Yesterday, I wrote about how the left has abandoned the people. In my twisted little way, that article was prompted by thinking about who on the left was stills standing up for populism. Largely because of the right's successful branding of populists as "humanists" (a super-dirty word to all the evangelical dominionists who form the far religious right) and "socialists" (anyone who thinks that government money should be used to further social programs) and the further branding of anyone who speaks for military reduction and true diplomacy instead of embargo or attack as a soft wimp.
Still, as I was thinking yesterday morning, there are a few lefties who still stand their ground. They are the ones the Democratic party should be listening to and following. They are the ones who are sometimes found standing alone in the empty chambers of the Congress reading their objections to our national neuroses into the Congressional Record. They are Dennis Kucinich, Robert Byrd, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Patrick Leahy, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
As a great example of this, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) stood last month to object to yet another move by BushCo to enable easy declaration of martial law.
It is this area of law that most scares those of us on the left, and it is also in this area that the radical right most vehemently condemns anyone who speaks out against it. In the time that Bush has been in office, the right has passed and/or tacitly allowed so many infringements upon the rights of the people that this last act , Public Law 109-364 - the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 was seen by Leahy as actually encouraging the declaration of martial law.
Such a declaration is, to the left, the most disastrous possible way that an American government could act. Martial law is the complete antithesis of democracy and as such should only be possible under the most strident attempts by enemies of the state to take our nation down. The big threat arises now because enabling easy declaration of martial law is just the cap on a pillar of earlier legislation that step-by-step made it easier for the Executive branch to declare persons enemies of the state.
The risk of martial law is greatly enhanced when the president can declare individuals to be enemies of the state without due cause as enabled by the Patriot Act. That risk is also made more imminent when the president can authorize surveillance of individuals without judicial oversight. It is worsened when the courts can be sidestepped by virtue of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
And now, Leahy says, the last barriers to the use of the military to supplant civilian police officers are being removed by the Warner Defense Act.
Historically, the government has always been barred from using the military as domestic police. The Insurrection Act (10U.S.C.331-335) and the Posse Comitatus Act (18U.S.C.1385) have worked to prohibit such action. But the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2007 removes the bars. Acting in conjunction with the Military Commissions Act which allows torture and detention abroad, this law makes the same allowances at home.
Read more about this and the detentions centers in place to imprison declared enemies of the state in this article: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law and be prepared to shiver from the chills it will run up and down your spine.
Next week, more about our loss of freedoms and the motivations behind the far right movement to advance its interests by infringing upon yours. In the meantime -- thank any politician you know who stands up for your rights and thank your stars that they are there.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Friday, November 9, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
The Left Has Left
The left wing of American politics has failed the people. Touting themselves as champions of citizens' rights, the left has, since the days of Thomas Jefferson who took over from John Adams and rid the country of The Sedition Act, held itself out to voters as their only hope against the greed of the right who hold that all regulation of trade and earning power is bad and that the proper role of government is not to maintain the well-being of the nation's people and resources, but rather their exploitation for the "greater good". (i.e. trickle down economics as pushed by Ronald Reagan)
It is only on rare occasions that the old line left shows itself these days. In their inability to launch a cohesive and coherent argument against the right's assertion that they hold the high moral ground, the left has become a pitiful bunch of wimps that most of America looks on with little or no respect. And yet, in my view of history the left has rescued America several times.
People in this area still rail against FDR for his agricultural programs, but the bottom line is that he led the country to recovery from the mess the robber barons of the right had taken the world into by the turn of the 20th century. His programs might have been draconian, but the situation was dire. A world mired in the depths of depression needed strong and innovative leadership to recover. That leadership, embodied in FDR, came from the left. As a result of that leadership we still have social security and a social welfare net designed to protect even our poorest citizens from total disaster.
Both social security and the welfare system are in tatters now as a result of some very poor regulations like the one that drove unemployed fathers out of homes by declaring those families ineligible for help if dad was living with them, by the characterization of the poor as free-loaders and through the paper shuffling raid Ronald Reagan made on social security funds in order to pay for his military sleights-of-hand in South America.
After that raid on our coffers, it took another left winger, Bill Clinton, to bring America back into the black so he could turn it over to another hard-line right winger, George W. Bush, with a budget surplus to work with. Bush worked with it all right. In just three years, he took us from a record budget surplus to a huge budget deficit. Now, just four years later, our national debt has hit the all time record high of over nine trillion dollars. If we don't have another huge world wide depression, it will be because we somehow manage to elect a left wing president and congress who will introduce measures that turn us around the way Clinton did.
