Supreme Court

Palin: The Real `American Taliban'

dlindorff — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:33:39 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Back in the early days of the seemingly interminable Afghan
conflict, a young American, trapped in Afghanistan by the US invasion
of that country, was captured along with Taliban fighters and, after a
bit of captivity and “enhanced interrogation” at the tender mercies of
US troops, was transported back for trial in the US, where then
Attorney General John Ashcroft excitedly labeled him the “American
Taliban.”

But John Walker Lindh, railroaded into a 20-year jail sentence and
slapped with a gag order that bars him from talking about how he was
tortured for the entire length of his incarceration in Afghanistan, is
not the real American Taliban. That title surely belongs to our new
Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.

According to reporting in the latest edition of the National Enquirer,
a paper routinely maligned as a grocery-store scandal sheet, but
actually boasting a skilled investigative reporting team that makes
what passes for investigative reporting these days at most corporate
media shops look like bad jokes (it was the Enquirer that
exposed John Edwards’ extra-marital affair and blew his political
career out of the water), Palin sought to cover up, perhaps even from
John McCain, her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy until after she was
safely nominated. Her plan, says the Enquirer, which spoke to
acquaintances and neighbors in Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, had
been to get through the convention, then get daughter Bristol married
off to the infant-to-be’s father, 18-year-old Levi Johnston, and only
then disclose the pregnancy.

That devious scheme was reportedly scotched by Bristol, who the Enquirer reports was “at war” with her mother over the idea of a politically motivated shotgun wedding.

According to the Enquirer, it was that paper’s disclosure
to both Palin and the parents of Johnston, that it was ready to publish
the pregnancy story, that led Palin to break the bombshell news about
the pregnancy ahead of her nomination—a move that left the McCain
campaign embarrassed and exposed to ridicule over its obvious haste and
undeniable lack of any vetting of its vice presidential nominee.

Why should we care about this domestic melodrama? Because, besides
revealing the casualness with which the 72-year-old, health-impaired
McCain is willing to treat the job of picking his alternate and likely
mid-term successor, it reveals the deceptiveness and the inhumane,
ruthless fanaticism of Palin, a candidate who is trying to market
herself to voters as “Everymom.”

Few real moms or dads in their right mind would try to force a
17-year-old daughter and an 18-year-old boy to get married, simply
because they had accidentally conceived a baby. All the odds predict
that such parentally imposed pairings are doomed to failure, with much
unnecessary trauma and psychic damage to both kids and to their future
child along the way. Is Palin afraid her fellow believers on the
religious Right would condemn her if her daughter were allowed to bear
her child as a single parent? Is she afraid the child would be a (gasp)
“bastard”?

This kind of religious fanaticism, in which the welfare of young
children is run roughshod over for the sake of biblical correctness,
has been evident and roundly condemned by Americans when practiced in
Taliban-run Afghanistan, or Wahabi-run Saudi Arabia, where women don’t
get any choices about their futures. We don’t need it coming from the
White House.

I say, three cheers for Bristol for standing up to her tyrannical mom and saying no instead of “I do” on command.

Given the domestic drama, it was shameful that the Palins dragged
their daughter and Johnston down to the Twin Cities to be paraded in
front of the nation for the sake of their self-described pit bull mom’s
political career in a faux display of family togetherness. You knew
what the real story was by the embarrassed deer-in-the-headlight looks
on the two unsmiling teens’ faces as they were on put on display. You
knew it too by the way Palin, who devoted a considerable portion her
acceptance speech to talking up her family life, said not a word about
her daughter’s impending marriage—the date for which has been left
unstated.

My guess is that the supposed wedding will be conveniently pushed
back past Election Day, after which, if those two kids are lucky, or
plucky enough, it will be quietly forgotten.

With any luck, Palin’s vice presidential hopes will be history by
then too, and with them, the era of “Just Say No” sex education in our
nation’s schools.

Teens have enough trouble making their way in this crazy,
high-pressure world without having loopy, self-involved, religious
fanatic parents mucking their lives up further. And the last thing
they, or the rest of us, need is a national “imom” pushing her Taliban-like moral agenda on the whole nation through laws and the appointment of like-minded judges.
________________
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His
latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and
now available in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/35877';
digg_title = "Palin: The Real `American Taliban\'";
digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n Back in the early days of the seemingly interminable Afghan conflict, a young American, trapped in Afghanistan by the US invasion of that country, was captured along with Taliban fighters and, after a bit of captivity and “enhanced interrogation” at the tender mercies of US troops, was transported back for trial in the US, where then Attorney General John Ashcroft excitedly labeled him the “American Taliban.”\r\n\r\n But John Walker Lindh, railroaded into a 20-year jail sentence and slapped with a gag order that bars him from talking about how he was tortured for the entire length of his incarceration in Afghanistan, is not the real American Taliban. That title should probably belong to our new Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.\r\n\r";
digg_skin = 'standard';

Invasion of the Pumpheads!

dlindorff — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:08:54 -0400

By Dave Lindorff

Is America at the mercy of an invasion of the pumpheads?

