what has Obama's election wrought?

i realize it's been quite a while since i've done any serious posting. other things have been on the agenda. like, i'm supposed to be in Honduras right now working with some of the schools. needless to say, we've had to reschedule because of the political unrest down there. we're now going at the end of the month. [fingers crossed]

that's part of what actually prompted this question about Obama.

i've been watching the upheaval in Honduras very closely, monitoring the newspapers and radio down there daily.

next, we've seen the ongoing drama in Iran. today, the battling has begun again on the streets. violence has erupted again.

then, the Chinese are cracking down on the Uighars and are fighting daily.

and, in Malaysia the people are up in arms because the government wants to put a ban on teaching math and science in English. they believe that will put them behind the rest of the world.


there are a few underlying signs in Venezuela with the mayor of Caracas on a hunger strike against Chavez and he has threatened to close down over 240 radio stations because of their content.

i can't even get into things going on in the U.S., but there does seem to be an underlying tension and a lot of it is not just the economic situation. that is just appearing to be a symptom.

the country appears to be undergoing a crisis in its anima. many people are questioning what has happened, how we got here and what comes next. some of us are even asking, "is it worth it?"

other areas of unrest in the world keep popping up too.

from what i've been observing, there is one thing that they all have in common. the unrest is coming from the people of each country.

is there something in the recent election of Obama that is in some way working on the conscience of the world?

it's something to think about.

and i'm just asking...

Memorial Day...

the official start of summer activities; the first BBQ on the patio for the season; the beginning of travel season.

more important, the remembrance of all the women and men, living and dead, who served to protect us over the decades.

my father and my uncles served in WWII; my cousin served in Korea; many of my friends served in Vietnam and some of them are still there.

i've been surrounded by wars my entire life. i am, however, a pacifist - totally. i do not even believe that a government has the right to take a human life.

yet, i do understand that there are times when people and nations have to defend themselves. there are others in the world who do not believe in the concept of peace; there are groups who believe that to get what they want they must resort to violence and murder; and there are zealots who are convinced that their way is the only way to do things.

but, i strive, at least for myself, to push for the humanity of the world.

yesterday afternoon, i saw what i can only describe as the most haunting and believable argument against war - the opera Owen Wingrave by Benjamin Britten. commissioned by the BBC, it was first performed in 1970, at the height of the Vietnam Conflict. an irony that did not escape notice.

the story is about a young British aristocrat whose family was military backbone of Great Britain. after much thought, Owen comes to believe that war and violence has to stop, or at least the glorification of it. his family is distraught, not because of his stand but because of the disgrace it brings to them. his grandfather, Sir Phillip, disinherits him, his betrothed rejects him, his aunt repels him. Owen stays resolute.

he is branded a coward; he denies he lacks courage. his mentor and teacher of war tactics, Mr. Coyle, comes to realize he has more courage than most others and is torn.

of course, Owen dies at the end, but not how you would think. the original short story by Henry James and the opera are also a ghost story. the ghosts are woven in because they are Owen's ancestors.

it may seem ironic to talk about someone opposed to war as a way of honoring Memorial Day, but there are different kinds of heroes. one of Owen's lines in the opera is most prophetic and is actually by one of England's greatest war heroes: The Duke of Wellington

"Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained."

the opera also points out the irony that wars are fought to gain peace, a fact not lost on the character of Owen.

in the end, we must remember those who have served us. it is a dichotomy that is inescapable in the world.

Benjamin Britten also wrote a piece that was both a tribute to those who had fought and died in WWII and also something that remembered the horror of war and conflict. his War Requiem is one of the greatest musical compositions of the 20th century. i include below the last part of the Libera me what Britten called "Let us sleep now" in dedication to all those who served us.

a misnomer...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

United States Constitution
Bill of Rights

over the years we have heard this cry of free speech being constricted from the religious zealots more than any other group.

just within the last few weeks we have heard it invoked with things like the Miss California brouhaha and by NOM. they believe that their inherent right of free speech is being denied, but more important, they believe they actually have this right because of the First Amendment cited above.

they need to read the amendment very carefully. it DOES NOT say that they have the right to say anything that they want. it says

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech

it is very clear. the amendment is establishing the prohibition of Congress to pass laws prohibiting the freedom of speech. however, it does not give anyone the right to say whatever they want, true or not.

as a matter of fact, SCOTUS has time and again upheld the decisions of employers, organizations, the general public, etc. in restricting what people can say.

