the gratitude campaign...

the gratitude campaign
[click the above]

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.

what's going on here...

In Surprise Step, Bush Is Vetoing a Military Bill

CRAWFORD, Tex. — For months President Bush harangued Democrats in Congress for not moving quickly enough to support the troops and for bogging down military bills with unrelated issues.

And then on Friday, with no warning, a vacationing Mr. Bush announced that he was vetoing a sweeping military policy bill because of an obscure provision that could expose Iraq’s new government to billions of dollars in legal claims dating to Saddam Hussein’s rule.

New York Times, December 29, 2007

The reasoning behind the decision is the $20-30 Billion that Iraq has in American banks.

It would expand the ability of Americans to seek financial compensation from countries that supported or sponsored terrorist acts, including Libya, Iran and Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

When lawsuits are filed they automatically freeze the money until settlement. These lawsuits, many of which are already filed, were brought by veterans of the first Iraqi war for being held, tortured or injured by the government of Saddam Hussein. Section 1083 of the Military Authorization bill would reactivate the suits against Iraq; the money would be frozen; and the current Iraqi government could do nothing about it. Of course, the Maliki government screamed bloody when they heard about it.

First, if we are spending $275 million a week in Iraq, from where in the hell does this $20-30 billion come? Could it be the U.S. money that is missing funding being reported in the news for the last several months? Is it money that the Iraqi politicians have been stashing away?

The Tzar says that it is funds that the Iraqi government needs for rebuilding. If that's so, then for what is the money we're giving them right now doing? Is this like an Iraqi IRA? You know - a retirement fund?

Second, the veto of the bill stops the pay raises of military personnel. It was to increase the raise form 3% to 3.5%. It doesn't really seem like much, but to military personnel putting themselves on the line, it's important to them and especially their families also.

Third, it is part of a much larger military authorization bill - $696 Billion - for defense of the nation. That means Mr. Bush really doesn't care about defense as he so often accuses the Democrats when he perceives them as standing in his way.

Fourth, the Congress and the White House have been in negotiations on this bill for months. The Democrats caved on setting any type of timeline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq in this bill. At no time did Mr. Bush bring up objections to this section of the bill until yesterday - after the bill allegedly had the White House blessing.

Fifth, and what I expect is the primary reason, Bush is using a pocket veto. A pocket veto is used at times when Congress is not in session.

A quick Huckabee civics lesson: there are four actions on bills passed by Congress. The President signs the bill making it law; the President vetoes the bill preventing it from becoming law and sending it back to Congress for reconsideration; the President has 10 day, not counting Sundays, to sign a bill, if s/he does not sign it, the bill automatically becomes law because it has been put in his/her pocket; but, if the Congress is not in session and s/he pockets the bill, it is considered vetoed. The last two are important to remember. In both cases the President is actually not making a stand on the bill because in a veto when Congress is in session, s/he must give reasons for the veto. In the case of letting the bill become law by not signing it, s/he also is not making a stand on the bill.

So, what is really going on in this instance?

If you remember, Senate Majority Leader Reid over Thanksgiving did not let the Senate go into holiday recess in order to prevent the Tzar from appointing judges and government personnel that the Senate must approve and to whom they object. Reid has also kept the Congress technically in pro forma sessions over the Christmas/New Years holidays. This means that the Congress has not adjourned. It legally prevents Bush from making recess appointments and does not give him the ability for a pocket veto.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is saying that what the Congress is doing [pro forma sessions] is not legal by taking this pocket veto action, again placing himself above the law and contrary to the Constitution - Article I Section 7. He may also be hinting that he can make recess appointments because he doesn't consider what Congress is doing legitimate. We shall see.

So, here we are again - a full-blown Constitutional crisis precipitated by Tzar George. Another illustration of the contempt that the Bush/Cheney administration has for the checks and balances section of the Constitution.

And what's going to happen - nothing!

Bush/Cheney know that they have the Democrats and the Congress by the proverbial cajones. It's almost as if we don't have a lame duck president but a lame duck Congress.

So here's the question [you all know there is going to be a question when I do this stuff]:

How can Mr. Bush push democracy around the world - Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc - when he takes step after step, action after action, to destroy the U.S. form of democracy?

you know...,

i'm just asking...

Buchanan & DADT: it must have been a joke....

Pat Buchanan accused Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr of lacking courage by his question at the Republican CNN/youtube debate the other night - Pat Buchanan: Retired gay Brigadier General lacked 'courage' for not coming out sooner. He had to have been making a funny.

Buchanan is adamant about upholding the law of the land, and Don't Ask Don't Tell is the law of the land.