The bizarre behavior of Bill Clinton during this campaign season, which has seen this once smooth-talking and politically uber-sophisticated campaigner repeatedly stick a foot in his mouth and undermine his wife’s struggling campaign, raises the issue of whether he is suffering from postperfusion syndrome—a now recognized cognitive impairment common in patients who have undergone heart bypass surgery.

Referred to in hospital jargon as “pumphead syndrome,” the condition, thought to be caused by debris and bubbles that are created and released into the bloodstream by artificial pumps used to circulate blood while hearts are being operated on—material that can block blood flow in smaller vessels in the brain, causing neurological damage--this recognized condition has been demonstrated in some studies to lead to significant cognitive impairment that can show up in as many as 42 percent of heart surgery patients even as long as five years after surgery.

Clinton underwent quadruple bypass surgery on Sept. 6, 2006, and accordiing to his doctors, instead of keeping his heart going during the procedure, they chose the method that involved shutting down his heart temporarily, and putting him temporarily on a heart pump--the method that can cause posperfusion syndrome.

At least in Clinton’s case, if he is a “pumphead,” the only damage he can do is to his wife’s campaign. He is no longer president or commander in chief. (Well, let me take that back. If she were elected, he could create havoc as First Spouse and chief pillow talker, but let’s not even go there!)

But what about Cheney, a man who has had five, count ‘em, five heart surgeries, each of which offered a 42% chance of causing permanent cognitive impairment? No wonder there are reports that this bizarre, eternally snarling, heavy drinking friend shooter is said to hum to himself loudly and tunelessly in the stall of the White House men’s room!

If we consider the likelihood that the man widely seen as the power in this administration is a pumphead, and that Bush himself, who spent a long time as a drunk and a cokehead (talk about the potential for, not to mention the clear evidence of mental impairment!), we are left with the almost inevitable conclusion that we have been led for the past two terms by a pair brain-damaged men—and that’s not even counting the members of the cabinet and National Security Council, the medical histories of whom we know nothing. Given the advanced age of most of the team, it’s a fair bet that a number of them have had heart surgery too.

Call it “Invasion of the Pumpheads!”

Certainly not everyone who undergoes heart surgery and gets put temporarily on a pump ends up mentally deficient, but the prevalence of the problem sounds to me like a pretty good reason to demand full medical disclosure from all candidates for higher office, and not just for president and vice president, but for cabinet posts too—and judgeships.

For starters, Republican presidential presumptive nominee John McCain, 71 and a known cancer survivor, has not released his medical records. That suspicious failure of candor in a man who has already run for president once, should tell us something right away. His behavior places him squarely in the pumphead suspicion category, especially given that the guy repeatedly fails to recognize the difference between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq, and thinks that the Iranians—nearly all Shia—are backing Al Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that is so anti-Iran that they are publicly calling on the US to attack that country! Even if he hasn’t had heart surgery, if he were elected and took office at age 72, he’d be the oldest president in history, and his prognosis for making it through one, much less two terms in one of the world’s most stressful jobs without having a heart attack seem slim.

Not that seemingly intelligent presidents haven’t been disastrous or haven’t made terrible decisions (think Nixon, Kennedy, Hoover and Wilson). But we’ve just endured two terms of a president with some kind of mental impairment with catastrophic results, and we had one in the 1980s with Alzheimer-afflicted Ronald Reagan, which set the nation on its course to bankruptcy. We certainly don’t need yet a third president of limited mental ability. It’s almost like we’re institutionalizing the concept.
_____________
DAVE LINDORFF is an investigative journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition. His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

More Tears For Clarence Thomas

Richard729 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 10:56:06 -0500

An editorial by Daniel Henninger that appeared in the Wall Street Journal November 8, A Medal For Miss Lee, continues the interminable harangue that U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was a victim of a high tech lynching over 16 years ago at his confirmation hearings. http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110010836

Henninger asks his readers to consider this question regarding Atticus Finch, the fictional attorney in Harper Lee's classic novel To Kill a Mockingbird: "What would Atticus Finch make of the "high-tech lynching" of Clarence Thomas?"

Clearly Mr. Henninger didn't understand the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas any more than he understands the message in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird -- that is, if he read it at all.