the quintessential argument for this is the Schenck Case, heard by SCOTUS in 1919. it is widely known for the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater", itself a misnomer because it is misquoted often. the actual ruling says:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

i put the key word in bold - falsely.

the Schenck case itself is very interesting. it dealt with the distribution of flyers during WWI opposing the draft. the Court unanimously held that this was a condition that dealt with a clear and present danger to the U.S. - it's right to protect itself.

the Court decision was subsequently overturned by itself in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. [Wikipedia]

this case dealt with a KKK member who was convicted of alleged activities and speech that could cause a clear and present danger since one of the entities he spoke against was the U.S. government.

the 1969 decision changed the test from clear and present danger to "imminent lawless action". it is the bellweather still used by the courts today.

again, though, the Court is upholding the idea that people cannot say whatever they want, if it is going to cause larger problems or dangers. only now there has to be proof of imminent danger. shouting fire in a crowded theater would still be a problem, if it is false.

so, did Miss California border on causing imminent lawless action? no, but here is her problem. she was under contract to an business run by a private concern. hence, she was really under the restrictions of that corporation. she could, in fact, be censored by the organization if she broke her contract with them. [she was by the California subsidiary but not he national.]

her right of free speech was in no way infringed upon by Congress. too often people use the First Amendment to indicate that they can say whatever they want, whenever they want. it doesn't. it says that Congress cannot pass a law infringing upon free speech. the courts say there has to be some reason for the speech that will not cause an imminent danger.

Blogswarm: Blog Against Theocracy 2009...

below is a reposting of the one i did last year. it is still relevant and probably always will be as long as the country has fringe groups that believe that they own the only right to foist their beliefs on everyone else. they forget that we were instituted as a nation of immigrants who were searching for a place to live as they believed was right for themselves.

on Hardball tonight Christopher Hitchens was on with a religious who smiled for the entire time as Hitch made logical point after logical point based on fact not innuendo and not unquestioning faith that is highly overrated. when Hitch said that Benjamin Franklin was an atheist [well documented] i thought the man was going into apoplexy. when the point was made that the Puritans came to the Americas do be free to worship and believe as they wanted not enter another land that said they could only do it one way, the man twisted it to say that it was proof that we have a christian nation.

b***s***!

Blogswarm Against Theocracy 2009: April 10-12, 2009

One of the cornerstones of the U.S. Constitution insisted by the Founding Fathers was Freedom of Religion. They were aware that the New World was made up of many peoples from many lands who had a myriad of beliefs. Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, et al lived in an empire that had little tolerance for other beliefs and religions with a state sanctioned religion - The Church of England. The Church of England was founded purely for political expediency - Henry VIII's hunger for an heir.

Over the course of history, there have been many examples of theocratic governments and it is obvious that they all had one thing in common - repression of anyone or any belief that did not fit into their world view. Most often this repression was violent.

Today, we see perfect examples of theocracy's rule in the Muslim world by extremists who have highjacked the religion of Mohammed to meet their own thirst for power and control. Countless citizens are maimed, murdered, exiled and tortured simply because they do not believe as others think they should.

The guarantee of the Constitution by Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

was written into the document to prevent the abuses so often foisted by theocratic governments.

Sadly, in the U.S. today we have been bombarded by rhetoric and innuendo by certain political forces that believe we should be subjected to a form of christianist sharia. They believe, wrongly, that the country was founded on christianist principles when the Founding Fathers overwhelming in personal writings warned of christianist inequities. In fact, most all of them viewed themselves simply as deists - "the belief that the existence and nature of God comes from reason and personal experience."

Inherent in "freedom of religion" is the idea "freedom from religion. There are people who, through the use of reason and personal experience, have come to the conclusion that there is no god. This is as unique a conviction as choosing a denomination or sect with which to identify for others. During this current presidential campaign it has been invoked time after time that the one type of person who could never be elected president would be an atheist or agnostic, and nearly 100% of people believe it.

The logo at the beginning of this post was created for a blogswarm addressing the support of Freedom of Religion. The purpose of this tactic is to make as many people aware of a certain issue as possible, to bring focus on a problem or possible injustice, and to foster understanding and acceptance.

I find it interesting that the group initiating Blog Against Theocracy 2008 chose Easter weekend for this action, a time of rebirth and reaffirmation. It is appropriate to remind people that their right and freedom to believe as they choose is written into law, that it is under attack at all times, and that there is always a demagogue right around the corner believing they have the answer to everything - no questions allowed.