The general swore an oath -

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office

In Buchanan's own words:

"When the general did not identify himself as a fierce partisan of Hillary Rodham Clinton and presented himself simply as a military man who had served and who was gay, and who obviously did not have the courage, frankly, when he was in the military to come out of the closet and say 'I'm gay,' and to attack the Republicans for lacking the courage to take a position he was unable to take; I think makes him look rather bad."

It's a joke. Right?

Is Mr. Buchanan saying that Brig. General Kerr should have broken the law? Just the name DADT - Don't Ask Don't Tell - explains the law clearly.

The true courage that Gen. Kerr showed is in following the law against his own personal convictions. I'm sure to be a brigadier general one must have more than average intelligence, shown exemplary actions in the line of duty, and acted respectfully of both his/her oath of office and the Constitution.

Is Buchanan talking out of both sides of his mouth - at the same time?

just asking...

oh, and the NYT today has a story entitled A New Push to Roll Back ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.

Marking the 14th anniversary of legislation that allowed gay men and lesbians to serve in the military but only if they kept their orientation secret, 28 retired generals and admirals plan to release a letter on Friday urging Congress to repeal the law.

“We respectfully urge Congress to repeal the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy,” the letter says. “Those of us signing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish.”

The NYT even has a graphic showing that LGBT men and women are abiding by the law in following it and staying in the Armed Services against their own personal convictions in order to support and defend the Constitution of the United States:



Is Mr. Buchanan going to say that these 28 retired generals not coming forward while they were in service showed lack of courage also? After all, they too were upholding the law of the land by supporting the DADT when they were on active duty. It can't be because they were all gay. The leading member of the group is Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Wait! Again, I'm sorry. I forgot that Gen. Shalikashvili is an immigrant from the Georgian region of Russia. Mr. Buchanan's new book, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart talks at length about how the polyglot and the opening of U.S. borders are helping to diminish and disassemble this great nation of... immigrants. That must be part of problem. He's actually one of those liberal, secular Europeans. That's it. Those people accept everyone and go against everything that is traditionally American. You know - disenfranchisement, bigotry, christianism, unacceptance. We've fought wars to protect these things.

oh, wait, again. So did General Shalikashvili and the other generals and admirals. Even if they didn't support those kinds of beliefs, because they believed you had the right to have them.

duh! Mr. Buchanan, you're an immigrant too, and as my grandfather would say from pig-shit Irish. He knew. He was one. My grandmother, on the other hand was lace curtain Irish. With my mother's family being Italian after being exiled from Albania 500-600 years ago due to the Ottoman Empire's Islamic horde invading the enitre Adriatic area, I come from the best of both worlds, actually all worlds.

and I'll tell...

more proof of John Dean's "Broken Government"...

Harper's Magazine has a powerful article by Scott Horton entitled "Resurrecting the Star Chamber". It makes the case that the Bush/Cheney administration has been in the process of resurrecting the "Star Chamber" used during the Stuart and Tudor reigns and abused highly during the terror of King Charles. It was the model of what our Constitution is not.

When the Founding Fathers looked for a model that reflected the abuses they objected to—in short what they intended to forbid by their new Constitution and Bill of Rights—they turned to an English institution, the Court of Star Chamber. It was a state security court with ancient roots which flourished under the Tudor and Stuart monarchs. The Star Chamber court operated in secrecy, was not bothered by the picky evidentiary rules that emerged in other courts, and did not believe that those appearing before it on state security charges had many rights—certainly not the right to counsel, nor even the right to conduct a defense. It relied very heavily on torture to extract the evidence it sought to convict, usually a confession—though rarely, of course, a confession with any validity, since the application of the rack would quickly get the subject to say whatever was desired, truthful or not.

Sound familiar?

Horton has a little tidbit in his article that is scary as all hell.

Reports have begun to circulate that the Administration has put together a group of scholars headed by a right-wing activist judge to craft legislation to introduce a new court of Star Chamber, perhaps to be floated in the coming year.

It's not that far of a stretch using Horton's logic.

As we see in the public pronouncements of the Bush Administration, accusations leveled at detainees in the war on terror are leveled for political effect, and often to parallel partisan political campaigns. If those accusations are rejected by a court, it therefore undermines confidence in the Administration and the Party. Which is why, in the Bush view of justice, a failure to convict is unacceptable. And which is why the Bush view of justice is no justice at all.

The Tsar and his Rasputin have seriously derailed the Constitution and railroaded the Courts by stacking it with partisanship and influenced it with politics. There is less and less transparency left in our Government.

If you haven't yet read John Dean's book Broken Government, I highly recommend it. Dean follows the history and outlines the steps that the neocons, christianists, and wingnuts have taken to not just take over the game but used deliberate strategies to change the rules of the game as set out by the Founding Fathers.

