« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 31, 2005
Much Better
Alito is an improvement if for no other reason then because everyone knows where he stands.
We elected these Senators and President so we can get some conservatives in the court, if you want us to back you again, fight for what we want and screw the minority who has no agenda.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 29, 2005
MoveOn Watch: MoveOn Caught in Deceptive Cover-Up!
The MoveOn e-mail reads "Indicted! White House Caught In Iraq Cover-Up". Except one thing, the investigation has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
Here is the text of the memo that empowered Fitzgerald as to what he can investigate:
Dear Patrick: At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
You can read all the documents from the investigation here, but you'll quickly notice that whether the administration lied or not has NOTHING to do with this investigation. The investigation is SOLELY in relation to the alleged outing of a CIA agent. Coincidently no one has been charged with that. The motivations for going to Iraq, what was said and not said, what intel might have been twisted, and so on, are no where near the scope of this investigation. At all.
MoveOn, so desperate to spin this is making this investigation something that it is not. Such attempts at deception indicate that they have to resort to deception and lies because they have no other points. They are trying to make a Watergate where it does not exist.
The e-mail is attached with only parts that might identify the email I subscribed with removed.
====
Subject: Indicted! White House Caught In Iraq Cover-Up
Dear MoveOn member,
Today, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States was
indicted by a federal grand jury.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced
that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and
obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that
led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned. Top White House
advisor Karl Rove remains under federal investigation.
This is one of the biggest scandals to rock the White House in America's
229-year history.
But The New York Times reported that the Bush spin machine will resort to
"attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal
technicalities." [1] The battle over public opinion begins today. We must
remind the country that this scandal isn't about a "technicality"--it's
about a White House scheme to cover-up the lies that led our nation into
one of the most deadly foreign policy blunders in our nation's history.
Can you write a letter to the editor to remind folks that there's no
graver crime than misleading a country into war, and then covering it up?
Our tool makes it easy to write to your local paper:
Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into
the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson.
The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same charge.
So why did the White House leak a CIA agent's name? To punish her husband,
a former ambassador who had gone public with evidence that the Bush
Administration lied about WMD and nuclear threats in the run-up to war in
Iraq.
Here is a primer on what happened:
The 2003 Bush State of the Union: President Lies About Iraq Nuclear
Capability
* In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case
for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about
Iraq's nuclear capability: "The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." [2]
* But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was
false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein
tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons [3].
* Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to
support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA,
and the CIA told the White House [3].
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson's Findings And Lie? It's About Iraq
* Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his
January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was
a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq.
* A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, "there is no
consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general--except
where a nuclear attack against the United States is
contemplated..." [4]
* Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on
"a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their
subordinates...made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons
program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat
than the data they had would support. On occasion administration
advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views." [5]
Wilson Strikes Back--Exposes Bush's Lie In Lead-Up To War
* Six months after the President's 2003 State of the Union Address, as
Bush's WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and
exposed the Bush Administration's false nuclear claims in a New York
Times op-ed [6].
* The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," can be
read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070
* The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los
Angeles Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so
angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C.
Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA
officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and
urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against
him, former aides say." [7]
White House Retaliates--Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent
* The week after Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, "two senior
administration officials" were cited by conservative columnist Robert
Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson [8].
* The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war
to the public, "morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at
critics who questioned its claims." [9] WHIG was run out of Vice
President Cheney's office, and included Cheney's Chief of Staff
"Scooter" Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush
administration officials.
* Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson's 20-year career as a
CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front
company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at
risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the
past [10].
Today's Indictment--White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The
Lie
* Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation
into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame
Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements
to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around
the same issues, among possible others.
* Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, "I
have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by
exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most
insidious, of traitors." [11]
* Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when
he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of
an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime,
and it is a crime." [12]
The American people must know this important truth: Today's indictment is
about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
Please write a letter to the editor to remind people that this was crime
against our entire nation, and could not be more serious. This letter tool
makes it easy.
Thanks for all you do.