You can find out more about the blogswarm by clicking Here

originally posted March 21, 2008

man did this look great...

it stopped! thank the fates. the nightmare of the last eight years is over. now, the mess has to be cleaned up.

i'm going to leave it in the sidebar for a couple more weeks, just to make sure it really is over...

will we ever be able to say...

The War Is Over
by John Lennon

will we?

i won't give up hope
because...

when hope is gone, life is over....
Hopi Native-American belief

the vatican's stance on in-vitro fertilization...

seems off their message concerning marriage.

The Vatican issued its most authoritative and sweeping document on bioethical issues in more than 20 years on Friday, taking into account recent developments in biomedical technology and reinforcing the church’s opposition to in vitro fertilization, human cloning, genetic testing on embryos before implantation and embryonic stem cell research.

Vatican Issues Instruction on Bioethics, New York Times, Dec 13, 2008

Given the church's stance on marriage is for procreation and is only allowed in opposite-sex partnerships, doesn't this rule go against a core belief? if a couple marries to have children and discovers that it is impossible in the normal way [normal according to the RC] why is it wrong for them to use any means to bring more members into the church? It is a life in their definition.

The article in the NYT cites the “Dignitas Personae” that has just been released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The document is much broader than just in-vitro. It includes stands on abortion, birth control, stem cell research and other bioethical issues, as they define them.

One should understand that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is made up of a bunch of old men, clergy, who are not supposed to have sex and are responsible only to the pope and two-thousand years of mythology. Their stand not only applies to the faithful but to all medical and scientific persons who would administer or research no matter what their faith.

A representative from a U.S. organization of catholic medical members explained in-vitro this way:

Kathleen M. Raviele, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Georgia who is president of the Catholic Medical Association, said she tells her patients: “God creates through an act of love, and that’s not what’s happening in the laboratory. It’s the technician who’s creating. What in vitro does, is it separates the creation of a child from the marital act.”

Why would concieving a child in-vitro not be considered a marital act of love? If a couple wants to have a child and they are incapable themselves, why not use in-vitro and, I'd assume, in some cases, a surrogate mother? A life is a life.

Of course, I'm sure there are other considerations behind this "The Dignity of the Person" document, icluding the timing of its release - same-sex marriage, Obama's defense of stem cell research, birth control use in the U.S., etc.

I long ago left the RC of my own volition first, because I couldn't handle the hypocrisy and second, because I no longer could believe in the mythology. There is an issue with faith and believing but, in its present two-thousand year old formulaic incarnation, it declines the one thing that is the basis of that faith and belief - free will.

A bunch of old men, in their infinite wisdom, set out the rules in the guise of guiding the faithful to act as they should but take away the one right they possess - the right to chose.

ironic or hypocritical? i'm not certain into which it falls. maybe both...

the "anti-America"...

Keith Olbermann apologizes for another special comment so soon after the last one. He states that he does not want it to become a regular spot on Countdown but senses that in this, the last two weeks of the 2008 election, it might become more frequent. So, he apologizes.

Last night's comment brought up an old bone of contention for me. The special comment first:



I have mentioned in passing with different posts that I was, to an extent, involved with anti-Vietnam war activities, feelings and protests. This is not something with which I am sorry. Rather, it is something in which I have pride.

At the time, the tenor of the country was if you were anti-war, you were anti-American. I couldn't be more opposed to that line of thinking. I believe the opposite.

At the time, the country was involved in what some, and I include myself, was an illegal war. It was not in the best interest of the country; it was a purely ideological conflict. It was a holdover from the McCarthy era. The fear of Communism was great; U.S. politicians feared that it would dominate the world; patriots believed that the U.S. was in danger of an assault by Communism, i.e. the USSR. Of course, history finally proved that there was nothing to fear and Communism fell.

I am using the word Communism with a big C because it is not the same as the social and economic communism philosophized by Karl Marx and his associates. The big C Communism was a form of government created and fostered by Lenin, Stalin, and other Soviet Union leaders as a form of big brother government that controlled all aspects of the country - thought, behaviour, beliefs, etc. If we were fighting against this in Vietnam, I think there is a case for the conflict.

I question if a small country in Southeast Asia was the place to make the stand though. A country that historically was always in conflict with the West because of imperialistic takeover and control. A French colony that France finally saw as a losing proposition and got out.

I also am reminded of what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address: the military-industrial complex.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The last eight years has shown the rise of misplaced power. I'm sure that it would not please Mr. Eisenhower if he knew the extent to which his predictions have materialized. Sadly, it was President Eisenhower and his administration that increased the aid to Vietnam under the pretext of the belief at the time that if Vietnam falls, so falls the rest of Southeast Asia.