One of the ways he did that, by the way, (and also the one thing for which the right attacked him the most once he was out of office) was by reducing military spending. We don't need and can't afford to cut our military off at the knees, but we also don't need and can't afford to continue to fund all the high-tech super weaponry they would like to have. The future will not call for the kind of weaponry that might win a massive war against another super power unless we force it to be that way by continuing to aggravate our potential enemies and go on developing WMDs for our own use,. If we work cooperatively with the other major powers, the future will call for the ability to spot and stop small groups of terrorists from carrying out multiple small attacks like 9-11. Even smuggling in a dirty suitcase bomb can't be stopped by a stealth bomber. That's going to take smart boots on the ground.
The only person seeking the presidency who has the administrative skills and the dedication of high moral purpose to lead this country in the right direction is Dennis Kucinich, and we all know that he doesn't have a prayer of being elected. Why not? He's just a mousy looking little guy with a bad haircut who everybody knows is a weakling because he keeps talking about a department of peace and cutting military spending. In a world where the citizens only believe in people with big hair and big teeth and who brag about their big . . . whatever, he might as well go home right now.
But he doesn't. And he won't. No one seems to recognize that it takes a very strong man to stand his ground against the current the way he does. He is a man who stands up for what he believes without claiming that anyone who believes otherwise is doomed and damned. To my mind, he represents all the best and finest of the left that has saved this country so many times. He's the only elected official with the guts to look dick Cheney in the eye and call a spade a spade. He won't be pushed around by small minded, big moneyed special interests, and, of course, he won't be around next November. Chances are we'll all pay for that.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
It is only on rare occasions that the old line left shows itself these days. In their inability to launch a cohesive and coherent argument against the right's assertion that they hold the high moral ground, the left has become a pitiful bunch of wimps that most of America looks on with little or no respect. And yet, in my view of history the left has rescued America several times.
People in this area still rail against FDR for his agricultural programs, but the bottom line is that he led the country to recovery from the mess the robber barons of the right had taken the world into by the turn of the 20th century. His programs might have been draconian, but the situation was dire. A world mired in the depths of depression needed strong and innovative leadership to recover. That leadership, embodied in FDR, came from the left. As a result of that leadership we still have social security and a social welfare net designed to protect even our poorest citizens from total disaster.
Both social security and the welfare system are in tatters now as a result of some very poor regulations like the one that drove unemployed fathers out of homes by declaring those families ineligible for help if dad was living with them, by the characterization of the poor as free-loaders and through the paper shuffling raid Ronald Reagan made on social security funds in order to pay for his military sleights-of-hand in South America.
After that raid on our coffers, it took another left winger, Bill Clinton, to bring America back into the black so he could turn it over to another hard-line right winger, George W. Bush, with a budget surplus to work with. Bush worked with it all right. In just three years, he took us from a record budget surplus to a huge budget deficit. Now, just four years later, our national debt has hit the all time record high of over nine trillion dollars. If we don't have another huge world wide depression, it will be because we somehow manage to elect a left wing president and congress who will introduce measures that turn us around the way Clinton did.
One of the ways he did that, by the way, (and also the one thing for which the right attacked him the most once he was out of office) was by reducing military spending. We don't need and can't afford to cut our military off at the knees, but we also don't need and can't afford to continue to fund all the high-tech super weaponry they would like to have. The future will not call for the kind of weaponry that might win a massive war against another super power unless we force it to be that way by continuing to aggravate our potential enemies and go on developing WMDs for our own use,. If we work cooperatively with the other major powers, the future will call for the ability to spot and stop small groups of terrorists from carrying out multiple small attacks like 9-11. Even smuggling in a dirty suitcase bomb can't be stopped by a stealth bomber. That's going to take smart boots on the ground.
The only person seeking the presidency who has the administrative skills and the dedication of high moral purpose to lead this country in the right direction is Dennis Kucinich, and we all know that he doesn't have a prayer of being elected. Why not? He's just a mousy looking little guy with a bad haircut who everybody knows is a weakling because he keeps talking about a department of peace and cutting military spending. In a world where the citizens only believe in people with big hair and big teeth and who brag about their big . . . whatever, he might as well go home right now.