--Tom, Jennifer, Adam, Carrie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Friday, October 28th, 2005 [1] "Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges,"
New York Times,
October 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1071 [2] "Rice: 16 words dispute 'enormously overblown,'"
CNN, July 14, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1072 [3] "Cast of Characters Grows in CIA Leak Drama,"
Associated Press,
October 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1073 [4] "Poll: Don't Go It Alone On Iraq," CBS News,
September 7, 2002
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1074 [5] "Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting
Evidence," The Washington
Post, August 10, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1075 [6] "What I Didn't Find In Africa," New York Times,
July 7, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070 [7] "Bush Critic Became Target of Libby, Former Aides
Say," Los Angeles
Times, October 21, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1076 [8] "Mission To Niger," syndicated column, July 14, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1077 [9] "Prez Iraq team fought to squelch war critics,"
New York Daily News,
October 19, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1015 [10] "Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA
Front Firm," October 4,
2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1079 [11] Remarks By George Bush, 41st President of the
United States, At the
Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, April 26,
1999
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1080 [12] Hardball With Chris Matthews, September 30, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1078
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is
entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. If you'd like to support our
work, you can give now at:
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION,
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
________________
Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org Political Action. To change your email address,
update your contact info, or remove yourself () from
this list, please visit our subscription management page at:
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 28, 2005
The Questions Not Asked
During the press conference this afternoon, US Prosecutor Fitzgerald emphasized that no one knew that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA and that her cover has been blown. He said that she needed that cover and the blowing of that cover has harmed national security. After reading the indictment and listening to the press conference. Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.
If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.
A second question not asked is about Valerie Plame’s cover, the assumption seems to be given that she had it, needed it, and she kept it secret. Let’s discuss non-official cover for a moment and its purpose. The entire point of any cover is so that person covered can deal with foreign agents without them knowing they are dealing with an agent of the United States. That’s the point of espionage; it’s to deceive into getting information that would not normally be given. If foreign people would give up the information to an FBI agent, there is no point to having a covered agent.
Valerie Plame had cover so she could talk to people in other countries without knowing her affiliation with the United States, it’s that simple. If there was information that would otherwise compromise the fact that she was affiliated with the US government, her cover would be compromised.
Valerie Plame’s cover was blown the second she married Joseph Wilson (which is probably why she moved to Langley). How can I say this? Two things. The marriage ceremony was public and it creates a public record. In fact, Joseph Wilson made no attempt to hide the name or identity of his wife. Second, no one can seriously think that the known wife of a US ambassador would not have an affiliation with the United States government.
Some argue that her name was disclosed in a Who’s Who record, in talks given by Wilson, or other events. These are irrelevant distinctions because her name, in and of itself does not link her to the government. What links her to the government publicly is her marriage to a US ambassador, even without mentioning she was CIA.
If I was engaging in espionage in Russia on behalf of the United States, I would not take seriously the trustworthiness of the wife of a Russian ambassador. No one would. Perhaps the reason Plame’s leaking was not charged is because her cover was already blown the day she got married.
(see Malkin's coverage, Cao, OTB, Wizbang!)
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:41 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
DI Column Posted: Broken Promise
You can read it here
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 27, 2005
Stop The ACLU Blogburst
Here it is over at Stop The ACLU.
Unfortunately too busy for studying to have something of my own this week.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 26, 2005
Sox Win, Sox Win!
I might have missed the crowds that have since formed at Sixth and Green but nevertheless, Sox Win! In unrelated news, the temperature in Hell is forcasted at 18 degrees ferhenheit. (or however it's spelled.)
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Plame Indictments to Come Soon - My Predictions
1) The press doesn't no crap. Fitzgerald, who is an excellent prosecutor, if holding his cards close. Everything you hear before the indictments are made public is speculation.
2) The White House won't demonize Fitzgerald.
3) The indictments will not be what is expected. Don't expect Rove or Libby to be indicted on leaking or anything like that. Expect something off the wall. Indicting Wilson or Plame for sloppiness or perjury. Indicting the reporters. Whaterver, I just don't think it will be that simple where Rove gets indicted as expected. Heck, he may be indicted but for something else entirely.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:14 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 21, 2005
DI Column Up: All Kids Left Behind
You can read it here.
I got a call back from the Union pretty quick, I found them to be professional and really not all that cut-throat in this. The school, however, did not return my call for over 48 hours. Taking that long to get back to the press when you have an impending strike seems to me to be unprofessional at best. Anyway, enjoy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 18, 2005
Throw Those Corrupt Guys Out! Put Our Corrupt Guys In!
Here's a fundraising letter just in from the DNC, my comments in brackets:
=======
Dear John,
Republicans have become so incompetent, so out of control and so unbelievably corrupt that no amount of spin can cover it up. The fact is, we're witnessing a dramatic reversal in national politics. If we seize this opportunity, we can change history.