I mention these things as a little background to my thought process about anti-America.

At the time, in listening to the Vietnam anti-war leaders and the prevailing thought against the conflict, I don't believe that we believed that we were being anti-America. Just the opposite.

My take is that I, along with others, believed that we were being tremendously pro-America. We were questioning, in legal ways to the great extent, the efficacy of the government's actions and exercising what the Constitution guaranteed as a right to disagree with the government.

I discount those that acted violently. They were in the minority and actually worked against the non-violent stance of the majority of anti-war protesters and actions. The purpose of the movement was based primarily on belief in non-violence being the means and best way of action. I have always thought that groups that called for and committed acts of violence were actually counterproductive to the anti-war movement.

Now, knowing that this will ruffle feathers of patriots with narrow mindedness and who believe that there is only one right way to be pro-American, I have to restate that I believed that Daniel & Philip Berrigan, Steven Spiro, and, as it was brought out during the last presidential election, John Kerry considered themselves pro-America because they were working for what they believed to be a just cause that would strengthen the country.

I am as proud of these people as I am proud of Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, Keith Olbermann, and many others who work to make the U.S. greater and more inclusive of all thoughts as is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Something that self-identified patriots, and I include Mrs. Palin in this group, would control by using it themselves to speak their distaste for dialogue and inclusion.

ironic, i think...

not much has really changed...

when it comes to the new FISA bill. check this out from 1970 -




see, that little black FBI book still works...

should we be more concerned about the bushies knowing more about us?

just asking...


i just remembered something. there was a piece in the news about Cher getting married again last week. CHER REP LAUGHS OFF RUMORS OF SECRET VEGAS WEDDING.

what more proof do we need that nothing has really changed?

quick F.I.S.A. challenge

I predicted in my post F.I.S.A. bill passed..., on Wednesday that as I wrote the post someone was preparing to take it to court.

heads up...

ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law

You can read the entire post at the ACLU website by clicking above, but here are a couple of highlights.

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.

The main point:

Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."

hmmm, let's see...

This means that someone in some officious [notice i didn't say official] government office or Comcast Cable cubicle may be reading this right now and notating that I am writing something that they may determine is a threat to the country's security and forwarding this to who know what other officious office or cubicle.

Oh, and they also know that you are reading this right now; so, they have just sent your IP Address along with the report or opened another report/file all about you.

SURPRISE!!!

Well, you might say, "This is all for national security."

I ask. How are you or I a threat to national security? And, what about the officious person in that officious office or cubicle who now has information on us? Who will/can guarantee that they will not use anything that they determined to be information for spurious reasons of their or the government's design? This law eviscerates the 4th Amendment.

see...

be careful, if you are a Jehovah Witness, Black, American gueer you do have a lot to worry about whether you are going to Montenegro or staying in Chattanooga...

as F.I.S.A. crosses borders...

The United States is negotiating deals with European countries to exchange fingerprint and DNA data in criminal and terrorist cases, and in some circumstances to transfer data on race or ethnic origin, political and religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.

Such agreements are a condition for granting citizens of newer European Union member states the right to enter the United States without visas, and for maintaining that right for older E.U. members. U.S. citizens already enjoy such a right when traveling to Europe.

U.S. Seeks Data Exchange, The Washington Post, 8 July 2008

all in the name of Homeland Security, of course.

when's the last time you heard of a Jehovah Witness, Black, Montengran gueer strap a bomb around his middle and get onto a Unite Airlines 777 and fly to the United States?

or...

when's the last time you ever heard of a Jehovah Witness, Black, American gueer get on a plane and fly to Montengro with a bomb strapped around his middle?

you see it's going to go both ways. they can tell the U.S. who is a Jehovah Witness, Black, Montengran gueer and we can tell them who is Jehovah Witness, Black, American gueer.

what is wrong with this picture?

just asking...

F.I.S.A. bill passed...

Anyone with any sense of the news was aware it would happen. What was surprising to me is the vote was 69 - 28 with 3 not voting: Sessions, Kennedy and McCain. (Maybe, I shouldn't have been so surprised.)

Living in Illinois, it was a split decision. Senator Durbin was one of the 28 voting Nay. Senator Obama was part of the 69 voting Yea. Since there is no such thing as a present vote in the U.S. Senate, he only had one other choice: the not voting one.

