Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Before There was Glenn Beck


There was Father Coughlin. Rather than the bully pulpit of Fox News, Father Coughlin used Marconi's new invention to tell the people what to think and whom to hate and, at his heydey, the Roman Catholic priest's program commanded 1/3rd of all radios as he broadcast from the depths of the Great Depression.

There will always be at least one of these people in society because there is an element of society, any society, which will always crave people like this who claim to have all the answers if we will just hate in proper measure. If you just hate right way, all the wrong will be defeated. And always they preach division rather than inclusivity.

Yet, all being said, it was wrong for the government to censor Father Coughlin into oblivion. Free Speech is still Free Speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-VOLTAIRE

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Bloody Justice

The answer the nation seeks, without knowing, to amend the grievous crimes, felt but unspoken, is an answer not political, but violent, because sometimes, the pen must be put away and the red sword of justice wielded for . . .

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

— Thomas Jefferson

Let the tree’s thirst be quenched entirely. Let it drink deepest the blood of tyrants. Let the blood flow in a cleansing river.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

"FOR EVERY GERMAN KILLED . . .

TEN ITALIANS WILL DIE."
- German High Command, 8 September, 1943



You would think the Israelis would know better, given their own history with the Germans, but we have this from an Associated Press report:

JERUSALEM, July 18 — The asymmetry in the reported death tolls is marked and growing: some 230 Lebanese dead, most of them civilians, to 25 Israeli dead, 13 of them civilians . . .
So the Jewish state believes ten dead Lebanese avenges and rectifies 1 dead Israeli? If not, they should argue differently by drawing down their planes and artillery pieces that kill indiscriminately.

And if they say, yea, the metric is accurate, a Lebanese child's life is but 1/10th an Israeli child's, I say this:

May your grand dream of nationhood end in the same fashion as the Third Reich's to which you are heir: in defeated wreckage and ruin.

'Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place, for all those who take the sword will die by the sword."'
-Matthew 26:52

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Stop Israeli Terrorism


The Israelis protest when Palestinian suicide bombers blow up a crowded cafe (as well they should) because it targets innocents. But what is so different about Israeli fighter-bombers blowing up a Lebanese apartment building? Or rocketing a van full of people and killing 5 children? The difference is technology. The Arab terrorist-soldier uses his body, the Israeli terrorist-soldier a plane.
The Israeli's complain about rocket attacks against Haifa killing 8. First, the attacks are in response to Israeli assaults on a sovereign nation. Secondly, 8 Israeli civilians were killed but over 100 Lebanese civilians have died in the first three days of the war. Are the latter's lives so worthless?

Neither terrorist should be supported. Both must be condemned.
It is time for America to stop blindly supporting Israel. Enough talk of punishing Hezbollah and Hamas. Let's start talking about punishing the Israeli terror-state for its complete disregard for human life other than its own.

Monday, July 10, 2006

No Bravery


IMAGES of Iraq put to the song NO BRAVERY, by James Blunt. Very moving.

For those who don't know, James Blunt was a British army captain who served in the Bosnian campaign. NO BRAVERY is based on his experience in those killing fields.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? You must mean that OTHER America

"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." - 1st Amendment, US Constitution

Lawmaker Wants Papers Probed Over Stories
June 25, 2006
Associated Press
WASHINGTON-
The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.
Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.
King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times- the reporters, the editors and the publisher."
"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.
King's action was not endorsed by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
"On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to say that the administration is entirely correct," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."
Stories about the money-monitoring program also appeared last week in The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times. King said he thought investigators should examine those publications, but that the greater focus should be on The New York Times because the paper in December also disclosed a secret domestic wiretapping program. He charged that the paper was "more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."
When the paper chose to publish the story, it quoted the executive editor, Bill Keller, as saying editors had listened closely to the government's arguments for withholding the information, but "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift _ the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries.
Democrats and civil libertarians are questioning whether the program violated privacy rights.
The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers.
The service generally does not detect private, individual transactions in the
United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.
Gonzales said last month that he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security. He also said the government would not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a CIA operative's name.
He said the First Amendment right of a free press should not be absolute when it comes to national security.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Analyzing the new "WMD's found in Iraq" storyline:

By C. William Boyer

I think these sudden (and bogus) revelations of WMD's being found in Iraq are cause for GREAT concern. What it appears to me, in touting pre-'91 weapons that were unusable, is the administration is 'fixing' it's earlier claims for invading Iraq, the ones subsequently proven false. Why is that important, beyond simple political points? Because it's NECESSARY for invading Iran. They are heading off the critics at the past, saying, "See, see, we were right all along. That's why, despite everyone's claims to the contrary, you've got to believe us when we say Iran's about to get a nuke and we must stop them." Of course, the VAST majority of world intelligence organizations believe Iran is 5-10 years away, whereas North Korea has multiple nukes and is testing a delivery system to reach America. There are no reports of Iran having a delivery system, though there is some speculation they could buy systems from North Korea.