Sixteen years after his confirmation for Supreme Court justice by a Democratic-controlled committee, Thomas is still fuming over his perceived ill-treatment by its members and still carries his seething hatred of all things liberal and all things associated with the Democratic Party.

Mr. Henninger comments, "Atticus Finch, I think, would have objected to what was done to Clarence Thomas in that Senate confirmation hearing."

Perhaps Mr. Henninger has forgotten one simple truth: Clarence Thomas was confirmed and now sits on the highest court of the land while sixteen years later he is still engaging in ad hominem attacks against Anita Hill, spouting his childish tantrums and calling her his "most traitorous adversary."

Rancor, bitterness and vindictiveness exemplified by Clarence Thomas, however, are the hallmarks and the defining principles entrenched in the Republican Party. Nobody should expect Thomas' simmering hatred to become tempered over time -- and it hasn't.

On the contrary, Henninger exploits the ceremony honoring Harper Lee who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, magnifying the inveterate, long-standing hatred and contempt that Rupert Murdoch and his confederates have for anyone who dares to criticize or obstruct the conservative agenda hell-bent on installing like-minded, lifetime-appointed, partisan, activist ideologues on every federal court.

It matters little to the Rupert Murdoch Wall Street Journal editors, once a revered business journal, that Thomas had only one year of judicial experience before being ensconced on the highest court of the land.

This is the standard by which George H. W. Bush chose to confront the Democrat-chaired committee when he decided to play the race card in nominating Clarence Thomas who never balks at an opportunity to advance his partisan, activist right wing ideology that is far outside Americans' mainstream interests. His rulings are as predictable as are the right wing fulminations which are appearing with more and more frequency in the Rupert Murdoch Wall Street Tabloid.

I doubt if the fictional Atticus Finch would have any more use for Clarence Thomas' peevish complaints than he would for the distortions of facts produced by a journal that has long since lost its moral compass by abandoning any semblance of truthful reporting.

Richard A. Stitt
Austin, TX

Bush RATS Court Launches Blistering Attacks Against U.S. Constitution Rights

Richard729 — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:25:21 -0400

The groundwork was set for the inevitable and predictable anti-U.S. Constitution decisions the minute Samuel Alito procured his lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court on January 31, 2006. G. W. Bush stated, "Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench. He is a man of deep character and integrity, and he will make all Americans proud as a justice on our highest court."

Alito’s 58-42 confirmation, one of the lowest approvals ever for a Supreme Court justice, now rounds out Bush’s much sought-after activist, partisan phalanx of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (RATS) court who are now fulfilling each and every one of his and the corporate profiteers’ desires. Recent decisions, as well as those previously ruled on by his colleague-in-arms, Chief Justice John Roberts, foretold the direction in which this court was inexorably headed. And, predictably, they have decided cases exactly as Bush and his right wing activists intended -- narrow-minded, tunnel-vision interpretations, legislated straight from the bench under the direction and aegis of the executive branch.

The U. S. Supreme Court in 2007 has become the equivalent of the Star Chamber of King Henry VIII which was employed as a political weapon for bringing actions against opponents to the policies of the King, in this case G. W. Bush. Like the Star Chamber which bypassed the lower courts of Henry VIII‘s realm, the Bush Vs. Gore case in 2000 also went quickly to the William Rehnquist-led U.S. Supreme Court, installing Bush in the White House via a 5-4 judicial fiat.

The Bush crowd, now with all their ducks in place, is demonstrating their utter contempt and hostility towards individual freedoms and liberties, working to bypass the lower courts, confident that those whom they appointed to the highest court will do their bidding by denying the congressional subpoenas requesting them to answer to the people, requests which they have derisively rejected.

A key to the incredibly sophomoric legal opinions and a precursor to the recent assaults against the citizens of the United States were demonstrated by Chief Justice John Roberts early in his lifetime-appointed Supreme Court tenure. The case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Georgia v. Randolph, in a March 22, 2006 decision in which Samuel Alito did not participate, the divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police cannot enter a home and seize evidence without a warrant when one occupant agreed to the search after the other occupant refused permission. By a 5-3 vote, the high court said the husband's refusal in a case from Georgia was clear, making the search unreasonable and invalid under the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy rights, despite his wife's approval for it. But here’s the pièce de résistance issued by Roberts where he dissented from the majority opinion: “What the majority rule protects is not so much privacy as the good luck of a co-owner who just happens to be present at the door when the police arrive.”

So, for Chief Justice Roberts, whose subsequent opinion regarding a citizen’s Fourth Amendment protections, reveals his preordained mind-set, it’s just a matter of luck as to who answers the door when law enforcement officers come-a-knockin‘.