[Yes, but what do you stand for?]
Everyone can see what Republican Leader Tom Delay did when he wanted more Republicans in Congress. He's been indicted for laundering more than $170,000 in corporate money to gerrymander six Congressional seats away from Democrats.
[Gerrymandering? The horror! Democrats would never do that!]
That's what the Republican money-for-influence machine is about -- special interest money to fund Republican officials who will make sure that contributors get a return on their investment.
[So where do you stand on the issues?]
We do things differently. So let's prove it. Tom DeLay is set to be arraigned in a Texas court on Friday -- let's raise twice the amount he's accused of laundering, and let's do it in grassroots donations.
[So you're about money too?]
Show America that ordinary people have the power to raise $2 for every $1 Tom Delay can launder. Make a contribution and fight Republican corruption:
[By replacing Republican corruption with Democrat corruption?]
http://www.democrats.org/doubledelay
The corruption in Washington has gotten so bad that even Republicans can't stomach Republicans any longer. One GOP Congressman told Howard Fineman of Newsweek that the Republican leadership "has become ossified and hopelessly out of touch ... They only care about one thing, hanging onto their own power. I'm not ready to take them on, at least not yet, not unless I have to!"
[So let's replace them with out of touch Democrats!]
He may not be ready to take on the corrupt Republican leadership -- but we are.
[With more corruption!]
Wishing won't drive them out of office -- but strong Democratic candidates and a ground operation in every single state will. It's up to each of us to be a part of the alternative to failed Republican leadership. That's why the Democratic Party needs your financial support right now for our all-out candidate recruitment and organizing drive:
[Give us your money!]
http://www.democrats.org/doubledelay
There is a wave of change coming, and Republicans are battling against frustration from average voters and disappointment from their fringe extremist base.
[With Democrats who are battling against frustration from average voters and disappointment from their fringe extremist base]
The only limits on our potential are the number of strong Democratic candidates who step forward to run in key contests, and our ability to turn out the vote in every single precinct in America. Your dollars build something that hasn't existed in decades -- a Democratic organizing and communications infrastructure in every state.
[Because we don't run on issues or our beliefs, we can't be constrained by them!]
Part of my job is to make sure that we have those candidates and that truly national organization in place. Our strength -- to potential candidates and to voters -- is that our promise of change is backed up by millions of committed people like you who will do whatever it takes to carry Democrats to victory.
[Not the accomplishment of issues, the solving of problems, or making America better... just getting Democrats in power, that's all we care about]
Please make a contribution now to show that ordinary people have the power to drive Democratic victory:
[Give us your money!]
http://www.democrats.org/doubledelay
Republicans are having serious problems convincing people to run for office defending the GOP's incompetence, corruption and cronyism. The Washington Post reports serious worries in the Republican establishment over their recruitment failures.
[And what big names are the Democrats fielding again?]
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is growing -- our slate of solid candidates continues to expand, and our 50-state strategy of putting organizers in every state continues to attract top talent everywhere.
[What's Rod Blagojevich's approval rating again?]
With a serious push now -- in enough time to build a powerful party structure that will last beyond a single election cycle -- we can reshape the electoral landscape in 2006 and beyond.
[Just elect us! We won't tell you what we stand for!]
Let's hit $340,000 by Friday:
http://www.democrats.org/doubledelay
The future begins today -- America can do better, and the Democratic Party is the vehicle for change.
Here at Democratic Headquarters, everyone knows that you -- not special interests -- are in the driver's seat.
[At least until we get your money]
Thank you,
Tom McMahon
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee
P.S. -- A group of donors committed to a broad fundraising base has committed to matching every dollar raised between now and October 21. Every dollar contributed today will be matched -- so, doubling Tom DeLay's dirty money actually means quadrupling it to more than half a million dollars. This is a fantastic time to make a donation -- be part of the action by clicking here: http://www.democrats.org/doubledelay
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:17 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The Miers Strategy
The nomination of a relatively unknown Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has generated a lot of emotion in conservative circles. Many people wonder why Bush, who promised to nominate judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, is nominating stealth candidates. First it was John Roberts who had a slim record to replace Rehnquist. Then Bush nominated Harriet Miers who has little to no public record to replace O'Connor.
Conservatives, who have not been pleased with the history of stealth candidates in the past, reacted with indignation at yet another stealth candidate who we are told is a conservative but there is no proof. Just trust Bush.