Why Iran and not North Korea?

Bush and Co. desperately want to invade/attack Iran because they want better control/access of the Caspian Sea Basin, home of some the biggest and most unrealized oil reserves in the world (get out a map and check Iran's location in relation to the CSB and you'll see). And the administration believes if the Iranian regime is struck, it will topple like a house of cards due to the popular sentiment against the regime. But given this administration's record for getting predictions correct (rarely/never), I'd be hard-pressed to believe them. In fact, if past is prologue, we will get VERY SERIOUS blowback from an Iran attack, implications firmly plunging us into a bold, dark new chapter of world history.

Watch it unfold. This is SERIOUS stuff.

PS An aside is how the 'NEWLY FOUND WMD' story is being released: they're letting Republican talking heads like Rick Santorum (who desperately needs re-election help in PA) and Pete Hoekstra release the info on FoxNews and such, these guys coming out and saying, "Look at what we found, WMD." Then, in order to 'vet' the info and make the sudden revelations believable, they're saying, 'We want to know why the Administration kept this secret.' A classic diversionary tactic. If the issue can be framed, "Why was it kept secret?" rather than "Are the WMD revelations valid?" the administration may get what it needs to justify an Iranian attack.

Monday, June 19, 2006

AMERICA DESIGNATES 5 POWERFUL NEW SENATORS-FOR-LIFE

What, you haven't heard the news? Five more politicians were added to the ones we already have, the 500+ in the House and 100+ in the Senate. These five partisan, political hacks have far more power than the entire House of Representatives and US Senate combined. Why, these five cronies can trump any piece of legislation made by the two "upper" houses in addition to the legal judgements of any court in the land. In fact, the only entity stronger than these five members of the Imperial Star Chamber is King George W. Bush himself.

The Star Chamber Hacks:

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sammy Alito
Anthony Kennedy

You know. The Supreme Court INjustices.

Used to be, bad politics, partisan politics, politics created by the hurly-burly of the moment would be tempered by the wisdom of men and women whose entire lives were grounded in The Law, not in Politics. You know, check your politics at the door. Now, it's just more political football decided by party lines [SEE: 2000 Elections]. And with five Republican Justices, the score's pretty well set.

5-4, Republicans WIN!

So why not just cut to the chase, from here on out, then, and simply ELECT the Justices. Isn't that what it's become? Just another political process to appoint more politicians, currently by selection-for-life rather than election-for-life because currently it's a selection of the Powers-that-Be(Republicans) to appoint some more Powers-that-Be(Republicans) to watch over the Powers-that-Be(Republicans)? For Life.

Don't you just love the beautiful symmetry(Republicans) of it all?

Here are a few recent 5-4 Rulings decided by The Five Most Powerful Senators-for-Life:

No Knock Law: In a turn-around of 90 years of tradition, Law Enforcement no longer needs to knock and inform of their presence serving a warrant; just ATTACK!

CleanWater Act: The 30-year-old Clean Water act was overturned in a Michigan case so that a Mall and Condos could be built on protected wetlands. And no, I am not making this up.

WhistleBlower Law- Overturned, meaning that government employees who report on government wrong-doing are no longer protected from reprisals.

That's just a few. Notice any trends?

It's funny, because Chief INjustice Roberts recently commented that the Supreme Court was running out of cases.

Is that any surprise? If you were a party wronged, would you really go to the US Supreme Court seeking justice? Because you'd lose, every time.

Hope I never get tried as a Warlock there. 5-4, and it's throw another Dem on the barbie.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Newest Terrorist Rankings Out

Zarqawi out and Masri on top in latest Terror Polls.

It seems the US military, following the termination of the beheading terrorist Abu al-Zarqawi, has identified the new number one terrorist in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

Kinda like the NCAA college polls, as soon as No.1 gets knocked off, somebody takes their place.

It's been less than a week since Zarqawi bit the bullet and his body is barely cold and the stories filed, but already we need somebody new. "Call Central Casting", say the Powerful People, "we're in need of a new villain!"