For those who wish to see the equally absurd, almost comical jurisprudence and logic of Clarence Thomas who joined Roberts in his opinion during the same case, Georgia v. Randolph, read his dissent. In effect, Clarence Thomas goes so far to say this isn’t even a case of Fourth Amendment protections. Rather, as his fractured thinking surmises, it’s perfectly O.K. if an individual harbors a grudge against another person and simply walks up to a policeman and accuses them of possessing drugs. That’s reason enough, concludes Thomas, for the accused person’s home to be invaded, searched and their personal property seized.

But having this pre-determined antithesis for individual Constitutional protections and liberties, John Roberts exacted his revenge on his liberal colleagues once Samuel Alito completed the pro-Bush administration’s RATS Supreme Court entourage.

In Hudson v. Michigan decided on June 15, 2006, Roberts, joined by Alito, Thomas, Scalia (RATS) + one so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, ruled that police may bust into your home without a warning or a court-ordered warrant, search your home and seize your personal belongings. The decision has been referred to as the “No Knock” rule. Now, thanks to the RATS court, Bush can order his police state goons and thugs to arrest, search, seize and confine anyone without reasonable cause or court-obtained search warrant.

According to a June 16, 2006 Washington Post story, “Before yesterday's [June 15] decision, police executing a search warrant in most jurisdictions had to worry that they might lose a case if they did not first knock on the door, announce themselves and wait a reasonable time for a response before forcing their way in. Now, unless state law says otherwise, the most they would face is administrative discipline or a lawsuit for damages.

Civil liberties groups and defense lawyers had argued to the court that those deterrents are far too weak to enforce the "knock and announce" rule, which, they argued, is often all that stands between an innocent citizen and an errant SWAT team.”

These and other earlier decisions, many of which favored large corporate business interests over citizens’ rights, health and safety, emboldened the Bush administration to put their fully-empowered RATS court, which has now become an extension and an arm of the executive branch, into pursuing aggressive assaults against the United States citizens’ once-inalienable rights and liberties contained in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In Morse v. Frederick, better known as “Bong hits for Jesus” the RATS court decided that free speech must take a back seat to the indignation and sensitivities of school administrators, ruling that one of the student perpetrators, Frederick, who unfurled the sign, was promoting drugs. Mostly Ignored in the decision was the mitigating fact that both Frederick and the administrator, Morse, were involved in a personal, ongoing feud. But, the case, pursued by Bill Clinton inquisitor and prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, who gained notoriety for his smut-filled impeachment report, was supported by the Bush administration to test the limits of free speech. This ruling will affect future battles between free speech advocates and the attempts at repressing free speech by G. W. Bush (and other power-crazed autocrats) and his totally politicized Justice Department which is stacked with Bush loyalists.

The Ninth Circuit Court “found a First Amendment violation by the school administrators because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption.”

The RATS court found otherwise and ruled against Frederick, sending a chilling message to all who dare to voice their views publicly, whether with banners or other forms of speech which only the government, much in the same manner that G. W. Bush has the authority to decide who he alone identifies as an enemy combatant, gets to make the call. This precedent-setting ruling now stands on the books as the law of the land. It is eerily reminiscent of the declaration made by former Bush press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who, in the aftermath of 9/11 warned administration critics, “You better watch what you say and you better watch what you do.”

Now, we know, a banner proclaiming “Bong hits for Jesus,” according to the RATS court ruling, does indeed cause “substantial disruption.” Oh yes, we can see how people rioted in the streets, burned cars and caused total mayhem -- all because of an innocuous sign! Does it make you wonder though if, for example, a person held up a sign that said, “Miller Lite for Jesus” that would constitute a substantial disruption? Which of the two drugs, alcohol or marijuana, is most likely to cause aggressive behavior? But, of course, I should’ve known, the RATS court would never do anything to disrupt the liquor lobby by taking a case that might cut into their bottom line!

As the RATS court juggernaut kept rolling over what they perceive the Founding Fathers intended, they decided to continue chipping away at the First Amendment Establishment Clause by specifically endorsing and embracing religion and a government-sponsored program to the exclusion of secular ones, ruling that Bush’s Office of Faith-based and Community Services must be supported by taxpayers’ money.

Both Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have publicly stated that they are “originalists,” meaning that, they among the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, know unequivocally what the Founding Fathers meant to say when they penned the U.S. Constitution. This is a moot argument because no citizen or legal scholar can challenge that position since Scalia and Thomas have secure, lifetime appointments and do not need to answer or explain themselves to anyone. Once again, via a 5-4 decision by the RATS court plus one so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, mandating public funds for religious institutions supported predominantly by Christian organizations, has become the unassailable law of the land.

