August 17, 2006
Federal Court Rules Protecting America is Unconstitutional
The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution. Despite the fact the preamble lists defending the nation as an acceptable federal government function, the ACLU and US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said that the risk "innocent" communications could be intercepted far outweighed the risk of Al Qaeda attacking the United States. Despite programs such as ECHELON, CARNIVORE, and others that existed happily (albeit controversially) under the Clinton Administration, the possibility that George Bush might actually defend the country is a threat the Constitution cannot bear.
Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of "warrantless wiretapping" despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a "police state" and that the treats are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.
The judge in this case, an appointee of Jimmy Carter, doesn't seem to understand the difference between overseas surveillance and domestic surveillance. Will the CIA start needing warrant the next time the spy on a terrorist overseas?
According to the ruling:
The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
Let's skip past the FISA court idea, one that is still in dispute publicly and in the courts (other district courts either ruled for the government or declined to rule at all) and discuss the First Amendment issue. Debating what due process should exist for wiretapping is something that can and will take place, however, the idea that plotting terror attacks against the citizens of the United States of America could even possible be protected by the First Amendment should make everyone who cares about the safety of their family cringe. What other possible meaning is there to that phrase?
Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the "warrantless wiretapping" programs as an attempt to establish an "Al Qaeda Bill of Rights", however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 3, 2006
A Case of Double Standards
Compare and contrast these two cases:
The first, a scandal-ridden New Jersey Senator who was running for reelection abruptly resigns and drops out of the race 35 days before the election. Litigation ensues and the court decides that it should override the law under the concerns to ensure a "full and fair ballot choice" for the voters.
The second, a scandal-ridden Texas Congressman who was running for reelection resigns from office and drops out of the rice 5 months before the general election. Litigation ensures and the court decides that the candidate who no longer has residence in the district must remain on the ballot and there should be no exception to the law.
What is the difference between the two cases? The first was a Democrat, the second a Republican. Both were running for reelection for national office, however, the first was dealt with in state court, and the second, in federal court.
The inherent viewpoint of Democrats (and regressives in general) is that the written law means nothing when it conflicts with what is perceived to be the metaphysical intent of the law or what the law should be. This is why they can say with a straight-face that Bush should be impeached for crimes that amount to little more than not drinking deeply enough of the regressive Kool-aid.
Republicans generally believe the law should be upheld and if changes are needed the legislature (which exists entirely for this task) should be employed to modify those laws.
So when the Democrats ask for an exception, it is not inconsistent with what they believe, that namely, the law should reflect and advantage their policies, even when the written words of that law go clearly against them. When Republicans ask for an exception, they get denied outright.
In both cases, the misuse and abuse of the court system has lead to a schizophrenic application of the law, largely along partisan lines. The question of whether the law matters or not depends on which would most benefit the Democrats. An interesting thought exercise would be to imagine if George Bush stood accused of perjury in open court for lying about an affair during a lawsuit, and whether or not the Democrats would vote to impeach him on those groups. A fair amount of Republicans surely would.
It is tempting, then, for the Republicans to likewise abandon the written law and rely on tactics of jurisdiction shopping and court stacking to secure favorable outcomes, not based on the law, but on party loyalty. This temptation should be quickly dispatched. A law that means whatever those in power want, is not law, but tyranny projected through a black robe.
Citizens should take note at, yet again, the bipolar nature of the court system, and the routine differing application of the law depending on who is involved. If ever there was a case against judicial activism and reform of the courts, this episode would be it.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Ending Corporate Welfare
The ACLU is indignant that there are members of Congress pushing to pass a law that would bar awards of attorney fees when groups sue to get religion out of the public square. These award of legal fees are very directly responsible to a vast increase in the body of law that has gone so far to protect against the appearances of government endorsement of religion, that even private individuals have been sanctioned for daring to utter the unutterable name of Jesus Christ in public.
It has been the ACLU's influence that not only is the government (rightly) prevented from taking sides on the matter of religion, but when private individuals happen to be speaking on government property, the First Amendment is brought to bear against them. It is unthinkable in the highest degree that the Founders or anything in the Constitution intended to restrict the free expression rights of citizens. The First Amendment was designed to create institutional separation between the agencies of government and the houses of religion, not to be a pre-regulated restriction on what private people can or cannot say.
The ACLU has used attorney fees to bully schools into submission in questionable cases or in matters where no settled law exists. School budgets are already tight (mostly because of bloated bureaucracy, but that's not the point). Many schools will capitulate to avoid having to fork out money to defend a winning case. As in most areas of law, he who has the most money wins. With the award of legal fees, it only encourages entrepreneurial lawyers to build cases where none may exist. It also prevents the ACLU from browbeating agencies into avoiding situations where those agencies may be right.
However, the money schools have is not their own. The money sitting in government accounts is not their own. They are merely stewards of assets they have been given to perform tasks they have been assigned. Their masters are the citizens who fund those organizations and who elect their leaders.
There is something profoundly wrong when, because of the actions of a politician, the entire society that funds that politician's organization is made to pay. There is much talk about making politicians and bureaucrats accountable, awarding legal fees for cases like this don't make the politicians accountable, it makes society accountable. It is irresponsible in the extreme to make other people pay for someone's "bad" actions. I'd prefer courts punish those people who are actually doing the deeds, not finding someone who has big enough pockets and make them pay, no matter how peripheral they may be. We'll throw them out of office the next election if the case warrants it.