You can go to the U.S. Senate website to see how your Senators voted: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304)



you all don't know how difficult it has been for me over the last couple of weeks, listening to the parsing that has been happening in the Obama campaign, to bite my tongue and not say, "I told you so."

trust me, this is just the beginning...

one of the hopes regarding the F.I.S.A. bill is, as you read this, someone is already making the move to have it in court the minute the Tsar signs it into law. so far, even his own Republican federal judges have held against him on things like this.

we'll see...



i'm sorry, i forgot to mention that Hillary was also one of the 28 voting Nay, as was Majority Leader Sen. Reid!

SCOTUS gun ruling results a no-brainer...

New York Times, June 26, 2008

Justices Rule for Individual Gun Rights: Divided Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

The Supreme Court declared for the first time on Thursday that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the landmark 5-to-4 decision, said the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” In so declaring, the majority found that a gun-control law in the nation’s capital went too far in making it nearly impossible to own a handgun.

It was another 5-4 decision with Scalia writing the majority opinion and Kennedy doing his usual swing vote thingy.

It's a no brainer because of the make-up of the court and because the D.C. law was incredibly restrictive. It even mandated how guns were to be stored.

The gist of the decision was that the Constitution doesn't absolutely forbid gun ownership by private citizens but does have caveats"

for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” is not unlimited. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Justice Scalia wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion based on historical precedent bordering on stare decisis:

A dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

In effect, what the arguments boiled down to are interpretations based on a strict-constructionist view of the Constitution. Something that has been at the heart of the right's justification for their laws.

It's still a dangerous road we're on here. The Second Amendment states

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess we could say that Mr. Scalia has substituted the word militia with the word vigilante

The future of these 5-4 decisions are almost a foregone conclusion even with a Democrat in the White House. The only justices who would possibly retire in the near future are on the 4 side of the Court - Stevens and Ginsburg. At least for the next four years, Tsar Bush will continue doing damage to the Constitution. If McCain is elected all bets are off. The wingers will have what they've been planning since Nixon resigned.

the Tsar and his Rasputin continue the attacks...

and I'm not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. Those don't seem to work anyway.

They are attacking the "public".

In another move to take more and more away from the people they are pushing a bill up for a vote tomorrow in the Senate that would keep more of the truth from us.

The administration has proposed cutting the public broadcasting budget by 56 percent -- putting at risk vital news, educational and cultural programming that millions of Americans say they prefer to commercial media. Freepress, 23 June 2008

Built into the laws have always been a requirement to collect local viewer data, report factual materials, provide educational opportunity, and programs of public interest. A lot of the programming is also backed by both private and public grants, giving more meaning to reflecting the needs and wishes of the public. In other words, telling the truth or allowing the public to decide for ourselves.

More and more the "public" is becoming a concept rather than a reality as a result of the Bush/Cheney seven year fiasco. More and more is being done for big business and less and less for the people at our expense.

Business needs to realize that it is the "people" that keep them going. What would they do if the "public" decided to stop paying their bills? Oh, wait, Bush/Cheney would bail business out.

Let your senators know directly by sending them an online letter via Freepress here and sign a petition they have working to make all lawmakers aware that you want public broadcasting to be fully funded and additional funding provided here.

fight for freedom and fleeing to Habeas Corpus...

The Chicago Sun-Times today reprinted this cartoon by Pat Oliphant concerning the 5-4 decision to give alleged terrorists and non-citizens the right to be covered by the US court system and most specifically the habeas corpus. I think it sums up quite a bit.



Right now, I can't remember who spoke the words "At what price freedom?" but we've been paying too high a price for the last seven-and-a-half years and I'm not talking about the cost of gasoline.

In spite of differences I have in political areas, we must elect a Democrat president because of SCOTUS. Justice John Paul Stevens has gone above and beyond the call of duty being on the court since 1975. He is 88 years young. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sat on it since 1993. She is 75. They have been protecting us for a long time, while the four in the Pat Oliphant cartoon above have done everything in their power to protect big business, secrecy, and political interests.

The only way to assure our existing freedoms remain and the the fight for ones we have lost are restored is to elect a Democratic president, no matter who it is.

SCOTUS 5-4 ruling on freedom rights...

The Supreme Court of the United States this afternoon defended the right of prisoners being held, most incognito, at Guantanamo and other terrorist detention centers to have their confinement questioned using U.S. the court system.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. New York Times, 12 June 2008

Of course, the Bush/Cheney Administration just thinks the world has been taken away from them and ultra-conservative anti-terrorism afficionados believe that every building over 10 stories will have a plane flown into it now.

