stand up and clearly articulate the nightmare scenario we were saved from, while championing the progress we're making everyday, then the economic disaster that Republicans caused may well be the same disaster that helps them surge back into power."
Conservatives have Done It Before ---And They Can Do It Again! Watch your back, Everybody.
By Dylan Loewe
The Huffington Post -- February 3, 2010:
"From the moment he was sworn into office, President Obama had a pretty overwhelming task ahead of him. In that month, the economy lost 700,000 jobs. It lost nearly as many the month before. The credit markets had frozen; the financial institutions and auto industry would need undeserved bailouts. Saving the economy from a Second Great Depression would require an enormous effort, huge chunks of political capital, all with no guarantee that any of it would work.
A year later, it has worked. The Second Great Depression was averted. But no one seems to have noticed.
That's certainly understandable. Unemployment is still hovering at 10 percent. The president's budget forecast now predicts that unemployment won't drop below 10 percent until the end of 2010, and won't drop below 8 percent until the year 2012.
This straddles the administration with an especially difficult political problem. The economy is in a dramatically better place than it would have been without the administration's intervention. But because it is still in such a crummy spot, no one is giving the administration any credit.
That, by the way, seems to be as much the administration's fault as anyone else's. Anytime positive economic numbers are reported, administration officials are weary of taking a curtain call. When it was announced last week, for example, that the economy grew 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009 -- an extraordinary achievement -- Larry Summers described it as a "a statistical recovery and a human recession." The administration's talking points about the budget includes this point: "A year later, the economy is back from the brink -- and is growing again. But this economic growth is cold comfort for the millions of Americans who have lost their job."
All of this is understandable. From a political standpoint, the last thing the administration needs is to sound tone deaf on the economy, to give the Americans the impression that they believe the current state of affairs deserves a mission accomplished banner.
But there is also a substantial risk in having only one possible response to economic news, whether it's good or bad. That kind of dynamic makes it difficult, if not impossible, for voters to have any faith in the economic policies that have worked so effectively thus far.
The other problem is this: Having avoided a Second Great Depression is obviously a big deal. But it's totally abstract. It could have been worse, sure, but how much worse is unclear to almost everyone, even those who are dialed into the daily debate.
The Democrats cannot afford to spend the next two years with the same basic posture about economic progress, without having clearly defined for the American people exactly what it was that we avoided with the Obama economic program.
It won't be easy, but there are already some clear markers that can be used as jumping off points. For example, Hank Paulson, who served as President Bush's Treasury Secretary and who orchestrated the first round of bailouts, has said in recent interviews that, absent the bailouts, he believes the unemployment rate in the country would have hit 25 percent.
Twenty-five percent!
We know that the stimulus bill created or saved two million jobs. But Paulson is making a much grander argument. With a workforce of more than 150 million people, Paulson is suggesting that the administration's continuation of the TARP program saved almost 23 million jobs.
That's what the Second Great Depression would have looked like. Not 15 million people unemployed. Closer to 40 million.
We know that climbing out of the economic hole we find ourselves in is going to take years. We also know that during that time, Republicans will be able to capitalize on economic populist anger to maintain their still relatively weak grip on power.
But if Democrats can't stand up and clearly articulate the nightmare scenario we were saved from, while championing the progress we're making everyday, then the economic disaster that Republicans caused may well be the same disaster that helps them surge back into power."
Conservatives have Done It Before ---And They Can Do It Again! Watch your back, Everybody.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
But Why Didn't Our Government Waterboard Umar?
Christmas Day bomb suspect Abdulmutallab providing intelligence, sources say
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
By Carrie Johnson -- The Washington Post:
"Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of trying to blow up a jet airplane on Christmas Day, has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week, Obama administration sources said Tuesday.
Separately, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told senators at an intelligence committee hearing that Abdulmutallab was giving information to investigators. Mueller did not elaborate.
The disclosures that the Nigerian student is cooperating with criminal investigators come amid a fierce debate in Congress over the Obama administration's handling of the case and, more broadly, its approach to national security.