Preventing the default award of legal fees makes good economic sense and it is good policy. The First Amendment is a simple area of constitutional law that does not, nor should not, take millions of dollars to litigate. It is about time this case of corporate welfare comes to an end.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 7, 2006
DI Column Up: Vote Yes To Help Champaign's Poor
My latest column is up. It's on a referendum to increase the township tax rate to increase the budget to for general assistance. It's also a swipe at the News Gazette.
Column: Vote yes to help Champaign's poor John Bambenek Posted: 7/7/06 Come November, a referendum on the ballot will ask voters if they support increasing the property tax rate levied to support Champaign Township. The increase will fund greater support and general assistance to the poorest members of our community. The News-Gazette editorial board has come out against this increase.After interviewing Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy at length, I was unable to find any significant waste or misuse of spending. The township has only two functions - general assistance to the poor and property assessments.
The general assistance provided by the township is welfare of "last resort," meaning that it is available to only those who are getting no help anywhere else and have no assets to their name. In short, they are the poorest of the poor in the community, many of which are living on streets and under bridges.
While there has been an increase in spending under Abernathy, there was one fact that escaped the News-Gazette editorial board. The court had ordered the township, along with other government agencies, to spend the cash they had on hand instead of saving it in their general funds. In addition to the court-ordered draw down of funds, there has been an increase of the number of unemployed people seeking assistance. Somehow helping more poor people doesn't quite seem like rampant spending abuse.
The argument is that the township is a "relic of a bygone era" (much like one can describe the News-Gazette) and the functions should be assumed by the county government. One could argue that the states could be dissolved and the functions be assumed by the federal government, however, we constructed the U.S. system of government to include state governments. The same is true of townships. State law establishes townships and what functions they should perform and there is no movement to dissolve townships. Saying that the township should be deprived of needed funds because we can redo our governing structure is nonsensical.
It is true that the township operates largely invisibly to most voters; however, that is a sign that it is doing what it is supposed to do and not acting like an agency out of control. The township performs two functions and two functions alone. They haven't tried to expand their power or interfere with voters' lives. Ms. Abernathy was easy to reach and willing to spend about an hour on the phone for an unscheduled interview. That's hardly the behavior of an unaccountable bureaucrat. It is clear that those who think the township is unaccountable are just too lazy to pick up a phone.
While the city of Champaign is busy trying to figure out how to use eminent domain to take over utilities so that they can expand their base of power into areas they don't belong, the township is providing assistance to people who have no where else to turn. If providing help to these people is expensive, it is only because as a society we've pawned off our personal obligation to help those in our community on the government.
This is one of the very few tax increases that I support and find no fault with. Come November, join me in voting yes.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 5, 2006
DI Column Up: Welcoming in our New Health Conscious Overlords
I'm also late on posting my latest column, "Welcoming in our new health conscious overlords" on the Champaign-Urbana smoking ban. I was on vacation, sue me.
Column: Welcoming in our new health conscious overlords John Bambenek Posted: 6/30/06 Capitalism has failed in Champaign. More than a hundred years of economic prosperity in the United States has proven to be a sham right here in the twin cities.Generously, the elites from the Coalition to Protect People from Themselves (as the Champaign-Urbana Smoke Free Alliance was known before they apparently got a public relations consultant) have lobbied for city regulations because we can't trust evil mega-corporations and Big Liquor to meet the demands of their customers. That whole supply and demand thing is really a device by Big Business to keep us "sheeple" as little more than indentured servants pulled around by the whims of board room elites.
Using statistics only slightly cooked to make their point, they showed the city councils that more than 76 percent of people in Champaign-Urbana support governments taking control of all decision-making powers of consumers. Now, at long last, I can enjoy the local hookah bar without having to suffer through the evils of second-hand smoke.
Cigarette smoke is the only weapon of mass destruction that we have to fear. Patrons of campus bars need not worry about the alleged public health concerns of roofies, or for that matter, the entirely mythical raging venereal disease epidemic on campus. It is of critical importance that we fight to stop second-hand smoke so 18-year-old freshmen can binge drink in Kam's without having to worry about lung cancer when they are passed out in a pool of their own vomit.
The several smoke-free establishments already in Champaign-Urbana are not enough for the coalition. It is important that every establishment caters to the desires of clients who will never frequent them. We need to make C.O.'s as comfortable for 50 year-old townies as possible. We'd hate for them to be coughing while they are busy ogling at freshmen girls in tight, black bar pants.
During the intense lobbying, name calling and threats, the coalition refused to let the matter be considerded in a referendum. They're afraid that Big Liquor and Big Burger would hoodwink the 76 percent of people who allegedly support a ban. See, we just can't trust those lemmings, I mean voters, to be able to figure out a ballot. So not only has capitalism failed, democracy is a failed and antiquated concept here in our little patch of cornfield.
I look forward to the future campaigns of the coalition who will not stop with simply banning smoking. After all, consumers are too stupid to be able to make any economic and life decision for themselves. The brave new day when all restaurants and grocery stories only offer organic and vegan fare will soon be here. Soda will be banned from vending machines to be replaced with fair-trade lattes.
There is too much variety in life and too many choices to make. It is high time that government did something about this and set a "one size fits all" standard upon our private lives. Long live the new oligarchy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 4, 2006
The Economics of Life
The pro-life movement is celebrating victories that after over 30 years of Roe v Wade, the scourge of abortion, at least public support for it, has waned and is now the minority position. South Dakota passed an outright abortion ban believing the time was right to challenge the law. Poll after poll demonstrates that the public knows that conception is the "moment that changes everything" where a new life is created and begins its journey to birth. Are we a pro-life nation then? The answer to that question is still no.