But he doesn't. And he won't. No one seems to recognize that it takes a very strong man to stand his ground against the current the way he does. He is a man who stands up for what he believes without claiming that anyone who believes otherwise is doomed and damned. To my mind, he represents all the best and finest of the left that has saved this country so many times. He's the only elected official with the guts to look dick Cheney in the eye and call a spade a spade. He won't be pushed around by small minded, big moneyed special interests, and, of course, he won't be around next November. Chances are we'll all pay for that.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Today's Featured Headline
Today's featured headline from the Nation/World page: MAN BURNED WITH HOT COOKIES. News that didn't make the paper - yesterday in the House chamber, Dennis Kucinich re-introduced articles of impeachment against dick Cheney. An attempt was made to table the issue, but that was defeated by a heavy REPUBLICAN vote, so it will go forward to a vote on whether to refer it to committee. Why the Republican support? They think the motion is so frivolous that it will be thrown out. Hard to disagree with that. I mean after all what's important about enforced torture, lying to take a country to war and then trying to repeat the process?
No real blog today. This is a full day of volunteer work, so must get rolling.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
No real blog today. This is a full day of volunteer work, so must get rolling.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Who Has the Right?
For years I have wrestled with the questions of what justification BushCo and the religious right could possibly have for its assault on the rights of the American people and why it is that so many people seem to willing to follow them in their suicidal quest. Today I think I have an answer to the puzzle.
In reading a book by Chris Hedges titled "American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America", I came across a quote from another book written by Rousas John Rushdoony titled "The Institutes of Biblical Law". Published, surprise surprise, in Dallas, Texas in 1973. Rushdoony is the leading prophet of a movement known as dominionism which teaches that American Christians are charged by God with the responsibility of making America a Christian state. So when you see the letters to the editor or hear someone speaking about the need for America to recognize its Christian heritage and declare itself a Christian state, think about this quote from Rushdoony:
"If men have unrestricted free speech and free press, then there is no freedom for truth, in that no standard is permitted whereby the promulgation or publication of a lie can be judged and punished."
The first phrase dismisses the constitution's bill of rights which assigns the right of free speech and free press to each and every American citizen. The second phrase, though, is even more chilling for its implication that there must be a standard by which the powers that be can identify and PUNISH what it perceives to be a lie. What Rushdoony is trying to establish is a "Christian" government with the power to identify citizens whom that government identifies as "liars" (read heretics) and PUNISH them for their disbelief.
Rushdoony's government would be based on the ten commandments and not on the constitution of the United States.
George W. Bush loudly proclaims his Christianity. We all know W to be a man of small thoughts, narrow beliefs and huge ego. Accepting the notion that he is a follower of Rushdoony is not a difficult stretch. If that is the case then, I ask you, why should W be disturbed by the thought of eliminating the bill of rights when his goal is to be the prophet who planted the seeds so that some future "messiah" could supplant it with the higher words of the ten commandments? And how else, other than misguided religious fervor, could he continue to contend that his actions are the moral high ground?
Following the lead of good old friend who has for years kept his identity hidden within his home deep in the Ozark woods, I have long jokingly referred to the religious right as the American Taliban. Now I am seeing that Taliban stick its ugly head up in Washington, D. C. and am firmly convinced that there is a growing population of Americans who swallow the notion that what's wrong with this country is that it has drifted from the moral values embodied in the ten commandments. That's no joke.
Does it not follow as the night the day that such people would ultimately be willing to follow leaders who espouse the notion that this "wrong" is engendered by the fact that we follow the constitution and the bill of rights when we should be using the ten commandments as the basis for all law? (Back to the jokes: Here's an eerie indication of how deep this stuff goes. Try, as I have done in this article, typing the words "ten commandments" in your MS Word program. It will tell you that these words should be capitalized!! Not true, though, of the words constitution or bill of rights! Doo doo doo doo. Doo doo doo doo)
Of course another way that the dominionists argue their case is by insisting that our founding fathers were Christians, too, and so intended America to be a Christian nation. They don't bother to discuss why the founding fathers chose to establish a constitution and a bill of rights as the basis for law instead of just adopting the ten commandments as these "Christians" insist should have been and should now be done.
I do not know that W espouses the dominionist philosophy, nor whether he thinks, like our local chief fascist, Vince Jericho, that the Bible really revolves around the book of Revelations rather than the New Testament, but observing his reckless rushes into war and his disregard for the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights, I think I have every right to consider the possibility.