In a Media Transparency story Bill Berkowitz reported, “David Kuo, the former second-in-command of the White House Office faith-based organizations to help the poor, published a book titled "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," which provided an insiders look at how the Bush White House politicized the initiative, sometimes rejecting applications for federal faith-based funds because they came from non-Christian applicants, mocked leaders of the Christian Right, and betrayed the very essence of the faith-based initiative's charge to help the poor.”

Also, Bush’s crusade to promote “healthy marriage” includes such controversial figures as the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Korean evangelist, whose Unification Church has been on the federal payroll receiving government grants.

So, in spite of Bush’s RATS court legalese mumbo-jumbo, their sole purpose in taking this case was to set the groundwork for tearing apart, not only freedom of speech, but to advance the Religious Right’s oft-repeated contention that the separation between religion and state is a myth.

Clearly, with tax-exempt status for religious institutions firmly embedded in our tax laws the RATS court has now mandated that all American taxpayers must pony up countless and unaccountable millions of dollars to fund, promote and intertwine religion and government, the goal of which is a punitive-minded theocracy that will rule over America.

In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, diverse, pluralistic society America in the past has always respected the tenets of our U.S. Constitutional laws and protected the rights, freedoms and liberties of all -- until the Bush administration took over via the insidious, partisan, activist, right wing ideologues on the U.S. Supreme Court who installed Bush in the White House in December 2000 via a 5-4 judicial fiat.

Terry Randall, former head of Operation Rescue, underscored that intent forcefully when he stated, “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty; we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

Terry Randall’s message was punctuated emphatically by the current RATS court plus one so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy. Their recent spate of anti-U.S. Constitution rulings came about because our U.S. courts, our U.S. Department of Justice and most of our legislators in the U.S. Congress have become handmaidens to the avarice of the corrupt, corporate profiteers whose figurehead and chief CEO, G. W. Bush, was elevated to a kingly throne, installed by five, unelected, lifetime appointees who have now devolved into nothing more than factotums of the corporate plutocracy.

In approximately 600 days G. W. Bush will leave office with the legacy as the most failed presidency in our nation’s history. Nothing will change that. Unfortunately, the detritus left behind in Bush’s RATS court will affect our nation for decades -- unless of course, the people elect legislators who have the courage and fortitude to put the reins on this breathtaking, unbridled judicial arrogance which is moving ever closer to destroying what’s left of our democracy.

Richard A. Stitt

Replacement for Sen. Thomas does not have to be Republican

richardmathews — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:59:35 -0400

Is Governor Freudenthal (D-WY) actually required to pick a Republican to replace Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY)?

State law says so, but it may violate the U.S. Constitution. So says University of California law professor Vikram Amar writing for findlaw.com. Professor Amar is also a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun.

See the arguments, vote in a poll, and participate in the discussion at
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/6/71141/06254

You will also find a sample letter there to send to Governor Freudenthal to ask him to consider all of his options.

If The Millstone (GONZALES) Were Around The Other Neck

thepen — Thu, 17 May 2007 19:16:48 -0400

TELL CONGRESS TO REMOVE GONZALES BY CONSTITUTIONAL FORCE IF NECESSARY

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach_gonzales.php

You can call toll free at 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 and ask for your own House member and Senators.

For an administration in which utter smirking defiance of law and the will of the American people is the only operational mode, IMPEACHMENT is the only remedy.

How bad can it possibly get before Congress will act? In explosive testimony this week before the Senate, the former number two official in the Justice apartment, James B. Comey, testified that Alberto Gonzales tried to bully a deathly sick John D. Ashcroft into signing off on a secret and massive domestic wiretap scheme which had already been determined to be profoundly illegal. Even the Washington Post was compelled to editorialize on Wednesday as follows:

"the straight-as-an-arrow former No. 2 official at the Justice Department, yesterday offered the Senate Judiciary Committee an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source."

And if that were not bad enough, Gonzales had previously testified UNDER OATH, that there had been no disagreements in the department about implementation of the program. So he just bald-faced lied and perjured himself again, and again, and again. And he's still doing it.

The situation is so bad that 56 members of Alberto's Harvard Law school graduating class took out an ad also in the Post excoriating him for his outlaw abuse of power. The Harvard Crimson further reports that there was NO dissent whatsoever in this from members of that class, even among those who for professional reasons could not sign on publicly.

So what is the response of Congress? Some Democrats today proposed a no confidence vote. What exactly is that supposed to accomplish? How many times have you heard Bush say, "Well, he has my confidence", in the face of dramatically manifest incompetence and malfeasance by his appointed cronies? When is Congress going to confront the fact that we are dealing with a Constitutionally criminal organization in the White House from top to bottom?

When will Congress stop being a damn debating society and exercise the POWER we gave them in November.? What part of exercising power don't they get?