It seems a contradiction to say that while most oppose abortion that it does not follow the nation has become pro-life. That is, until you take a look at the new battlefields of the pro-life movement. Terri Schiavo is the most popular example.
An unbiased observer would certainly be taken aback at the concept of the individual making decisions for Terri was her husband that has since gotten engaged to another woman and had two children with her. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. However, the public was largely unconcerned with that.
The point where support for Terri fell the most was when the cameras showed images of Terri Schiavo to the world. The public saw someone who was unmistakably alive but unmistakably having a "low quality of life". Most felt that it was not worth being alive in those circumstances. Suddenly, it didn't matter what Michael Schiavo's motivations were or his conflict of interest. He was making the "right" decision to end a life not worth living.
It is known that the abortion movement grew out of the eugenics movement and it should come as no surprise that the husband of the lawyer who litigated Roe v Wade lobbied Bill Clinton to approve RU-486, not for easy access to abortion or women's rights, but because "twenty-six million food stamp recipients is (sic) more than the economy can stand." It isn't about life, it is about a productive life (in Ron Weddington's case, where the financial output is greater than the input).
This can also been seen in the recent burst of "futile care" cases (where hospitals unilaterally decide who should die independent of the families wishes or objections). While few would argue that those who are alive only with the help of life support equipment (i.e. respirators, not a feeding tube) can be "unplugged", futile care laws have been used to try to kill children, including a child perfectly able to heal, the uninsured, and Katrina evacuees that were "no worth moving". With talk of universal health care, one wonders if that will finally put complete control on whether (poor) patients should be left untreated.
One could argue that doctors know best and if they determine care is futile, then it really is. However, in the case of Haleigh (the girl who recovered above), doctors can and are wrong. Medical advances developed a year later may have helped Terri Schiavo recover. Then there is the case of just using futile care law to avoid dealing with poor and uninsured patients and leaving them to die legally. After all, more is going in to them than is coming out.
Going back to the original premise, it can be seen that the nation isn't becoming more pro-life, per se. What has lead to the downfall of support of abortion is the realization that unborn children have the potential to be productive citizens save some external force that prevents them. The rise of an anti-abortion culture is the convergence of pro-life forces with those who believe that the potential of productive life should be allowed.
Where the pro-life movement has yet to engage in is the rising notion of reducing human life to matters of economics. Taking whatever subjective equation is used, if someone comes out having a "negative" balance they can be killed. If they have a positive balance, they can live. This quantification system, even if it aligns with those against abortion, is decidedly not pro-life, usually because the poor and minorities (however they are determined) tend to cluster on the "negative" balance side of the equation.
The value of a human life has been determined. The problem is that those subjective measures mean that the most vulnerable in society will be the ones most likely to be considered "without value". Fighting against the valuation of life is the next big pro-life challenge.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 27, 2006
Good for them
Gonzales, Mueller, and others threatened to resign if they had to give back evidence after raiding Rep. Jefferson's office. I would too. If you can't prosecute members of Congress because they hide all the incriminating evidence in their congressional office, there isn't much point to trying anymore. If there is nothing else that should give hope that there are honest Republicans still about, they should look no farther that Attorney General Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller, as well as the other fine men and women who made a principled stand here.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 25, 2006
StoptheACLU Blogburst: War against a discredited story
Stop the ACLU has the latest on the NSA's litigation against phone companies and their state-by-state effort to hammer those phone companies (and thus drive up the price we pay for telephone service) based on the USA Today story detailing the NSA buying phone records from those companies. Problem is? There doesn't seem to be any evidence it happened, and evidence that it didn't. Read more at Stop the ACLU. Gazoo.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 22, 2006
Defending the Right of Congressmen to Break the Law in Private
Over the weekend, the FBI executed a search warrant to search Representative William Jefferson’s congressional office. While it might be amusing to point out that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana is a Democrat, the intent here is not to make partisan jabs (okay, maybe a little). Corruption has been a part of both parties and neither has a lock on it. (Just look at Illinois).
A politician, particularly from Louisiana, being on the take is not a big surprise. Nor is the fact that the same politician was caught on tape taking the money, nor the money having been found neatly wrapped still in his freezer at home. The biggest thing that voters should sit up and take notice is that congressional leaders from both parties are taking offense to the fact an object of a criminal bribery probe had his congressional office searched. That's right. These congressmen have the audacity to complain that searching Rep. Jefferson's office violated separation of powers.
To review, any police department (an executive agency) is required to ask a court before getting a search warrant. They have to lay out what they are searching for and why they want to search where they're requesting to go. A judge (a member of the judiciary) hears them out and either approves or denies the warrant. Odds are, because of the high-profile nature of this warrant, a judge took his time and carefully considered this warrant. At the end of the day, both the executive and judiciary landed on the same page with regards to this legislator's corruption. Or, you could look at it as the two other branches of government are checking the corruption of the third.
The facts are these, Rep. Jefferson is accused of using his legislative office to perform official acts for private pay… he took bribes. The FBI states that they have this bribe-taking on tape and that they found the money in Jefferson's home. While there is "two sides to every story" and he is "innocent until proven guilty" it certainly looks like the FBI might have a pretty solid case here. Perhaps if Jefferson is so concerned about executive and judicial scrutiny of his office, he ought to have considered not being corrupt in the first place.