Dennis C. Blair, President Obama's director of national intelligence, has said Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by special terrorism investigators instead of FBI agents. House and Senate Republicans have criticized the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Abdulmutallab in a civilian court, rather than through a military commission, and one Senate leader, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), has called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
The Obama administration asserts, however, that its approach is paying dividends. "It's been very successful as far as gaining his cooperation," a senior administration official told reporters late Tuesday, referring to Abdulmutallab. Officials have also said that the civilian legal system is more than capable of handling terrorism investigations and trials.
On the day of his arrest, Abdulmutallab told the FBI during a 50-minute interrogation at a Michigan hospital that he had been trained by an al-Qaeda branch in Yemen. He later stopped cooperating and asked for an attorney.
In recent days, two law enforcement sources said, Abdulmutallab has told authorities more about where he trained overseas and others he met there -- leads that the FBI has shared with other members of the U.S. intelligence community. Investigators are following up to corroborate the information.
U.S. investigators flew members of Abdulmutallab's family from Nigeria to the United States on Jan. 17, the senior administration official said. The family members have proved vital in getting Abdulmutallab to talk, he said -- indicating that it would have been counterproductive to interrogate him under military rules, as some have suggested.
The president is getting briefings on the interrogations of Abdulmutallab, the official said.
All three sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Officials are continuing to flesh out Abdulmutallab's contacts with radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who allegedly met with the suspect before the bombing, one source said.
No plea deal between Justice Department lawyers and federal public defender Miriam Siefer is imminent, the sources said, but both sides began negotiating last week, as reported by The Washington Post.
If convicted, Abdulmutallab faces a virtual life sentence on six criminal charges, including using a plane as a weapon of mass destruction. In exchange for his renewed cooperation, authorities could recommend that a federal judge reduce any prison sentence Abdulmutallab might face, a common occurrence in the criminal justice system.
Siefer did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but she is said to be helping advance the negotiations, along with representatives for Abdulmutallab's family, which is prominent in Nigeria, the law enforcement sources said.
The approach appears to closely follow the FBI and Justice Department's handling of David Coleman Headley, a Chicago resident accused of serving as an advance man for the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Headley has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges, but federal prosecutors and defense attorneys have said he has been sharing information with the FBI for months about his alleged contacts with terrorist-linked groups overseas."
Of course, the Right-Wing doesn't care about the practical results which the Obama Administration is achieving in combating world-wide terrorism. The Far Right is simply upset that our government didn't use the Bush-Cheney Standard Operating Procedures and have Abdulmutallab waterboarded --- just for the fun of it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
By Carrie Johnson -- The Washington Post:
"Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of trying to blow up a jet airplane on Christmas Day, has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week, Obama administration sources said Tuesday.
Separately, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told senators at an intelligence committee hearing that Abdulmutallab was giving information to investigators. Mueller did not elaborate.
The disclosures that the Nigerian student is cooperating with criminal investigators come amid a fierce debate in Congress over the Obama administration's handling of the case and, more broadly, its approach to national security.
Dennis C. Blair, President Obama's director of national intelligence, has said Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by special terrorism investigators instead of FBI agents. House and Senate Republicans have criticized the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Abdulmutallab in a civilian court, rather than through a military commission, and one Senate leader, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), has called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
The Obama administration asserts, however, that its approach is paying dividends. "It's been very successful as far as gaining his cooperation," a senior administration official told reporters late Tuesday, referring to Abdulmutallab. Officials have also said that the civilian legal system is more than capable of handling terrorism investigations and trials.
On the day of his arrest, Abdulmutallab told the FBI during a 50-minute interrogation at a Michigan hospital that he had been trained by an al-Qaeda branch in Yemen. He later stopped cooperating and asked for an attorney.
In recent days, two law enforcement sources said, Abdulmutallab has told authorities more about where he trained overseas and others he met there -- leads that the FBI has shared with other members of the U.S. intelligence community. Investigators are following up to corroborate the information.
U.S. investigators flew members of Abdulmutallab's family from Nigeria to the United States on Jan. 17, the senior administration official said. The family members have proved vital in getting Abdulmutallab to talk, he said -- indicating that it would have been counterproductive to interrogate him under military rules, as some have suggested.
The president is getting briefings on the interrogations of Abdulmutallab, the official said.