President Bush was unhappy with the ruling. ''We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it,'' the president said during a press conference in Rome. ''It was a deeply divided court, and I strongly agree with those who dissented.''

Does this mean that he's going to ignore it? Can he do a signing statement with a SCOTUS decision?

This is the third time that the Tsar's protection plans for us have been ruled more or less unconstitutional.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the constitutional rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

The significance of this decision is in one statement by Justice Kennedy's majority opinion.

''The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.''

No one is above the Constitution - NO ONE.

Of course, the Tsar and his minions can can just dilly-dally for the next 221 days and leave the next administration to clean up its mess.

or not...

ask a lot...

and don't support or reward...

That's what the current administration and the powers that be think of the women and men who put their lives on the line for them. It's not just a crime it's an embarrassment to the memories of past veterans from all wars.

Senators Webb & Hagel have filed a bill that is just and reinforces the commitment that service members have made to us. Senators McCain and Cornyn have put forward their own bill that tells the veterans that their service isn't important. Of course, these are the same men who support the Iraq invasion and want it to continue.

Watch the video below that VoteVets.org is running this week asking Mr. McCain to do the honorable thing. Consider supporting the organizations efforts with a contribution to the work.




Donate here - VoteVets.org

Take a personal stand by signing the petition at The Real McCain: Why won't McCain sign the G.I. Bill?

it's not just being queer...

Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

Everyone is aware that most in the military don't want LGBTQ involved with the service but there has also been a concerted effort by evangelical [christianists] service members to eliminate atheists as well.

Soldier Sues Army, Saying His Atheism Led to Threats

FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers. New York Times, April 26, 2008

There is a large flaw in Maj. Freddie's argument - going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!

What the Founding Fathers wanted was a nation that had tolerance for all beliefs. Contrary to what Freddie thinks, not believing is a belief.

Add to that the fact that many of the Founding Fathers were not Christian but deists and warned against the intolerance and bigotry of christian sects and you have to wonder what history class Major Freddie missed. It may have been all of his American History classes. Of course, people also hear and read what they want. Christianists insist that they read their Bible literally, when in fact they are the biggest interpreters of it. They will pull the parts that they agree with to bolster their intolerance and ignore the universal message behind it.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Of course, Specialist Jeremy Hall isn't the first time we've heard about religious intolerance in the military. There was the scandal at the Air Force Academy when commanding officers were evangelical proselytizing and forcing cadets to participate and belittling them if they didn't. It was in direct conflict with Air Force procedures and rules.

Also, Remember footballer/soldier Pat Tillman? After his death by friendly fire, there were questions about his non-belief and wild inferencing that it may have been because of this. At the least, military personnel belittle his family after his funeral because of their non-belief.

So much for defending your country's right of tolerance.

how far do the Tsar, his Rasputin and their minions intend to go?

Click on the link below if you want to see what could happen. Don't be misled by the title.


Pizza Order


This is not from any fly-by-night scare mongering organization or person. It's from the American Civil Liberties Union. They even fight for the bad guys to protect all of our rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Right now, when I call one of my favorite pizza/chicken delivery joints, they answer with "Can I take your order Mr. I******?" and then repeat my address and phone number as a double check before I say anything. They probably could even just process the order without asking me what it is because it very seldom varies. This is just from using Caller ID.

The Bush/Cheney administration is doing all they can to save us from terrorists, whether we think it's necessary or not, BUT what else are they doing with the information they are gathering? To whom are they giving the information? For what purposes are they giving/using the information?

AND what will the next presidential administration do with it? I would hope they hit the delete button so that it all goes away. While I don't believe that there really is anyone smart enough to put together a fool-proof conspiracy, I do believe that there are idiots out there that will do anything to feed their egos and their pockets. [I think the ego thing is the scarier.]

If the telecoms have been gathering information on the orders of the government using a catch-all-you-can technique and then screening everything on the chance they'll find something on luck, it makes you wonder what they've given to the oil companies, the airlines, the insurance companies... not etc. but rather ad nauseum...

this is not our Founding Father's country anymore...

life should be a musical...

at the Baldwin Hills Mall Food Court
Los Angeles, Californis

maybe if people broke into song more often there would be more happiness and less anxiety...

the video is from the people at Improv Everywhere who did the Freeze at Grand Central Station. If you haven't seen it, click on the Freeze link to watch something incredible.