The party leaders and other congressional members carrying the water for Jefferson, however, is beyond the pale. Instead of being angry with Jefferson for abusing his office or calling for impeachment hearings, they are complaining that the FBI… did their job. The message they are sending is that they demand the right of privacy for congressman who use their office for illegal activities.
If someone was shot in one of their offices, could there be an investigation?
What if one of them was dealing drugs out of their office, could they try to catch the Congressman in the act?
Any right-thinking person can see why a congressional office shouldn't be an impregnable veil against those who investigate and punish criminal activity. Apparently, congressional leaders of both parties thing there are more important things than stopping criminal activity, at least if one of their own is involved.
Voters of both parties need to send a clear message. Not only will we not tolerate corrupt individuals among our elected representatives, but we must not tolerate those who seek to protect them or otherwise prevent investigation and prosecution of them. We cannot let these congressmen… our employees tell us that the Constitution requires that we let them get away with taking bribes.
Any congressman who seeks to defend this activity, or construct absurd walls to investigating congressional misbehavior, need to be thrown out of office regardless of partisan affiliation. It is time that these lawmakers focus more of cleaning their own house instead of protecting the criminals within it.
Tags: jefferson, congress, corruption, bribes, separation of powers, united states, politics, FBI, judiciary, law
Thanks to Mudville Gazette,
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 14, 2006
Federal Courts Require Funding of Supporters of Forced Prostitution
USAID requires that grant recipients of its AIDS humanitarian funds must sign a pledge that they oppose commercial sex work. A federal court recently ruled that this is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. Despite the fact the US holds that prostitution is illegal (with the exception of Nevada) and that there is a near-universal condemnation for the practice, apparently allowing the government to restrict its humanitarian funds to actually be humane is unconscionable.
Let’s be honest for a moment. Most women (or for that matter, girls) don’t get into prostitution as a career of first choice. When was the last time you asked a girl what she wanted to be when she grows up and that girl answered “I want to be a hooker!”? Most women get into prostitution out of desperation, or worse, because they were forced into it. Further, prostitutes are subject to much higher levels of abuse and maltreatment because of the nature of the work. Nothing epitomizes male domination over women more than the sex trade and sex trafficking industries.
The problem with the sex trade goes far beyond those who simply sign up for it. More often than not, women or girls are forced into it. In fact, many governments and other larger organizations have gone beyond the simple sex trade and gone into organized rape as an industry. On these issues we must tolerate diversity of opinion by the virtue of the First Amendment. That does not require that we capitulate to something that should be universally condemned. The solution to 12 year olds being forced into prostitution is not “unionization”; the solution is preventing it from happening in the first place and prosecuting those responsible.
There came a time when positions could be advocated without asking the government for a handout. Only those positions that can’t stand on their own require outside assistance. Now those positions have an ally in the federal court system.
It seems the current trend in jurisprudence is to normalize more and more outlandish behavior. NAMBLA has a right to state their position; it doesn’t mean the government should or needs to fund it. However, the courts seem to think otherwise. What’s next? Government funds to help cover up child sex abuse?
When the United States wants to fund humanitarian work, it wants to do so in a humane way. It isn’t a matter of simply policy choice, but rather a matter of justice. While there can be opinions that legalized and unregulated prostitution is best for society, nothing the Founding Fathers intended required the government to subsidize those positions.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 24, 2006
Guard the Borders Blogburst: 10 Facts
By Heidi at Euphoric Reality
Facts are a funny thing. They are conveniently forgotten if they don't uphold one's point-of-view, and they're easily overlooked if they are randomly scattered about. But when solid facts are brought together in one place, the pattern is difficult to ignore. The facts I'm about to provide below are just such a case. People may be able to overlook a single fact, but the weight of their significance cannot be denied when they come together in one place. That is the purpose of this week's Blogburst - to look at some hard facts.
I think it's important to study the problems of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas as instructive for the rest of the states. It may be that others can write off the doom of California by saying, "Well, that's just California, a loony state of fruits and nuts - that would never happen here." But while California is tipping head-first into ruin, it is highly indicative of the chain of events the rest of us are blindly bumbling through. Arizona and New Mexico have declared official states of emergency because they are completely unable to handle the burden of the influx of illegals into their communities. Texas is not far behind with mass hospital closings, an overwhelmed and declining school system, and a climbing crime rate. Just because one lives in Idaho or Nebraska or Maine does not mean that it won't happen to you! You're just a few years behind the curve.
The following 10 facts have been pulled from the LA Times. We've posted them all at one time or another at ER or in the Blogburst.
1. L.A. County has 10 million people. 40% of all workers in L.A. County are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.2. Of the 10 million people in L.A. County, 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak only Spanish.
3. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
4. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
5. Over two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
6. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
7. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
8. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
9. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
10. 21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish language only.
We need to look at the experience of California as inevitable for the rest of us - if we don't, we're only burying our heads in the sand and bequeathing that future to our children! After all, if we keep merrily careening down the road to California, we can't be dumbfounded when we actually end up in California, can we?!
Here are a few more facts on a national scale:
1. Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 36% are on welfare.2. Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
3. The United States receives more immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
4. The cost of immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
5. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.
6. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.
The problems of illegal immigration are not solely "border state" problems. They impact everyone. California and Texas are the two biggest economic engines in the United States - and they are teetering on bankruptcy on a catastrophic scale. If they go bust, guess who picks up the pieces? Indiana, New Hampshire, South Dakota, West Virginia, and all the rest. Illegal immigration is not - I repeat, NOT - a border state problem. It's a burden we're all bearing and a risk we're all sharing.