Assuming that Miers is in fact a conservative (and that is an assumption, I admit), and I'm beginning to think she's Scalia with ovaries, nominating someone and hiding that fact sends a pretty bad message. When Clinton nominated Ginsburg, everyone knew what she was. When Bush nominates conservatives, the fact that they are has to be hidden. Membership in the Federalist Society is conceded as akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Conservativism is not a crime, it is not a mental disorder, and it is not a moral failing. It is an intelligent and thought out political philosophy.
That aside, I think the White House planned things this way. By nominating a candidate that would upset conservatives, it puts the Democrats in an interesting position. Criticism is labeled as sexist and therefore puts pressure on Democrats to vote for the candidate just for PR points against Republicans. It has virtually taken the filibuster off the table (as long as nothing changes). Miers will slip onto the court without a fight on her, but a fight on the criticism of her. It is a political calculation of expediency to slip her onto the court and get a solid conservative there while disarming Democrats to stop it. Bush doesn't want a filibuster fight, so they took this route.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:41 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 14, 2005
DI Column up: Creating a Crisis
Read it here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 13, 2005
Stop the ACLU: Stop Taxpayer Funding for the Secularization of America
(Crossposted from Stop the ACLU)It happens somewhere in America almost everyday. Some small school, city counsel or County Courthouse gets sued. Perhaps your town has a historical monument to honor the dead from WWII that just so happens to be shaped like a cross. Or maybe your child’s school will be having a winter break instead of Christmas this year. Whatever it is, don’t fool yourself…it could happen to your town. And what will happen when it does? What will happen when the ACLU comes into your backyard? Will your town stand up for its religious liberties, or fold? The ACLU will go full force and has plenty of money to back it up. Does your town have the funds to defend itself? The ACLU has the backing of huge liberal groups, funded to the tee. How doe your town stack up?
Don’t think it couldn’t happen to you. Right now, there are those out there watching it happen to them. What can you do? If the ACLU wins, guess who pays for it? Thats right, you do.
I found the following at ReclaimAmerica.Org
U.S. Representative John Hostettler has introduced legislation which seeks to prevent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from collecting millions of dollars in court awards when they seek to remove symbols of the Christian faith from society.
The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.”
I found this at
ACLU Generates Revenue in Courtroom Campaign
The ACLU was awarded $156,960 after a judge overturned an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The amendment was approved by 70 percent of Nebraska voters.
The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a “morally straight”
$150,000 = Barrow County (Ga.)
The ACLU was awarded $150,000 after suing to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Barrow County Courthouse.
$615,500 = Florida Supreme Court
The Florida Supreme Court established the Florida Bar Foundation and then commissioned the foundation to provide $615,500 to the ACLU of Florida between the years of 1990 and 1997.
The ACLU was awarded $121,500 after suing to remove a monument outside of the Kentucky Capitol building.
The ACLU was awarded a whopping $277,000 after suing to overturn a state law against abortion in 1994.
In 2001, the ACLU was awarded more than $299,500 after suing to overturn abortion regulations in Kentucky.
A Tennessee County was forced to pay the ACLU $50,000 after losing a legal battle to preserve a display of the Ten Commandments.
$37,037 = Loudoun County (Va.)
The ACLU was awarded $37,037 after winning a lawsuit to prevent a Loudoun County (Va.) from installing pornography filters on public library computers.
Following the lawsuit, involving former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, state taxpayers were forced to pay nearly $550,000 in attorney fees and court costs. Of that, $175,000 went to the ACLU.
Taxpayers were forced to give the ACLU a whopping $63,000 after their lawsuit to remove a World War One Memorial Cross from the Mojave National Preserve.
$74,462 = Habersham County (Ga.)
The ACLU received $74,462 from Georgia taxpayers after suing to remove a Ten Commandments display from the Habersham County (Ga.) Courthouse.
$25,000 = Pulaski County (Ark.)
The ACLU was awarded $25,000 after suing an Arkansas county for telling the child’s parents that the 14-year-old boy was living an openly gay lifestyle in school.
The ACLU is scheduled to receive $135,000 from Cobb County taxpayers, after suing the county to remove warning stickers from the district biology books. The stickers simply read, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”
The city of Pasco, Washington was forced to pay the ACLU $75,000 after they lost a lawsuit to remove the painting of a naked woman from the Pasco City Hall.