I don't know if we're going to come out of this or not. It took twenty years after Watergate to return to a semblance of normal Constitutional equilibrium, and some people strongly believe that Cheney has orchestrated all of this as revenge. Cheney shows that he strongly believes Nixon's logic of extra-legality for the presidency:

Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.... 

Lincoln said, and I think I can remember the quote almost exactly, he said, "Actions which otherwise would be unconstitutional, could become lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the Constitution and the Nation." 

Nixon's Views on Presidential Power:

Excerpts from an Interview with David Frost, May 19, 1977

Yes, but the Constitution is not under attack from outside the government. Bush/Cheney are the government and they are the ones doing their best at squandering the Constitution.

"iranity" insanity...

How in the hell did Al Gore pick this man as his running mate in 2000? It is beyond the pale.

Lieberman (I-MA) and Kyl (R-AZ) have proposed an amendment to the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill that the czar and his Rasputin (Bush/Cheney administration) could put a case forward that they have the authority from Congress to go to was with Iran. [Politics Plus] Here are the two important parts of the amendment:

    (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
   
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

I have no real comment on this. It speaks for itself in very clear terms. They want war with Iran. They are not going to stop until they have taken the ultimate step of putting the U.S. in the position of not standing by its historical values - diplomacy, cooperation and collaboration - rather than first strike as Bush/Cheney did in Iraq.

Of course, they'll cry that progressives and the Democrats are anti-American, pro-terrorism, un-supportive of the troops, and all the rest of their bullshit.

i'm going to break a rule...

My friends will tell you that I do not go to the movies in a theater unless it's something like a Star Trek, Star Wars, Bourne (opens Aug 3), or something that I think needs to be seen on a big screen because of special effects. The reason I don't go is because I end up sitting near the people whose cell phone rings constantly and they talk or next to the couple who brings their 2-year old to an adult movie and lets her crawl around on the floor with a flashlight. [Yes, this actually happened to me.] It never fails, so I don't go.

This film is something for which I absolutely will break my rule. It was the winner of the Special Jury Prize: Documentary at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival.

The preview below is enough to get me going & not just to go see it...

No End in Sight

the hero and the general...

In the last update on Adam Kokesh, I reported that the military panel recommended a general discharge and that it had to go to the general to whom Adam wrote one of the emails for final adjudication. Well, the general made his decision. The decision is the one that most people expected:

Anti-war Marine receives discharge below honorable

An Iraq war veteran was kicked out of the Marines with a general discharge after he wore his uniform during an anti-war demonstration, the military announced Wednesday.

Lt. Gen. John Bergman, commanding general of Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans, agreed Monday to give Adam Kokesh a general discharge under honorable conditions, based on a military panel's recommendation. Chicago Tribune, Jue 14, 2007

Now what do you suppose the decision would have been had a different general had to make the final decision? Right! The exact same one.

That's no going to be the end of it. Kokesh and his attorney intend to appeal, ultimately moving into the courts.

Mike Lebowitz, an attorney for Kokesh, said he planned to appeal to the Navy Discharge Review Board in Washington, which he described as a step toward getting the case into federal court.

Part of the problem, remember, is that Adam Kokesh had already been given an Honorable Discharge. This was an attempt to remove him from that status. They originally wanted to revoke it and replace it with a Less that Honorable discharge, in which case Adam would have lost all veteran's benefits.

And it's not stopping there:

Two other Iraq veterans were contacted by the Marines about their protest activities. "Now that the Marine Corps is going after honorably discharged members, who are in fact civilians, for free speech rights, we are fighting back," Lebowitz said Wednesday. "We are seeking a precedent in federal court."

So what's going on here?

You can be in the military to fight for the freedom and democratic principles of the country. However, when you exercise those rights by questioning the involvement of the country in a war that you no longer believe in, then you become a...

a what?

here's to the heroes... update:

No Dishonorable Discharge For Anti-War Marine

A military panel has recommended a general discharge for an Iraq war veteran who wore his uniform during a war protest and later responded with an obscenity to a superior who told him he might have violated military rules.

but it's not an Honorable discharge. It's a general discharge. It's more like, "You're outta here." Adam won't have to lose his military benefits, but it's not over yet.

The recommendation of the military panel is not the final word.

Brig. Gen. Darrell L. Moore, one of two officers who received an e-mail from Kokesh that contained an obscenity, likely will decide whether to go along with the board's recommendation.

Kokesh himself is not happy with the outcome of the hearing because

"I do not think it was in the Marine Corps spirit to take the easy road or to not take a stand. In the words of Dante, the hottest layers of hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality, and I think that's what happened here today."

Quoting Dante?

courage, experience, looks, intelligence and knowledge of the classics, he's an even BIGGER hero to me now, especially with that quote.