We are way past the point of half-way measures and temporary fixes. As a nation, we must demand a definitive, decisive, no-nonsense solution. We cannot be placated by smarmy speeches from self-interested politicians, or fooled by spin semantics ("it's a guest worker program - not amnesty"), or lulled into apathy by the drone of our everyday lives.
We cannot leave this crisis to our children. Do something! Get out of your comfort zone and get involved. There are bigger issues at stake than the price of lettuce! The time is critical. And it's NOW.
This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we’re going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our Blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 5, 2006
Impeach Bush Train Stops in Champaign
You can hear the position of Rothschild here. It comes down to the fact that he hasn't read the Geneva Conventions, the Downing Street Memo, believes that Bush committed a crime when a mechanic in Baghdad became a pervert, and that he is unaware that FISA court judges have gone on record saying Bush's wiretaps were legal.
Here's the contents of the poster.
==
Friday, April 7
4PM
Matthew Rothschild
Editor, The Progressive Magazine
GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT:
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BUSH RECORD AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR U.S. POLITICS
With an introduction by Prof. Robert McChesney
319 Gregory Hall
All Are Welcome
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2006
Stop the ACLU - History of the ACLU Part 1
A History On The ACLU Part 1
I researched the Congressional Record dated Wednesday, September 20, 1961. Very important information relating to the ACLU and it's Communist/Socialist ambitions.
Dr. Fredrick Schwartz, executive director of the International Christian Anticommunism Crusade, "Communist Legal Subversion," page 75, House Committee on Un-American Activities: "Any attempt to judge the influence of Communists by their numbers is like trying to determine the validity of the hull of a boat by relating the area of the holes to the area which is sound. One hole can sink a ship. Communism is the theory of the disciplined of few controlling and directing the rest. One person in a sensitive position can control and manipulate thousands of others."
FBI Director, J. Edger Hoover called Communists, "Masters of Deceit". He continues, "Fronts probably represent the party's (communist) most successful tactic in capturing non-Communist support. Like mass agitation and infiltration, fronts espouse the deceptive party line (hence the word "front"), while actually advancing the real party line. In this way the party is able to influence thousands of non-Communists, collecting large sums of money, and reach the minds, pens, and tongues of many high-ranking and distinguished individuals. Moreover, fronts are excellent fields for party recruitment." The FBI director, people!
And how does this tie into the ACLU? I'm getting to that. The two co-founders of the American Civil Liberties Union are Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastwood, both confessed socialists. Roger Baldwin was on the record of over 100 Communist front affiliations. In an article that he wrote for "Soviet Russia Today"(September 1934), "When the power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatsoever." He goes on to say, "The class struggle is the central conflict of the world, all others are coincidental." He also wrote in a book commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Harvard graduating class of 1905 (in 1935), "I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth: Communism is the goal."
Dr. Harry Ward, the first chairman of the ACLU, was linked to over 200 front affiliations of the Communist Party. And was the chairman of one of the largest front organizations in this country, "The American League for Peace and Democracy." Which was placed on a list of subversive organizations by the Attorney General of The United States on June 1, 1948. Dr. Ward authored two pro-Soviet books, "Soviet Democracy" and "Soviet Spirit", which garnered him an investigation by the California State Senate Fact Finding Committee on Un-American Activities. The Committee stated on page 246 of their report, "The Communist affiliation of Dr. Harry F. Ward is indicative of the Communist sympathies of the members and sponsors of the 'Friends of the Soviet Union.'"
Since this history is far reaching, I will continue this subject in tomorrow's main posting. I don't wish to overwhelm my readers with too much information. But should you wish to read up on this subject further, you can read the entire Congressional Record for September 20, 1961, by clicking on the title of this post. It is rather eye opening.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay or Gribbit. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 180 blogs already on-board
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
For the Love of All That is America, Learn What The First Amendment Is…
Throughout the cartoon controversy people on both sides talk about free speech and a free press. While in general, these can be construed as the freedom to say what you want, people are conflating Constitutional protections with the idea that one shouldn't face any consequences to their speech.
Free speech, but more specifically, the Constitutional protection of free speech has absolutely nothing to do with private individuals and what they can do. The First Amendment is not a protection from your fellow citizens (or foreigners). It is a protection against what the government can do, and the government alone.
When the Dixie Chicks protested that people were boycotting their music, they claimed Free Speech. No one said they didn't have the right to say what they did; they were saying they weren't going to continue giving them money if they wanted to engage in that behavior. This is perfectly legal and why our country is so great. We don't need the government to create hate speech laws here; the free market system largely takes care of the problem. Yes, you have a right to say stupid things, but that doesn't mean you have the right to continue to get subsidized by the public if you do. This is the lesson that the creators of "Book of Daniel" learned.
When Islamic radicals (who are the minority) burn down embassies and threaten violence, it is shameful behavior. You don't protest the stereotype of being a fanatical murder by being a fanatical murder. However, Muslims hacking websites is not a Constitutional issue. There are laws to prevent it, sure. It's bad behavior, sure. But it is not an attack on the First Amendment. It is high time people on both sides realize what the First Amendment is and what it is not.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 9, 2006
DI Reprints Mohammed Cartoons...
I got wind of this early, but today the Daily Illini reprinted the infamous Mohammed Cartoons and as was expected, they were flooded with phone calls, letters, etc. The news has broken nationally with the old editor and chief posting updates.