Residents in Seattle, Washington, were ordered to pay $52,000 to the ACLU — for defending a student’s “right” to mock the assistant principal in a sexual online parodies … sodomizing Homer Simpson and appearing in Viagra commercials.
$6,000,000 = American taxpayers
The ACLU, along with other pro-abortion organizations, have shared in court awards estimated to be worth roughly six million dollars following the Supreme Court’s decision in which they declared the Nebraska partial birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Reportedly, these lawsuits affected thirty states.
After suing London, Ohio, for allowing their football coach to host a voluntary prayer for athletes, the ACLU was awarded $18,000 in attorney fees.
$110,000 = Multnomah County (Oregon)
Incredibly, Multnomah County taxpayers were asked to pay a whopping $110,000 after the ACLU sued them for allowing the Boy Scouts of America to recruit on public school campuses.
Operation Rescue was ordered to pay the ACLU $111,000 after losing a lawsuit in which the ACLU sought to prevent the organization from picketing near abortion clinics.
$230,000 = San Diego (California)
San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.
Don’t let it happen to your town, or if it is going to happen…don’t pay for it. Reclaiming America has put together a petition that already has over 100,000 signatures. We also have a petition asking for the same thing, to stop taxpayer funding of the ACLU in Establishment Clause cases. You can sign both petitions here. Help us curb the secularization of America.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please register at Our Portal. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already onboard.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Katrina and Darfur
(Crossposted from Coalition for Darfur======
When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast last month, the American public was privy to 'round-the-clock media coverage of the disaster, especially of stories relating to the extraordinarily difficult living conditions faced by those who had been unable to evacuate. Thousands of people were left without food or water for days; their homes and cities destroyed, they were left to fend for themselves, trapped in squalid conditions and at the mercy of roving gangs of well-armed criminals.
As it turned out, many of the more horrific stories were later found to be false. Yet for the people of Darfur, the horrors that befell the people of New Orleans have become a way of life.
For more than two years, nearly two million people have been relegated to displacement camps across Darfur, with limited access to food, water and medical attention. They live in makeshift tents that provide little shelter from the elements, and in constant fear of rape, looting and death at the hands of the Janjaweed militia.
An aid worker and blogger known only as Sleepless in Sudan, who has been working in Darfur for six months, has been kind enough to provide this assessment of the conditions in which the displaced are now living ("Sleepless" has chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect herself and the agency for which she works from the very real threat of retribution from the Sudanese government)
People are living inside temporary shelters, covering their branch or wooden huts (those who have been there longer have built mud brick ones) with plastic sheeting from the aid agencies, and even this has often already been torn apart by the rains. Everyone sleeps on the floor, sometimes in puddles - 10 people in a little shelter is not unusual, more is common.While the United States government was blamed for a poor response to the Katrina catastrophe, the government of Sudan is directly responsible for the catastrophe in Darfur. And whereas the state and federal government are now in the process of cleaning up, and will soon begin the process of rebuilding, the devastated Gulf Coast, the people of Darfur currently have no prospects of ever being able to leave the camps because insecurity is still rampant.
Now that the aid agencies are operating in many camps there is regular water supply, there are latrines, there are medical clinics and most importantly, there is a monthly food distribution of staple grains and things like oil - but this does not mean people have it easy. This season has brought many floods and people have lost their belongings or even shelters, huts and latrines sometimes collapsed in the rains, and the food is never enough (and people have to scramble for things like fresh vegetables themselves anyway, as these are not included in the distribution). Malnutrition inside the camps is still high.
Overall, I would say conditions are adequate for survival - though some camps (especially the ones further away from big cities) are a lot worse off than others (Abu Shouk, for example, has dozens of aid agencies, while places just a few hours outside of it have 1 or 2). Whether they are adequate for what you would consider a normal life is debatable - I would say absolutely not, and I have no doubts any American would find them a lot more "unacceptable" than New Orleans.
I suppose the worst part of living in the camps is having absolutely no idea how much longer you will be there (many people have already been there for 2 years) and also constantly having to worry that you will be attacked - Aro Sarow showed us that even large scale attacks and killings inside IDP camps are still a threat. In many camps - Kalma, Tawila, etc. - it is part of everyday life to hear shooting at night, and in nearly all of them it is still very dangerous to wander outside and carry out chores like collecting firewood. Knowing that you are constantly at risk of looting and assault is be an easy thing to live with.