But why? Why tell us, the public? If Abu Ayyub al-Masri really is number one---- and I'm not disputing he may indeed be deserving of his ranking---- shouldn't we hide the fact he's been identified as such so he's not so paranoid and hence protecting himself quite so zealously? That way we can take him out and defeat the insurgency (like this million-headed hydra can ever trully be defeated by the simple method of killing).

Why do we do it, proclaim the new #1? Why does the public need to know? Simple: it gives the military-political complex something to talk about, something to feed the propaganda machine. Because it feeds fear and gives us a face to hang our hate upon, like the made-up revolutionary, Emmanuel Goldstein, in the novel 1984, the subject of the daily 'Two Minutes Hate'. And we are told of Abu Ayyub al-Masri because, when we kill him, we can say, See? See, we're killing their leaders and winning the global war on terror.

It all seems so pointlessly cynical, this propaganda.
Now the Story:

U.S. identifies al-Zarqawi's successor
Associated Press

The U.S. military said Thursday the man claiming to be the new al-Qaida in Iraq leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian with ties to Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said al-Masri apparently is the same person that al-Qaida in Iraq identified in a Web posting last week as its new leader — Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, a nom de guerre. Al-Muhajer claimed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a June 7 U.S. airstrike, and vowed to avenge him in threatening Web statements in recent days.
The military showed a picture of al-Masri wearing a traditional white Arab headdress at a Baghdad news conference.
The Afghanistan-trained explosives expert is a key figure in the al-Qaida in Iraq network with responsibility for facilitating the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Baghdad, Caldwell said.
He has been a terrorist since 1982, "beginning with his involvement in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was led by al-Zawahri," Caldwell said.
The spokesman added that raids in April and May in southern Baghdad recovered material confirming his high-level involvement in the facilitation of foreign fighters.
"Al-Masri's intimate knowledge of al-Qaida in Iraq and his close relationship with (al-Zarqawi's) operations will undoubtedly help facilitate and enable them to regain some momentum if, in fact, he is the one that assumes the leadership role," Caldwell said.
He said, however, that al-Masri's ability to exert leadership over al-Qaida cells remained unclear and there were other "al-Qaida senior leadership members and Sunni terrorists" who might try to take over the operations.
Caldwell singled out Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi, who in the past had been identified as al-Qaida in Iraq's deputy leader in statements by the group, and Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Mujahedeen Shura Council — five allied groups in the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency

Friday, June 09, 2006

HAS AMERICA JUMPED THE SHARK?

By C. William Boyer

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

Ann Coulter's got me wondering if we as a nation and a people haven't crossed some event horizon into a new world because I've gotta say, it's getting harder to understand my fellow Americans. Why must we hate the other so much?

It seems to me that these last few years, the country has begun to divide into two tribes with two distinctly different perceptions of the world, hostile each to the other. The Ann Coulter drama has put this into perspective.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands deaths so much."

To me, that's an ill-considered, repugnant and vicious statement. Imagine yourself, just imagine, being the person on the receiving end. The shock you'd feel at the words themselves, the deep hurt, the revisiting of all the pain you felt when it happened, and the shock you'd feel that someone would have the insensitive audacity to utter such.

"How do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

This sort of the thing is FAR outside the bounds of proper political discourse. It is corrosive to America itself. And yet, it's important to note that a considerable number of Republicans are defending it. (On a personal note, I talked with several Republican friends of mine about this in the last three days, and it's tracking 2 in 3 they support Coulter.)

On the June 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Sandy Rios stated that Coulter's "words are laser-focused on the truth," comparing them to "Holocaust pictures" that "we have to see ... to understand what happened." Rios also compared Coulter's words to a "clarion wake-up call," and "cold water" that -- in O'Reilly's words -- "wakes you up." Rios further praised Coulter's "gift of words and imagery," calling her "unique" and "frank" and adding that "she plays an important role."

Coulter's words are laser focused on the truth? That's a problem I have with so much of the Right, the fact that they're FACTUALLY wrong. First of all, in Truth-Busting, these women weren't happy they're husbands died. The "harpies and witches" weren't about to be divorced. Liberals aren't Godless--- blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and blacks are overwhelmingly the most religious ethnic group in America--- followed by Hispanics, the second most religious and who also vote significantly more often for Dems than Republicans.

Factually incorrect and outright lies creating Hate-Myth.

Rios echoed Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows, claiming incomprehensibly that just because they "lost their husbands in an accidental bombing [emphasis added]" that "does not give them license to then criticize the commander in chief." Rios also stated that "we're living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones" and that "people are making a lot of money off the death of their loved ones," calling this "a culture that probably needs to be exposed."