All three sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Officials are continuing to flesh out Abdulmutallab's contacts with radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who allegedly met with the suspect before the bombing, one source said.
No plea deal between Justice Department lawyers and federal public defender Miriam Siefer is imminent, the sources said, but both sides began negotiating last week, as reported by The Washington Post.
If convicted, Abdulmutallab faces a virtual life sentence on six criminal charges, including using a plane as a weapon of mass destruction. In exchange for his renewed cooperation, authorities could recommend that a federal judge reduce any prison sentence Abdulmutallab might face, a common occurrence in the criminal justice system.
Siefer did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but she is said to be helping advance the negotiations, along with representatives for Abdulmutallab's family, which is prominent in Nigeria, the law enforcement sources said.
The approach appears to closely follow the FBI and Justice Department's handling of David Coleman Headley, a Chicago resident accused of serving as an advance man for the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Headley has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges, but federal prosecutors and defense attorneys have said he has been sharing information with the FBI for months about his alleged contacts with terrorist-linked groups overseas."
Of course, the Right-Wing doesn't care about the practical results which the Obama Administration is achieving in combating world-wide terrorism. The Far Right is simply upset that our government didn't use the Bush-Cheney Standard Operating Procedures and have Abdulmutallab waterboarded --- just for the fun of it.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Supreme Court's Revolutionary Right-Wing Political Activism
Here's an excellent article from today's Washington Post about the Supreme Court going off the Far Right deep end:
Justice Alito's Candid Response to Obama's Rebuke
By E.J. Dionne Jr. --- The Washington Post
Monday, February 1, 2010
The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Obama's criticisms of the Supreme Court's recent legislation -- excuse me, decision -- opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.
Alito's inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.
Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed "not true." His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.
The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.
The movement's legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.
There is ample precedent for Obama's firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Ronald Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of 10 years earlier.
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution," Reagan wrote. "No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. . . . Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a 'right' so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born." Reagan cited Justice Byron White's description of Roe as an act of "raw judicial power," which is actually an excellent description of the court's ruling on corporate money in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Reagan had every right to say what he did. But why do conservatives deny the same right to Obama? Alternatively, why do they think it's persuasive to argue, as Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett did last week in the Wall Street Journal, that it's fine for a president to take issue with the court, except in a State of the Union speech? Isn't it more honorable to criticize the justices to their faces? Are these jurists so sensitive that they can't take it? Do they expect everyone to submit quietly to whatever they do?
In fact, conservatives have made the Supreme Court a punching bag since the 1960s, when "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers aimed at the liberal chief justice proliferated in right-wing precincts.
Richard Nixon made the Warren court's rulings on criminal justice a major issue in his 1968 presidential campaign. "Let us always respect, as I do, our courts and those who serve on them," he said in his acceptance speech that year. "But let us also recognize that some of our courts, in their decisions, have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country, and we must act to restore that balance." Many conservatives cheered this, too.
As for the specifics of Obama's indictment, Alito's defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court's decision on corporate political spending had reversed "a century of law" and also opened "the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations." But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court's recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don't acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures.
Alito did not like the president making an issue of the court's truly radical intervention in politics. I disagree with Alito on the law and the policy, but I have no problem with his personal expression of displeasure.
On the contrary, I salute him because his candid response brought home to the country how high the stakes are in the battle over the conservative activism of Chief Justice John Roberts's court.
Justice Alito's Candid Response to Obama's Rebuke
By E.J. Dionne Jr. --- The Washington Post
Monday, February 1, 2010
The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Obama's criticisms of the Supreme Court's recent legislation -- excuse me, decision -- opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.
Alito's inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.
Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed "not true." His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.
The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.
The movement's legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.
There is ample precedent for Obama's firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Ronald Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision of 10 years earlier.
"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution," Reagan wrote. "No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. . . . Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a 'right' so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born." Reagan cited Justice Byron White's description of Roe as an act of "raw judicial power," which is actually an excellent description of the court's ruling on corporate money in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Reagan had every right to say what he did. But why do conservatives deny the same right to Obama? Alternatively, why do they think it's persuasive to argue, as Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett did last week in the Wall Street Journal, that it's fine for a president to take issue with the court, except in a State of the Union speech? Isn't it more honorable to criticize the justices to their faces? Are these jurists so sensitive that they can't take it? Do they expect everyone to submit quietly to whatever they do?