In the last few weeks, there have been a series of attacks on villages and camps that have created several thousand new IDPs. In addition, nearly 40 African Union troops and workers were kidnapped over the weekend and, in a separate incident, five members of the AU force were ambushed and killed. And even if a semblance of peace does ever come to the region, the people of Darfur have nothing to return to, as their villages and homes have been utterly destroyed while their land and possessions have been stolen.
The post-Hurricane nightmare faced by the victims of Katrina has been the reality in Darfur for more than two years - and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 7, 2005
DI Column up: Overthrowing Oceania
You can read it here
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 6, 2005
Break from Blogging
I have too much on my plate right now, so things have to be cut out... unfortunately this is one of them...
I'll be back when things calm down a little...
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 4, 2005
Is This a Joke?
First, it was conspiracy. After 6 grand juries, Earle finally gets an indictment. The problem was you can't conspire to break a law that is not in effect. The law cited in the indictment was not in effect until 2003; despite the fact the conspiracy took place in 2002. The indictment itself has no direct connection to DeLay (for those that have read it) except having his name as defendant.
After it becomes known that the indictment has in it no details or facts alleging a crime and the conspiracy is non-existent, Earle issues another indictment with a seventh grand jury on money laundering less than a week later giving that grand jury only hours with which to decide. In fact, the grand jury handed down this indictment over the telephone on the weekend!
Maybe I'm unusual, but if a prosecutor has to keep filing revisions to what charges he is charging someone with and keeps moving the bar, then in the end he just might not have anything at all. This is almost comical.
"Oops, we screwed up that last indictment. Let's throw something else against the courtroom wall and see if it sticks." I might have bought DeLay was corrupt with the first indictment, the "do-over" indictment proves that this is a politically motivated attack to maximize the chance of locking DeLay out of power long enough to do damage before this hack indictment mysteriously "goes away" just like the sham indictment he tried to put on Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 3, 2005
Betrayed.
So much for this supposedly conservative President
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 2, 2005
Broken but not Beaten: Death with Dignity
* Note: This is written from a Catholic perspective using some of the traditions that we have about the Crucifixion. It shouldn’t be outside the realm of other Christian trains of thought. This is a draft, comments welcome.
There is something implicit about being killed that presumes defeat in our minds. If someone dies, they’ve lost their fight. In the minds of the West, there is no there is no greater punishment we give than the death penalty. You can see in the words and actions of those who want to put someone to death that they presume killing that individual will give them victory over their crimes. We don’t understand suicide bombers that will sacrifice their own lives to kill others and as such we have a very large problem defending against them. Self-preservation makes sense to us, self-sacrifice does not.
When many Christians look at the Crucifixion, they see man putting God to death and celebrating a victory, though short-lived. It is the Resurrection that is celebrated because that is viewed as victory over death and rightfully so, but at an expense of seeing the Crucifixion for what it really is, a victory in itself (albeit not “the” victory). Paul proclaims “Christ crucified”, not Christ resurrected, as the stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. (1 Cor 1:23)
Ancientt Romans were not stupid. The understood priorities and resource utilization; you have to if you are going to run an empire the size of Rome. They knew that if a soldier was in one place doing one thing, he could not be somewhere else doing another. This is important because when Christ was sentenced to death, they used soldiers to torture him, prod him out to Golgotha, and then crucified him. For the scourging and mocking of Jesus, an entire company of soldiers was assembled and they all apparently participated (Matt 27:27).
The point of this exercise wasn’t to kill him. It is far easier and more efficient to just draw a sword, kill him there, and be on to other duties. The Romans, and by them the Jews, wanted to convey a message by killing Jesus, as they did with every crucifixion they ever did. It was to instill in the population a sense of fear in crossing Rome by destroying the pride and dignity of those who did commit crimes. There is something humiliating about those who go to their eventual death as broken and sobbing messes. That was the image the Romans wanted, someone who was not only killed but completely destroyed hanging naked on wood for all to come and mock. In that culture, being killed was bad in itself but some could justify it. Being killed with a shameful death is something that was unbearable to people and served as a good anecdote for people who thought to cross the Empire.
As an example, recent history has shown the willingness of certain sectors of Muslims to kill themselves for their cause. One way some have dealt with this is to take the bodies of the terrorists and to stuff them in pigs and bury the body. This act (which I think is immoral) has served as a somewhat effective deterrent to those who would commit such acts. The concept of a shameful and disgraceful death is a powerful deterrent.