What I do believe is that knowing about the goals of the "Christian" right forces each of us who understand this to stand up and speak out whenever confronted by the demands that America should be recognized as a Christian nation. We cannot afford to allow this kind of thinking to grow under the tacitly approving courtesy of silent observation. In fact, we should not only be speaking out, we should be SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF OUR LUNGS that we will not accept a religious interpretation of right and wrong; That we can tell right from wrong intuitively and that dictating what others should believe is wrong; That we will not accept the ten commandments or any other religious basis for law in this country; That we will not accept Taliban rule in America.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
In reading a book by Chris Hedges titled "American Fascists: the Christian Right and the War on America", I came across a quote from another book written by Rousas John Rushdoony titled "The Institutes of Biblical Law". Published, surprise surprise, in Dallas, Texas in 1973. Rushdoony is the leading prophet of a movement known as dominionism which teaches that American Christians are charged by God with the responsibility of making America a Christian state. So when you see the letters to the editor or hear someone speaking about the need for America to recognize its Christian heritage and declare itself a Christian state, think about this quote from Rushdoony:
"If men have unrestricted free speech and free press, then there is no freedom for truth, in that no standard is permitted whereby the promulgation or publication of a lie can be judged and punished."
The first phrase dismisses the constitution's bill of rights which assigns the right of free speech and free press to each and every American citizen. The second phrase, though, is even more chilling for its implication that there must be a standard by which the powers that be can identify and PUNISH what it perceives to be a lie. What Rushdoony is trying to establish is a "Christian" government with the power to identify citizens whom that government identifies as "liars" (read heretics) and PUNISH them for their disbelief.
Rushdoony's government would be based on the ten commandments and not on the constitution of the United States.
George W. Bush loudly proclaims his Christianity. We all know W to be a man of small thoughts, narrow beliefs and huge ego. Accepting the notion that he is a follower of Rushdoony is not a difficult stretch. If that is the case then, I ask you, why should W be disturbed by the thought of eliminating the bill of rights when his goal is to be the prophet who planted the seeds so that some future "messiah" could supplant it with the higher words of the ten commandments? And how else, other than misguided religious fervor, could he continue to contend that his actions are the moral high ground?
Following the lead of good old friend who has for years kept his identity hidden within his home deep in the Ozark woods, I have long jokingly referred to the religious right as the American Taliban. Now I am seeing that Taliban stick its ugly head up in Washington, D. C. and am firmly convinced that there is a growing population of Americans who swallow the notion that what's wrong with this country is that it has drifted from the moral values embodied in the ten commandments. That's no joke.
Does it not follow as the night the day that such people would ultimately be willing to follow leaders who espouse the notion that this "wrong" is engendered by the fact that we follow the constitution and the bill of rights when we should be using the ten commandments as the basis for all law? (Back to the jokes: Here's an eerie indication of how deep this stuff goes. Try, as I have done in this article, typing the words "ten commandments" in your MS Word program. It will tell you that these words should be capitalized!! Not true, though, of the words constitution or bill of rights! Doo doo doo doo. Doo doo doo doo)
Of course another way that the dominionists argue their case is by insisting that our founding fathers were Christians, too, and so intended America to be a Christian nation. They don't bother to discuss why the founding fathers chose to establish a constitution and a bill of rights as the basis for law instead of just adopting the ten commandments as these "Christians" insist should have been and should now be done.
I do not know that W espouses the dominionist philosophy, nor whether he thinks, like our local chief fascist, Vince Jericho, that the Bible really revolves around the book of Revelations rather than the New Testament, but observing his reckless rushes into war and his disregard for the freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights, I think I have every right to consider the possibility.
What I do believe is that knowing about the goals of the "Christian" right forces each of us who understand this to stand up and speak out whenever confronted by the demands that America should be recognized as a Christian nation. We cannot afford to allow this kind of thinking to grow under the tacitly approving courtesy of silent observation. In fact, we should not only be speaking out, we should be SHOUTING AT THE TOP OF OUR LUNGS that we will not accept a religious interpretation of right and wrong; That we can tell right from wrong intuitively and that dictating what others should believe is wrong; That we will not accept the ten commandments or any other religious basis for law in this country; That we will not accept Taliban rule in America.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Monday, November 5, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