In fact, conservatives have made the Supreme Court a punching bag since the 1960s, when "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers aimed at the liberal chief justice proliferated in right-wing precincts.
Richard Nixon made the Warren court's rulings on criminal justice a major issue in his 1968 presidential campaign. "Let us always respect, as I do, our courts and those who serve on them," he said in his acceptance speech that year. "But let us also recognize that some of our courts, in their decisions, have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country, and we must act to restore that balance." Many conservatives cheered this, too.
As for the specifics of Obama's indictment, Alito's defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court's decision on corporate political spending had reversed "a century of law" and also opened "the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations." But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court's recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don't acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures.
Alito did not like the president making an issue of the court's truly radical intervention in politics. I disagree with Alito on the law and the policy, but I have no problem with his personal expression of displeasure.
On the contrary, I salute him because his candid response brought home to the country how high the stakes are in the battle over the conservative activism of Chief Justice John Roberts's court.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Hitler, Limbaugh and Beck
Courtesy of Anon 2. Bravo, Anon 2. Well said. Thank you for your wise words of wisdom, to wit:
"Hitler was a dangerous madman whose listeners to his (dangerous) speeches took a whole country and many others to destruction, and 60 million lives. He had them entranced, brainwashed with his speeches. That was according to live witnesses.
There is the danger of Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk in being able to a certain extent to produce what Hitler produced by his ranting dangerous speeches, especially during the (world) German Depression.
People become mesmerized by Beck, etc, hanging on to their every untrue word and believing all of it. Sounds like Hitler stuff, if you listen to their voices.
Has anyone of you ever heard Hitler speak? Of course, through tapes.
Mobs can be and were easily created by people such as Hitler.
Brainwashing, people hanging onto their lips (radio, TV etc.) for more lies, desperately wanting to believe the deceptions.
People are gullible and easy prey. A lie becomes a fact, if it is repeated enough. Cons are master of the latter."
Bravo, Maestro -- Anon 2. I couldn't have said it better myself.
CJP
"Hitler was a dangerous madman whose listeners to his (dangerous) speeches took a whole country and many others to destruction, and 60 million lives. He had them entranced, brainwashed with his speeches. That was according to live witnesses.
There is the danger of Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk in being able to a certain extent to produce what Hitler produced by his ranting dangerous speeches, especially during the (world) German Depression.
People become mesmerized by Beck, etc, hanging on to their every untrue word and believing all of it. Sounds like Hitler stuff, if you listen to their voices.
Has anyone of you ever heard Hitler speak? Of course, through tapes.
Mobs can be and were easily created by people such as Hitler.
Brainwashing, people hanging onto their lips (radio, TV etc.) for more lies, desperately wanting to believe the deceptions.
People are gullible and easy prey. A lie becomes a fact, if it is repeated enough. Cons are master of the latter."
Bravo, Maestro -- Anon 2. I couldn't have said it better myself.
CJP
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Corporatism is Fascism, as the New Supreme Court Decision Shows
Here is an excellent comment which Anonymous placed on one of my recent posts, that is worth sharing with the world. Anonymous makes his point so well, to wit:
"When corporate takeover of government happens that is fascism, pure and simple.
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” And this so-called decision by the Court proves that.
Corporations taking over our Supreme Court to regulate voting, and we all know there are too many RIGHT wing judges on that bench, is the obvious and blatant fascism that Adolf Jr started when he stole the presidency over 10 years ago.
The only thing they're going to do is continue the right wing cheating, so they can steal more elections. Talk about voting against your own interests. Is this Nazi Germany or the US (using Godwin's Law automatically loses the argument because my point is valid). This country nearly turned into a carbon copy of then and I have nearly 400 examples that show it.
This decision IS un-American and stomps again on the Constitution, which is there to stop these sociopaths from destroying the country and to keep them in line. And yes, including those on the Supreme Court Bench.
And who is putting their own interest over the good of the country? The Right Wing. It’s their way or else and they’ll do everything they can to stop us from fighting back. Blind obedience to the REICH-wing has gone too far. Enough is enough.