Look at the side show going on right now about another Bush gang member, Wolfowitz, who has long outstayed his welcome the World Bank, and still will not give up power until they pry it out of his fingers. It was actually reported yesterday that Wolfowitz was demanding that the bank accept culpability for some part of his wrongdoing as a condition of stepping down. Isn't that just a little like a bank robber demanding that a bank share guilt for making itself too easy to rob?

We'll frankly be surprised if Bush doesn't demand for Gonzales a seat on the Supreme Court as part of his severance package.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/impeach_gonzales.php

What'cha gonna do, Congress? You better start dusting of that impeachment clause in the Constitution quick, fast and in a hurry. We're really gonna need it.

If the millstone were around the other neck, every right wing cable news pod person would be screaming for impeachment, not only for Gonzales, but for the whole lying, stealing, preemptive war murdering lot of them. Falwell would be howling from his casket right now. Maybe it's time for us do a lot more howling of our own.

Bush Court to Women: Drop Dead

Bob Fertik — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:17:03 -0400

NOW's outstanding President Kim Gandy speaks for me:

Today the Supreme Court upheld this nation's first abortion procedure ban—a ban enacted by George W. Bush and conservatives in Congress. Five justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito—both installed by Bush and a Republican-majority Senate—ruled that the law does not violate a woman's constitutional right to abortion.

Not since Bush v. Gore has the Supreme Court made such a political decision, or one that so completely distorts the law and disregards the U.S. Constitution.

The law is so vaguely written that it may ban the most common abortion procedure used after 12 weeks of pregnancy, and there is no exception to allow its use if the woman's health is in serious danger. The joint ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood is a major step in the campaign to outlaw all abortions, first by chipping away at and then by fully overturning Roe v. Wade.

Bush used his allies' control in Congress to push through anti-abortion legislation, and he used their power to confirm anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court—justices who have now upheld that same legislation.

The National Organization for Women and other advocates predicted as much, and fought tooth and nail against the confirmation of Roberts, and even more passionately against Alito, who replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Now we see that apparently, everything Roberts and Alito said at their confirmation hearings about respecting precedent was a pack of lies.

When the time came for women's rights supporters in the Senate to prevent confirmation of Sam Alito, the "fifth vote" against abortion rights, only 25 senators stood up for women. And indeed he was the fifth vote for the majority in today's decision. The senators who voted to end the Democratic filibuster, thus allowing Alito to join the court, must be reminded that their failure led to this day. We must stop the stacking of the federal courts and work toward a congressional majority that supports women's rights.

Tellingly, seven years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court ruled against an almost identical ban enacted in Nebraska. The clear precedent set by Stenberg in 2000 was the reason three U.S. Courts of Appeal declared the federal ban unconstitutional. But last year the Bush administration pressed on with appeals to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

So why did Gonzales forge ahead when a clear precedent had been set only six years earlier? And why did the court uphold this ban, effectively undoing that precedent? In the dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains it quite clearly:

"Though today's opinion does not go so far as to disregard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed that it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of the 'rule of law' and the 'principles of stare decisis.'"

In other words: The Supreme Court changed, stupid!

This is a clarion call for feminists, progressives and everyone who cares about justice, equality and democracy. We must link arms and say "No more."

We must elect a Congress that will repeal this ban and a president who will sign the repeal.

November 2008 can't come soon enough.

Supreme Court to EPA: Regulate Green House Gases

Chip — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 16:34:29 -0400

In a ground-breaking 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled today that the Environmental Protection Agency has the power to regulate the polluting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from vehicles. The decision moves Bush administration further along the path from its former position of complete and aggressive denial of global warming to tepid acknowledgment, now forcing the Bush administration to recognize and regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The court's decision underscores the reality of human activities contributing to global warming.

The Bush Administration had argued that the EPA had no authority to regulate motor vehicle admissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court’s decision also throws into question the Bush Administration’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, further embarrassing the Bush Administration in the world community.

"A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related," Justice Stevens wrote. Noting that the administration offered "no reasoned explanation" for not acting on the question of whether greenhouse gases should be regulated, the majority opinion cited the EPA’s position as "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."

The agency plans to review the ruling and decide how best to interpret it, which could take through the end of Bush’s term.

The decision comes at a time when American automakers are bankrupt and struggling to stay afloat in the face of foreign competition more appealing and responsive to consumer needs and desires. American auto makers are reintroducing ways to appeal to global markets. An electric car was introduced in 1890. Popular electric vehicles were introduced for lease in California and a popular film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" tells the story of its crushing demise early in the decade.

The majority opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Dissenters were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent: "The Court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation...No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this Court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency."

supreme court

ebascom — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 13:15:01 -0400

In the wake of congress investigation into republican led couruption.