Personally, I don't know how I feel about it except to say that the new editor meant to prove a point and got the reaction he wanted. At some point I'll write on my opinions of the mischaracterizing of free speech (private citizens influencing others to not run things is not a free speech issue, certainly not in terms of the 1st Amendment), but the situation is pretty deep in all the issues it covers. I'm trying to put together a panel discussion on the issue, we'll see where it goes.
Michelle Malkin plugs it and more on the issue.
UPDATE: Here is the Chancellor's response.
UPDATE 2: Here's a brief quote from the AP article out on the subject (Not known is it is linked online anywhere yet)...
AP-IL PROPHET DRAWINGS DAILY ILLINI Student-run newspaper reprints some of Danish newspaper's cartoonsCHAMPAIGN, Ill. (AP) - The student-run newspaper that serves the University of Illinois community on Thursday ran reprints of some of the cartoons whose publication has sparked outrage and violence in many parts of the Islamic world.
The Daily Illini, which is independent of the UI, ran only six of the 12 cartoons first published in September in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, but led with the one that has caused the greatest furor: a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as part of his turban.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 28, 2006
To filibuster or not to filibuster, that is the question
Sen. Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton appear to be on board with a filibuster, and I'm all for it. I think the should filibuster it. I think when the vote comes up a few hours before the State of the Union, they should let the filibuster begin and let it bump the State of the Union address. Then I think the Republicans should break it the old fashioned way by waiting for whoever does it to need to go to the bathroom. It's time to defeat this sword hanging over the Senate floor. Let them filibuster and then break the filibuster. The humiliation and utter defeat will by the final nail in the coffin of this dying and irrelevant group of children called the Democratic Party.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
Judicial Legislation: The Destructive Power of Injunctions (Stop the ACLU post)
The judiciary has been characterized as what should be the weakest branch of government and for good cause. When a judge pronounces broad and sweeping judgments about what is or is not a "right" it bypasses democracy and establishes juristocracy. Such governments cannot be considered free.
An enormous amount of trust is placed in judges. This can be seen in the Alito confirmation that is feared to "tilt the country to the right". This language largely means that the Democrats are afraid that Alito is not going to vote the Democrat party line in court cases. But that's not the real issue. Why does a judge have the power to tilt the country to the right or the left? What happened to the legislature being able to write laws and courts applying them?
The problem with courts setting the laws largely revolves around how cases are decided. For each case there are two and generally only two sides. In cases involving civil rights and such you have the party who feels they have been harmed and you have the government. The judgment of the court based upon the statements of the single individual (or group) harmed and the statements of the judge can have an effect on the entirety of the population without any contribution or participation on their part. This is largely why the opinion that lawyers don't "write the law" is largely irresponsible as it tries to dissolve any argument that lawyers might have some moral responsibility.
Take Roe v Wade which had on one side Norma McCorvey and on the other side the state of Texas. The Supreme Court created abortion on demand as the law of the land based on the arguments of those parties. Amicus briefs are fine, but they don't rise to the same level as courtroom participation. Not only did no other interested parties get to participate, a national law was created without as much as a vote of the American people.
Lobbyists and special interests may be a dirty thing in the legislature, but at least for each issue there tends to be at least two groups that oppose each other vying for influence. In a courtroom, there is no one to speak for the desires of the varied opinions of the hundreds of millions of Americans who may be effected by a judicial injunction telling the government what laws they can pass, what laws they cannot pass, what they must set their tax rate at, what they must fund projects with, and a wide variety of issues that, until recently, were seen as part of the political process, not the judicial process.
Constitutional law has largely become a joke. It can no longer be considered that the practical exercise of constitutional law is based on the Constitution. When the Constitution was signed, representatives of the people were there representing their constituents. When a judge signs an injunction that significantly modifies or changes the agreement that was made, who does he represent? He wasn't voted into office by anyone. He doesn't represent anyone. He simply makes the laws, and the unbridled power allows for rampant misinterpretations of the law and constitution.
If the left is afraid of Alito as a Supreme Court justice it is because they have created a system that gives judges far too much power. If gay marriage should be law of the land, there is a process to do it. When people desired desegregation, they passed laws and constitutional amendments. Running into court to impose radically new social and legal norms is the refuge of those who wish to impose tyranny.
Lastly, some would argue there wouldn't be a Brown v Board of Education without an activist court. Activist courts may sometimes get things right and do what is best for society. But for every Brown v Board there is a Dred Scott. And when they get it wrong, you can't just vote the bums out.
See Stop the ACLU for the latest anti-ACLU efforts.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Weak attempt at an Anti-ACLU Post
There is a movement to intervene in the ACLU case so that real Americans can have real views represented in the NSA lawsuit filed by the ACLU...
Debbie Schlussel, blogger/investigative writer/lawyer, is extending an invitation to citizens interested in intervening in the ACLU's NSA lawsuit. She practices in Eastern Michigan, where the suit was filed.
Take a look and sign up.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
Stop the ACLU: They're not against prayer, they're against Christianity
It is happening all across the nation. The ACLU sue city counsel after city counsel over praying in Jesus name. They don't sue to stop all prayer, but in every case the target has been Christian prayer. They even fought for the right of a Wiccan to pray at a counsel meeting. Many times it doesn't even take a lawsuit. They just type up a threatening letter and that does the trick. This was the case in Fredericksburg. But one man isn't taking things lying down.