The right wing also stole the “election” the 2nd time where they changed votes automatically on voting machines, which are “regulated” by... Guess who? Yes, Republicans. You do the math.
Germany learned. Obviously America didn’t. The last thing we need is a bunch of little Frieslers on the Bench. Is the Supreme Court turning into the “People’s” Court, which is everything but?"
"When corporate takeover of government happens that is fascism, pure and simple.
“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” And this so-called decision by the Court proves that.
Corporations taking over our Supreme Court to regulate voting, and we all know there are too many RIGHT wing judges on that bench, is the obvious and blatant fascism that Adolf Jr started when he stole the presidency over 10 years ago.
The only thing they're going to do is continue the right wing cheating, so they can steal more elections. Talk about voting against your own interests. Is this Nazi Germany or the US (using Godwin's Law automatically loses the argument because my point is valid). This country nearly turned into a carbon copy of then and I have nearly 400 examples that show it.
This decision IS un-American and stomps again on the Constitution, which is there to stop these sociopaths from destroying the country and to keep them in line. And yes, including those on the Supreme Court Bench.
And who is putting their own interest over the good of the country? The Right Wing. It’s their way or else and they’ll do everything they can to stop us from fighting back. Blind obedience to the REICH-wing has gone too far. Enough is enough.
The right wing also stole the “election” the 2nd time where they changed votes automatically on voting machines, which are “regulated” by... Guess who? Yes, Republicans. You do the math.
Germany learned. Obviously America didn’t. The last thing we need is a bunch of little Frieslers on the Bench. Is the Supreme Court turning into the “People’s” Court, which is everything but?"
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Supreme Court's Latest Un-American Decision
From Credo Action -- January 29, 2010:
Tell President Obama and the Congressional leadership to save our democracy.
We need to stop the corporate takeover of our electoral process.
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I support Rep. Alan Grayson's "Save Our Democracy" platform. Put the full power of your office behind these six simple reforms to stop corporations from taking over our democratic process.
More than 80,000 CREDO Action members have already signed to stop the Big Business takeover of our government. With your help, we can get to 100,000! Help keep the momentum going by signing this petition.
We deserve a country where our elected officials are not bought and paid for by Big Business. But last week's Supreme Court decision in the case Citizens United vs. FEC overturned over a century of precedent and opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our political system. Shockingly, the court's decision may even allow foreign corporations and large multinationals to manipulate our elections.
Progress on any issue we care about depends upon our ability to stop the corporate takeover of our electoral process. If we do nothing, this ruling has the potential to undermine the very foundation of our democracy.
Click here to automatically sign our petition to President Obama and the Congressional leadership telling them they must enact strong laws to save our democracy from the pernicious influence of corporate money.
Representative Alan Grayson has been one the most forceful voices in responding to this crisis. He has introduced a number of bills as part of a "Save Our Democracy" initiative to blunt some of the worst implications of the Supreme Court's decision.
The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive government money from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products and services.
The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company's shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company's products or services.
Without these types of laws, it will be even harder for candidates and elected officials to stand up to Big Business. Even before the decision, we too often saw the interests of Main Street subverted in favor of the interests of Wall Street. But with the Citizens United decision now the law of the land, large corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries to buy elections.
To put things in perspective, the roughly $745 million Barack Obama raised to run for President (which was the most money raised by any candidate ever to run for office in the U.S.) is dwarfed by the $45 billion in profits a single company (ExxonMobil) made in 2008.
We have heard that the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate will be deciding in the next few weeks upon a legislative package to push in response to the Citizens United decision. We need to ensure they respond boldly.
Tell President Obama and the Congressional leadership to save our democracy.
We need to stop the corporate takeover of our electoral process.
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I support Rep. Alan Grayson's "Save Our Democracy" platform. Put the full power of your office behind these six simple reforms to stop corporations from taking over our democratic process.
More than 80,000 CREDO Action members have already signed to stop the Big Business takeover of our government. With your help, we can get to 100,000! Help keep the momentum going by signing this petition.