Can the supreme court force people testify under oath, under the constiution?

I just read in the Chicago Tribune that some people are claiming the 5th amendment, can the supreme court override that?

Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:16:35 -0500

It's not overstating the case to say that 2007 could be make or break for US democracy.

The Bush administration's cutbacks and rollbacks in 2006 were so frequent and so egregious that many Americans stopped paying attention, gave up hope or else failed to see the onslaught as part of a larger pattern.

Which brings up the f-word.

In 2007, I’ll be decreasing to two articles a month, so wanted to end the year ‘with a bang.’ The past few days I’ve been thinking about Laurence Britt’s 2003 article about the 14 elements of fascism... how would they apply to life under Bush today?

Below is the first of a two-part series for BuzzFlash. I'm imagining that folks here at Democrats.com have a lot more examples for each category. I'd love to hear them -

Happy holidays!

Heather

* * *

Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - attributed to Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander and Third Reich official

It's not overstating the case to say that 2007 could be make or break for US democracy.The Bush administration's cutbacks and rollbacks in 2006 were so frequent and so egregious that many Americans stopped paying attention, gave up hope or else failed to see the onslaught as part of a larger pattern.

Which brings up the f-word.

In 2003, Laurence W. Britt wrote a seminal article comparing fascist regimes, such as Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, to life under Bush. While the term fascism has been widely overused (in August, Rumsfeld even accused war critics of "a new type of fascism") Britt's analysis eerily resonated back then and is worth a second look today.

This two-part series recaps Bush's record in 2006 under the framework of Britt's "fourteen common threads" of fascism and makes predictions for 2007. ***The examples below are more indicative than exhaustive; Project for an Old American Century has a comprehensive links page spanning Bush's presidency.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

In July, Bush signed the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act so Americans could "express their patriotism here at home without burdensome restrictions."

What burdensome restrictions?

With similar fanfare, he issued a "proclamation" in October noting that patriotism "can help our children develop strength and character."

Less than two weeks later, he authorized the building of 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the US-Mexican border.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

Bush started off 2006 by weakening a new law banning the torture of prisoners. Soon after, the Army shut down a probe into Iraqi prisoner abuse, despite the fact that no Americans involved had even been questioned. In June, the Pentagon decided to strip the US Army Field Manual of Geneva Convention protections which ban "humiliating and degrading treatment." A Brooklyn federal judge ruled that non-US-citizens could be detained and indefinitely held on "the basis of religion, race or national origin."

Bush finally admitted to the existence of secret CIA prisons across the world in September, simultaneously calling for a resumption of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.

In October, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, handing Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charge. For good measure, the Act eliminated habeas corpus review for aliens and provided retroactive immunity in US courts for officials (such as Bush) who authorized the offending actions.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

In February, the United American Committee organized rallies across the country to fight so-called Islamofascism and to "unify all Americans behind a common goal and against an enemy that is seeking to destroy values we all hold dearly."

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) stirred up anti-Muslim bigotry by writing his constituents: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

CNN host Glenn Beck got into the act by challenging Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." Rep. Goode also took a swipe at Ellison, by suggesting that without a tough stance on immigration "there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office." Goode failed to note that Ellison's ancestry in the US traces back over 260 years.

In December, the Inter Press News Agency reported: "Recent polls indicate that almost half of U.S. citizens have a negative perception of Islam and that one in four of those surveyed have 'extreme' anti-Muslim views ... a quarter of people here consistently believe stereotypes such as: 'Muslims value life less than other people' and 'The Muslim religion teaches violence and hatred.'"

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

The administration's war spending for FY 2007 is expected to reach $170 billion, with roughly $7 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That has meant cuts to domestic social and development programs.Bush's proposed FY 2007 budget, for example, slashed funding for a full 141 programs, ranging from educational grants to maternal/child health services to rural fire assistance. The same budget requested $6.4 billion for nuclear "weapons activities."

The line between war and entertainment blurred further in 2006, with three separate military television channels (The Military Channel, the Military History Channel and the Pentagon Channel) beaming 24/7 into millions of Americans' homes. In August, the Army revealed plans to build a 125-acre military theme park, designed to help armchair warriors "command the latest M-1 tank, feel the rush of a paratrooper freefall, fly a Cobra Gunship or defend your B-17 as a waist gunner."

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

In January, the stridently anti-abortion Samuel Alito was confirmed to the US Supreme Court. Alito had previously argued that the strip-search of a mother and ten-year old girl without a warrant was constitutional.

The following month, the Supreme Court ended an injunction protecting abortion clinics across the country and agreed to reconsider a ban on certain abortion procedures.