If people who have genuinely suffered a loss like the 9-11 widows cannot criticize the "commander in chief", then who can? I think, for people like Coulter and Rios, the answer is that No One can criticize. I really don't think I'm inaccurate saying people like these two endorse the notion of a Republican dictatorship or shackled press, feeble Congress and co-opted Supreme Court and where subversive groups like the New England Quakers for Peace are surveilled (true story).

On the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Republican strategist Jack Burkman defended Coulter's statements "[a]ll the way," asserting that Coulter "understates the point" and is "telling the truth." Burkman added that the 9-11 widows -- whom he compared to anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan -- "exploited commercially" the deaths of their loved ones, that they had "breathlessly ... stepped just into the fame thing," and that "before the bodies are cold, they're out selling and trying to make money."

People, if one side really thinks another likes their loved ones dying, if one side really DID like it's loved ones dying, if one side believes the other gleefully made money off their loved ones burning alive, then we have got a major problem as a country. If things keep up like this, if we can't even establish a common bond of common decency by saying SOME THINGS are beyond the pale of politics, then it's time to divide the country along Red and Blue lines. Because, quite frankly, I don't want to live in a land of people like Ann Coulter. Her people may feel quite comfy living in HateLand, but I do not. And I WILL do what it takes to avoid that, be it Civil War or the Highway. And it we don't watch it, things might just evolve along the lines of the former.

I leave you with a question of mine and with one last quote by departing Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

How long can this country survive when one half hates other half so much?

And the quote:
"Departing Congressmen like to reminisce about the 'good old days' of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie. I can't do that. For all its faults, it is partisanship - based on core principles - that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders . . . . It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."

Sunday, May 28, 2006

MARRIAGE: A Blue State Value


. . . and a Red-State Political Issue.
C. WILLIAM BOYER

Bill Frist was on FOX-"NEWS" Sunday, going on about the GOP's SecureAmerica program. Like its predessessor, ContractWithAmerica, it's a piece of marketing conflated with ersatz policy. Central to SecureAmerica is a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. To DEFEND the sacred compact of marriage, is what they're saying.

Mr. Frist: "Marriage is for our society that union between a man and a woman, is the cornerstone of our society. It is under attack today. Right now there are 13 states who passed constitutional amendments in the last year and a half to protect marriage. Why? Because in nine states today, activist judges, unelected activist judges are tearing down state laws in nine states today. That’s why I will take it to the floor of the Senate, simply define marriage as the union between a man and a woman."

It's not about protecting, marriage, Mr. Frist, it's about getting votes. It's about exciting your excitable base into going to the polls, otherwise you know that the GOP's getting tossed out on its ear come this November. So feed the 'Base' something hate and get em voting, right?

And before we get into all that, let me say the Constitution is an amazing document. Do you know why it exists, Mr. Frist? To protect the RIGHTS of American citizens. Our Founding Fathers drew it up as a document that is the rightful heir to the English Magna Carta, which for the first time, put down that NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW, not even the king. The Constitution furthered that cause, and each of the succeeding Amendments furthering these protections. In fact, Mr. Frist, the only Amendment that banned anything, as your marriage amendment would do, was the 18th Amendment. We know how that turned out: it fostered the birth of the La Cosa Nostra, the Mafia, and was later repealed by the 21st Amendment, such that no amendment today bans ANY action, only ensures RIGHTS.

But that's not what's got me so pissed off right now. Your transparently shameless political pandering to the intolerant Evangelical Right's, who make up the sinew and muscle of the Red State's clout that's got me so pissed off. And the fact you're doubly wrong because it's the Democrat BLUE STATES that apparently respect the institution of marriage. The RED STATES? They wipe their collective asses on marriage.

Because I am a liberal and live in a RealityBased Community, let me show you the facts:

Item 1: That map again of of the 2000 elections:

Item 2: A list of divorce rates (Total Population vs number of divorce) of the top 10 divorce states*. Most divorces listed first:

1. Nevada
2. Arkansas
3. Oklahoma
4. Tennessee
5. Wyoming
6. Indiana
7. Alabama
8. Idaho
9: New Mexico
10: Florida

* Divorce Magazine

Hmmm. I think I detect a trend. It would appear that states voting for Bush in 2000 tended to get a bit more divorced than states that voted Gore. But I thought marriage was a RedState value and hence why RedStaters are so hot to get an amendment banning gay marriage. Hmmm.