Fredericksburg City Councilman Hashmel Turner has filed suit against his fellow council members, saying the council's newly adopted prayer policy violates his constitutional rights.Turner is being represented by the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit group that advocates for free expression issues.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Richmond, asks the court to rule that the city's prayer policy is unconstitutional, and to order that Turner be allowed back into the council's prayer rotation.
The council voted 5-1 in November to adopt a policy of offering non-denominational prayers devoid of any Christian or other specific religious references.
Turner abstained from that vote, and Councilman Matt Kelly voted against the policy.
The vote came after Turner had been excluded from the council prayer rotation for more than a year. The council got a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union in July 2004 saying that the civil liberties group would file suit if Turner continued to invoke the name of Jesus Christ in his prayers.
Turner, who is pastor at First Baptist Church of Love in Fredericksburg, had always closed his prayers before council meetings by invoking the name of Jesus Christ before the ACLU complaint.
On the same night of the November vote for the nondenominational prayer policy, Turner asked to be put back into the prayer rotation, and to give the opening prayer before the Nov. 22 council meeting.
Mayor Tom Tomzak said today he asked Councilwoman Debby Girvan to give the prayer at that meeting instead of Turner, because, "I did not want to unleash a 1,000-pound gorilla-the ACLU-on the City Council."
However, Tomzak said he does believe Turner's rights are being violated, and the suit filed today is "a lawsuit that I probably agree with."
"He's a very passionate man, a man of faith and a man of principle, and he believes his rights have been violated," Tomzak said of Turner.
Neither City Council members nor City Attorney Kathleen Dooley had seen copies of the lawsuit earlier today.
The suit calls the new prayer policy "an unlawful attempt by the City Council to prescribe the content of prayers given at City Council meetings by Turner and other members of City Council."
John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, said Turner approached his organization last fall, saying he believed his rights were being violated. "All he wants is to say Jesus Christ at the end of the prayer," Whitehead said. "He's not asking for any money. ... It's a very simple suit."
One would think that it would be simple, yet the ACLU don't seem to get that. Religious expression in America is under attack. It is a shame that an organization that claims to protect our rights are the number one censor of Christian religious expression. If they were trying to get rid of all prayer at counsel meetings, we would have a different argument, but they are targeting Christian prayers and individual expression. It is good to see this man is standing up for his rights. More people should do so.
Currently there is legislation, introduced by Representative Hostettler that could put a stop to these ridiculous lawsuits. Hostettler's proposal would amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, to prohibit prevailing parties from being awarded attorney's fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings. This would prevent local governments from having to use taxpayer funds to pay the ACLU or similar organization when a case is lost, and also would protect elected officials from having to pay fees from their own pockets.
SIGN THE PETITION TO STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF THE ACLU
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 115 blogs already on-board.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 10, 2006
What does Separation of Church and State Really Mean?
The much-bandied about phrase “separation of church and state” means different things to different people. To those from the secular humanist persuasion, it means that the state can make no public acknowledgement of religion, have no religious displays, recognize no tax exemptions for churches, and goes so far to regulate even religious expressions of private individuals in the public arena out of line. One also hears that any attempt by others to “moralize” or use any religious values to argue for a policy should be silenced. On the other hand, there are those who believe the matter is simply that the government should not establish an official state church, or that a church should not be anointing officials in the government. Other than that, people should believe and practice how they see fit. Both sides couch their arguments on constitutional theories, some involving Thomas Jefferson’s wall of separation letter.
To consider this issue, it is important to consider the historical situation of the framers and what they intended. To recap, they were declaring independence from the King of England. There is one important title for the monarch of England that is relevant to this issue, “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. Not only was the Church of England the official state religion (and still is), but the King himself was the head of that Church. This insured that his political reach not only extended in the public realm, but from the pulpit and even into the confessional. The hierarchy of the church was subservient to the king. This led to abuses in both directions, those by the church and those by the government.
The founders did not declare independence from England because they wanted to set up a secular state. They declared independence because of a long train of abuses and usurpations of government power against its people. They were concerned about matters of tyranny, not theology. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes (and thus enshrined in American tradition the fine art of bitching about taxes) not about Baptists throwing Presbyterian’s Bibles into the Atlantic. The Declaration itself made liberal use of religion in general, as did the Founders in their public statements. Even in Jefferson’s Wall letter, he expresses religious sentiment and asks for prayers. It’s obviously clear; it isn’t religious expression they are worried about.
The choice of phrase is important, “separation of church and state”. Jefferson doesn’t say separation of religion and state. He is talking about institutionalseparation. Ireland’s official church is the Roman Catholic Church, as is Poland’s. In England, it’s the Church of England. These aren’t religions in general but specific religious institutions. No nation has “Christianity” as the official state religion for a very good reason. The reason is that there’s about 50,000 some odd flavors that run the gamut from the Mormons to the Unitarians. Some Christians say Jesus established a hierarchical church, others say he was a social activist, still others say he was an anarchist. Saying Christianity is the official state religion would border on effective meaninglessness. It wasn’t the ideas that the Founders were afraid of which is why they were perfectly free praying together and expressing religious sentiment in public documents and speeches. Institutional corruption and tyranny were there concerns.
The results of institutional-mingling of churches and governments are quite clear in history and it hasn’t been beneficial for the state or the church. However, this is a far cry from divining an intent that projects the idea that “religion is all that’s wrong with the world” upon the Founders. There was a camp among the Founders who believed that a free society required a religious people and yet still continued to allow free association between the various churches.