When Jesus died on the cross and Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body, Pilate was surprised he had died so quickly, so much so that he did not believe that Jesus was dead until told by his own people (Mark 15:43-45). Crucifixions were commonplace in the empire. Pilate didn’t just show up that day and Jesus was surely not the first nor last person every crucified by his order. Jesus died far quicker than normal compared to most crucifixions. Both the thieves crucified with Jesus were alive after Jesus was dead (John 19:33). It wasn’t because of the Crucifixion that caused Jesus to die quicker than the others; it was what happened leading up to the Crucifixion.
According to tradition, Jesus was whipped 39 times by the centurions. 40 lashes are considered a death sentence. Another thing to consider is that this wasn’t just a whip made out of rope or leather. They would work broken glass or rocks into the whip so that it would tear the flesh as you were hit with it (which is why only 40 would usually kill you).
The point of physical torture is to emotionally and physically break someone down. For almost everyone it works. The US military, when training people to deal with being prisoners of war, does not expect people immunize people to torture. What they do train you to do is find ways to keep your dignity and prevent you from being broken down. There are many stories of American POWs coming up with clever ways to maintain resistance. Some would come up with believable lies for their interrogators (such as giving the names of their high school football team members when they ask for names of fellow soldiers); others would find culturally specific ways to resist that would be lost on the interrogators. For instance, the crew of the USS Pueblo would secretly stick out their middle fingers in staged propaganda photographs as a symbol of resistance while the Koreans believed they were creating useful propaganda pictures or they used sign language to sign the word “snowjob” to the cameras. The symbols were lost on them. The use of torture to break someone down is a centuries and millennia old act and it was not unknown to the Romans.
Most people react to torture by saying or doing whatever the torturers want. People become desperate quickly in order to make it stop. The thieves were probably tortured but not to the extent of Jesus. Most people would probably only take a few lashes before they were broken. In Jesus’ case, they had to stop beating him or they’d kill him before he was crucified and that would be unacceptable. They needed a public spectacle and having him die in private would deprive them of that. Jesus denied them the satisfaction of breaking him with torture.
That, however, did not stop the abuse. They merely switched from whipping him to mocking and harassing him. We live in a society that can turn the most mild-mannered soft-speaking individual into a raving lunatic spewing forth a stream of obscenities that would make a sailor blush just because they are caught in rush-hour traffic. People do not tolerate being the butt-end of jokes for very long. The soldiers slapped him around, spit on him, and mocked his kingship. If I were Jesus I probably would have responded by giving those soldiers festering boils in uncomfortable places. Jesus took it and said nothing. He denied them the satisfaction of breaking him with mockery.
Then they lead him out to the public spectacle that is a crucifixion. There is no evidence that attending crucifixions was mandatory as far as I know. The people who were there wanted to be there. There were some there who were friendly to Jesus, most however were not. The road was lined with people who mocked and hurled insults. Then he was stripped and nailed to a cross and left to die. Jesus was the main attraction of this even and the thieves crucified with him knew this. This is why the bad thief hurled insults at him with the rest of the crowd, he was trying to regain some sense of pride (Luke 23:29). The crowd and the bad thief mocked Jesus’ divinity, and he did not respond. He deprived them of breaking him before he died.
He took all the evil mankind had to offer and did not sway one iota from his message. He could have wiped them all out with a thought and didn’t. He could have let loose his tongue and cursed like a sailor but he said nothing. At the end of the day, he forgave them all. The point for the Romans and by extension the Jews, in crucifying Jesus was to get him to recant or otherwise abandon his own preaching. It was to break him to show that his words and his life mean nothing except failure. They tried to show the public that his message was empty and leads to humiliation. They failed.
Anyone can be killed at any moment of any day. It’s simply not difficult to kill someone especially in our day with the wealth of technology available for killing. Jesus was not defeated by being killed. Yes, he was physically and emotionally assaulted and eventually died. He, however, did not waiver from His message. He knew He was going to die and He approached that event with dignity and shrugged off all that humanity could pile on to Him. The Roman Empire could put anyone they wanted to death and there wasn’t squat anyone could do about it. But when they piled on all they could on Jesus to squelch his message and humiliate the messenger, they failed. Two thousand years later, Christianity is still here because the Romans could not defeat it then. Jesus was beaten but not broken, and when He died, He died with His full dignity showing that no one can take that away from someone. His death was a victory.
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
My First Bugtraq Post
here.
Stupid vendor.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