We deserve a country where our elected officials are not bought and paid for by Big Business. But last week's Supreme Court decision in the case Citizens United vs. FEC overturned over a century of precedent and opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our political system. Shockingly, the court's decision may even allow foreign corporations and large multinationals to manipulate our elections.
Progress on any issue we care about depends upon our ability to stop the corporate takeover of our electoral process. If we do nothing, this ruling has the potential to undermine the very foundation of our democracy.
Click here to automatically sign our petition to President Obama and the Congressional leadership telling them they must enact strong laws to save our democracy from the pernicious influence of corporate money.
Representative Alan Grayson has been one the most forceful voices in responding to this crisis. He has introduced a number of bills as part of a "Save Our Democracy" initiative to blunt some of the worst implications of the Supreme Court's decision.
The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive government money from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products and services.
The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company's shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company's products or services.
Without these types of laws, it will be even harder for candidates and elected officials to stand up to Big Business. Even before the decision, we too often saw the interests of Main Street subverted in favor of the interests of Wall Street. But with the Citizens United decision now the law of the land, large corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries to buy elections.
To put things in perspective, the roughly $745 million Barack Obama raised to run for President (which was the most money raised by any candidate ever to run for office in the U.S.) is dwarfed by the $45 billion in profits a single company (ExxonMobil) made in 2008.
We have heard that the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate will be deciding in the next few weeks upon a legislative package to push in response to the Citizens United decision. We need to ensure they respond boldly.
Two Conservative GOP Lawmakers Drop Out of Nashville's Tea Party Convention
"Two conservative lawmakers have backed out of speaking engagements at next week's National Tea Party Convention, the latest trouble for the gathering of tea party activists.
Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., both prominent backers of the tea party movement, announced Thursday they won't attend the Feb. 4-6 event in Nashville, Tenn. Their offices released statements Tuesday citing concerns about how funds raised by the convention might be used.
Many tea party activists across the country are boycotting the convention because of its $550-a-person ticket price and the $100,000 speaking fee it is paying to Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential nominee.
The convention is being run by a for-profit Tennessee corporation registered to Tennessee lawyer Judson Phillips, who has said he hopes to make money on the convention."
That's how Conservatives run their "Populist" conventions -- with $550 per person tickets and $100,000 Speaker Fees.
Once again, the GOP shows it is the Party of the Haves and the Have Mores. What are all these simple, exploited "Tea Party sheep" doing at Tea Party conventions whose only goal is to wreck these poor people economically?
Reps. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., both prominent backers of the tea party movement, announced Thursday they won't attend the Feb. 4-6 event in Nashville, Tenn. Their offices released statements Tuesday citing concerns about how funds raised by the convention might be used.
Many tea party activists across the country are boycotting the convention because of its $550-a-person ticket price and the $100,000 speaking fee it is paying to Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice presidential nominee.
The convention is being run by a for-profit Tennessee corporation registered to Tennessee lawyer Judson Phillips, who has said he hopes to make money on the convention."
That's how Conservatives run their "Populist" conventions -- with $550 per person tickets and $100,000 Speaker Fees.
Once again, the GOP shows it is the Party of the Haves and the Have Mores. What are all these simple, exploited "Tea Party sheep" doing at Tea Party conventions whose only goal is to wreck these poor people economically?
US Economy Soars -- No Thanks to the "Party of No"
U.S. Economy Soars in Fourth Quarter of 2009
By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 29, 2010:
"The U.S. economy roared ahead in the final months of 2009, growing at its fastest rate in six years, as corporate America stopped slashing its inventories and again started to invest for the future.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, rose at a 5.7 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday. That is the highest pace of growth since 2003, and it constitutes strong proof that the recession reached its end earlier in 2009. It was also a surprisingly positive result, well above the 4.6 percent rate of GDP growth forecasters had expected."
By Neil Irwin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 29, 2010:
"The U.S. economy roared ahead in the final months of 2009, growing at its fastest rate in six years, as corporate America stopped slashing its inventories and again started to invest for the future.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, rose at a 5.7 percent annual rate in the fourth quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday. That is the highest pace of growth since 2003, and it constitutes strong proof that the recession reached its end earlier in 2009. It was also a surprisingly positive result, well above the 4.6 percent rate of GDP growth forecasters had expected."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