However, the crowd pushing separation most vigorously also is the crowd that’s trying to regulate certain religious beliefs out of existence. Pharmacists aren’t allowed to express their religious sentiments about abortion and retain their jobs. The argument is that they shouldn’t take the job if they don’t follow a pre-defined ethical construct approved by the government. Catholic hospitals are consistently fighting attempts to force them to provide abortions despite their clear religious teaching. Catholic Charities in California was required to recognize “gay marriage” despite their own beliefs. School children (a.k.a. individual citizens not to be confused with government officials) are told that they aren’t allowed to pray or have bible studies on school property. In one case, school children were threatened with federal prison if they dared utter a prayer on their own volition during a graduation ceremony. The IRS has investigated churches for preaching against abortion. In short, the wall of separation is growing to enforce a certain religious orthodoxy and not protect the free expression of religion that was also mentioned in the First Amendment.
The irony of setting up such a system where beliefs are regulated to some level of appropriate orthodoxy on issues such as abortion is that the sword cuts both ways depending on the whims of government. When right-wing churches complained about IRS harassment, the left-wing told them to stop talking about abortion instead. However, when an antiwar sermon brought the IRS, the left-wing cried foul. The problem with state regulation of religion is that its regulation will serve its own interests, usually on sale to the highest bidder. The Founders were rightly concerned about this abuse, which is why in the same breath of saying the State should establish no official religion; it should also in no way restrict reasonable expressions of religion.
Contrary to the opinion of some, the First Amendment doesn’t require regulating religion into hiding; it requires that they remain institutionally separate. The mere expression of the word “God” in a speech does not a theocracy make.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
January 9, 2006
Number of Cases of Child Rape Covered Up by Planned Parenthood in Illinois Remains Steady in 2004
The latest set of abortion statistics have come out for Illinois that indicate that Planned Parenthood and friends have covered up at least 290 cases of child rape during the year 2004. Local media in the state seemed to miss this during their coverage of the latest statistics.
In Illinois, as in most of the civilized world, the age of consent means that girls under a certain age cannot legally consent to sex, and hence, any intercourse with them is rape. Illinois requires that medical professionals report any cases of child abuse to DCFS. While in this case they tried to make a distinction between a medical professional and someone answering the phone, in this case it is obvious that a medical professional was involved, knew the girls age, and choose not to follow their obligations under the law to report. Contrary to their claims, no investigation is required by Planned Parenthood, they simply have to recognize the girl's age and make a phone call so their can be an appropriate investigation. Instead, they choose to make money on the deal by charging for the abortion and then concealing the fact that there was a crime. This is what Planned Parenthood's apparent business model is.
At the same time they are making a profit by covering up the rape of little girls by dirty old men, they insist that parents should not be allowed to interfere and have no right to know that their children are getting abortions. In fact, in a case of clear kidnapping, rape, and fraud by a child rapists mother, Planned Parenthood had the mother of the daughter who was raped arrested for trying to prevent the abortion. Planned Parenthood will even write prescriptions to non-existent minors they have never seen in what they even admit is against the law.
If you think Dr. Waldyke should not be writing prescriptions to underage girls she hasn't met and encouraging her to share the pills with others so their older rapist boyfriends can get off scot-free, I encourage you to contact her at waldyke@uiuc.edu or by phone at (217) 333-2711. This doctor works for the state (and even used the University's clinic prescription pads to write the order), knew and admitted what she did was illegal and has not been held to account.
Planned Parenthood can proudly boast on their own website that they cover up cases of child rape. The irony of this portion of the pro-choice debate is that the only who gets a choice is the rapist who can choose to cover his tracks.
(ht: Dawn Eden)
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:52 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
January 1, 2006
Articles of Impeachment Being Written
I've just gotten wind that UI Law Professor Francis Boyle is writing new articles of impeachment against the President. (His old version, here consisted of mostly thought crimes). The local anti-war group will be meeting tonight to discuss this with him it looks like. What this means is that not only will they go after the NSA wiretaps, they'll go after the war also and put that in. It'll be interesting to see what the final product is.
UPDATE:
Sorry, fixed old impeachment articles link (http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html) dated 2003. Included such crimes as appointing members of the Federalist Society to the bench, not creating opportunities for minorities, and getting Congress to pass the PATRIOT Act. Get that, because Congress passed the Patriot Act, Bush should be impeached.
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the Left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.
Enter the ACLU. An organization that is solely devoted to the protection of the bill of rights is in the role of advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like their war on abstinence education, this isn't an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone's rights.
The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in the Bill of Rights implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, someone else being presented ideas you disagree with. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist only THEIR policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that ideas is unacceptable. Likewise they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.
You can't be all you can be if you're dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18 year old is too young and ignorant to join the military but a 14 year old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hopes that our weakness there is strength. The side that insists on due process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their abuse of prisoners.
Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asia allies worry that we can't win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can't.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
November 1, 2005
Trent Lott Questions Whether Rove Should Stay?
The headline from Drudge reads:
FLASH: Lott Questions Whether Rove Should Stay At White House...Trent Lott became the first Republican Senator to question whether Karl Rove should stay at the White House as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, interview on MSNBC 'HARDBALL'... Developing...
I'm sure some will make more of this than it's worth, but it pays to remember one little thing...
Remember that Trent Lott did get pushed out of his leadership position over his allegedly "insensitive" comments and had no one who had his back despite the fact that there was no merit to the outrage...
Could this be payback?
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
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 ne