In 2005, Bush appointed a veterinarian to handle women's health issues at the FDA, and in 2006, he tapped Eric Keroack for the Health and Human Services Department. Keroack opposes contraception, has described premarital sex as "modern germ warfare," and espouses the bizarre, unscientific belief that casual sex depletes "bonding" hormones, yet is now heading family planning programs for the whole nation.

The National Security Department revised its guidelines regarding access to classified government information in 2006 so that "sexual orientation of the individual" more strongly impacted the granting of security clearances. The Pentagon also admitted to spying on groups opposed to the ban on gays and lesbians in the military.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

Tony Snow, an anchor from the slavishly pro-Bush Fox News, became White House Press Secretary. Fox continued featuring propagandist on-screen text, including: "Attacking Capitalism: Have Dems Declared War on America?"
"Is the Democratic Party Soft on Terror?"
"Dems Helping the Enemy?"
"Is the Liberal Media Helping to Fuel Terror?"

ABC did its pro-Bush part by running a factually-inaccurate miniseries shifting blame for the 9/11 attacks towards Bill Clinton. Intriguingly, an ABC investigative journalist had reported months earlier that the Bush administration was tracking his phone calls to identify confidential sources.

In February 2006, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Bush administration was spending more than a billion dollars each year on PR to promote its dubious policies. The FCC soon began investigating the administration's fake news reports, but that didn't stop the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from issuing taxpayer-funded misinformation criticizing the global-warming film, An Inconvenient Truth.

In August, the US military offered a $20 million public relations contract to sanitize the carnage in Iraq. Months later, a Pentagon self-assessment unsurprisingly found that the military's propaganda program in Iraq was, in fact, legal.

Thanks to Bush's partisan appointments, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (mandated to prevent political interference in public broadcasting) is now run by: CEO Patricia S. Harrison, former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee; Chairperson Cheryl Halpern, a Republican fund-raiser; and Gay Hart Gaines, an interior designer "long active in Republican Party affairs ... a trustee of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, and a board member and president of the Palm Beach Republican Club."

A recently-declassified Pentagon document entitled "Information Operations Roadmap" states that the Defense Department will "'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system." The document also notes that US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum."

Meanwhile, domestic net neutrality remains under threat.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

Congress renewed the US Patriot Act in March, after a well-timed nerve agent scare on Capitol Hill. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats spoke of civil liberties yet voted for Patriot II.

Federal agents without warrants continued eavesdropping on the electronic communications of US citizens.

While under investigation in the Plamegate CIA leak case, Presidential advisor Karl Rove promised to turn terror into a congressional campaign issue. Schools in many states began conducting terrorism lockdown drills.

In October, Bush signed the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act, weakening the 200-year-old Insurrection Act and increasing the president's power to deploy troops domestically. According to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), the development "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law."

The Senate finished up 2006 by unanimously voting for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA), an unwieldy bureaucracy charged with developing drugs and vaccines to deal with a domestic terrorist attack. BARDA is so secret it will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Other pending "biodefense" legislation not only mandates that US citizens take recommended vaccines or drugs during a "public health emergency affecting national security" but also indemnifies both the US government and biodefense manufacturers against any resulting injuries.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

One perk of Bush's pandering to the religious right is the blind devotion he often receives in return. For example, the online Presidential Prayer Team had this "request" for December 28, 2006:
"Pray for President and Mrs. Bush as they spend the Christmas holiday at their Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, TX. Pray for the President as on December 28, he meets with the members of the National Security Council, including Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Rice and Gates, Gen. Peter Pace, Stephen Hadley, and J.D. Crouch ... As candidates continue to declare their intent to run for the presidency, pray for God's guiding of this process, asking Him for godly candidates and for a leader to be elected who will serve Him well."

Bush isn't above blurring the line between divine will and partisan politics himself. In proclaiming a National Day of Prayer this May, he noted: "May our Nation always have the humility to trust in the goodness of God's plans."

God's plans or Bush's plans?

The administration has also broken ground in providing government funding to religious groups - separation of church and state be damned. In FY 2005, for example, religious charities were awarded federal grants totaling $2.15 billion, a 7% increase over 2004. A full eleven federal agencies have now become part of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program, most recently, the Homeland Security Department. In February, the IRS reported widespread political activity violations by churches and charities, including using the pulpit to endorse candidates, distributing partisan material and making improper cash donations.

* * *Look for the second half of "Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?" on Tuesday. Part II finishes reviewing Bush's record in 2006, makes predictions for 2007, and discusses how to ensure a more progressive future.

See you Tuesday -

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives' Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now series (listen to Heather's recent interviews on the books with Talk Nation Radio's Dori Smith). Heather can be contacted via her site www.heatherwokusch.com.