Okay, let's look at things the other way.

Item 3: Electoral map of 2004 elections crossed with the states with Lowest Divorce Rates*(ranked lowest to highest):
1. Massachusetts
2. Connecticutt
3. New Jersey
4. Rhode Island
5. New York
6. Pennsylvania
7. Wisconsin
8. North Dakota
9. Maryland
10. Minnesota
* Divorce Magazine

I think what this shows is that the Red States, the Right, the GOP or the Republicans, whatever you will call them, are not about protecting Marriage, about Values. About marriage, Bill Frist and his comrades give not a tinker's damn. No, Bill Frist and his ilk are about intolerance and about the politics of Us and Them. Dress it up however you will, they are about Hate and Division and are anathema to the philosophy and consience of this great nation and the Constitution we embrace.

It's right there in Red and Blue to see.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

THREE BRAVE WOMEN

Singing Truth to Power




I was never much of a Dixie Chicks fan, didn't know much about them and I've never been much of a country guy, either. But this new song of there's, NOT READY TO MAKE NICE, is awesome. And when Natalie Maines sings in wonder,

"How in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over
"?

Chills run down my spine. Three brave women who said what they believed and paid a price. In America. For Speaking Out.

Sad.

Backstory? When the Chicks criticized Bush on the eve of the Iraq invasion, they were threatened, threatened with their careers and threatened with their lives. But they fought back, never backed down, and now we know what heroes look like. They wear skirts and stand, sometimes, not much more than five feet tall.

Politics aside, NOT READY TO MAKE NICE is a great song. Enjoy it, as performed for David Letterman.

Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting
I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

I know you said
Can’t you just get over it
It turned my whole world around
And I kind of like it
I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

Re-Chorus

They say time heals everything

But I’m still waiting

Thanks, Chicks. You Rock.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Beating You with the Big Ol Fear Stick

That's what FOX-NEWS does every damn day.

In my post below this one, you'll see a FoxNews screen-shot asking if the media reporting on the illegal NSA wiretapping could hurt the market. Now, the kool-aid drinkers are asking if Gore's global-warming movie could wreck the economy. My GOD, what a bunch of hysterical freaking weirdos! Listen, Virginia, if one fucking movie can wreck the economy it wasn't much of an economy to begin with, now was it? Shut up then and go back to rubbing poo in your hair, you crack-pot.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Protect Your Money from the Dangerously Insane

The Dow was down 120 points today, prompting Fox News’ David Ruder to suggest it was because USA Today made “the country less safe” by running its story on NSA’s data mining.

But Fox News host Brenda Butler disagreed, saying that Wall Street would “not going to let some puny, little traitor, some leaker who went ahead and compromised our national security, take down this, take down our market, take down our country.” Watch it:

Look at that woman's expression! Is she passing gas?

What's most curious about this, if that's the word, is what's at the bottom of the screen. Besides trying to tie together (in the most fascist way) the need for secrecy in our government to protecting Americans' 401k's, the screen-crawler's just plain economically wrong.

The stocks are selling off partly because of momentum trading but mainly because the dollar's falling and there are fears of incipient inflation, which erodes the essential value of American possessions: your house, your stocks, even your car. And the reason for the falling dollar and rising inflation is due in large part to a massive budget deficit run up by a certain president who need not be named and who Fox will never blame.

What's more amazing at the point central to these Fox anchors' premise, notably that leakers are revealing deep secrets central to America's fight against "The War on Terror", is false. Again, these people are pretty smart and only a moronic terrorist fails to assume that ALL electronic communications are bugged. For chrissakes, if you've ever watched The Sopranos and seen how Tony goes about protecting himself from the FBI, then you know this whole Leakers are Traitors argument is simply to cow people down so as to avoid scrutiny of the Administration's nefarious actions.

So, in essence, Fox News shows it is two things: a hopeless fearmonger; and an inept analyzer of business trends.

Fair and balanced. And inept. Fox News.

We report (innacurately), you decide (based upon erroneous facts). Fox News.

Friday, May 12, 2006

THE NEW REBEL ALLIANCE


Wherein the Heroes of Right and Left Join forces to battle an Evil Empire.

This is what many of us are talking about, the unifying of Right and Left wingers against a common enemy: those who would attack the very soul of this great country by abusing and ignoring the Constitution.

Will there by a New Rebel Alliance?

Here's a Right-Wing radio host who thinks it possible:


SPECIAL TO THE REASONABLE RANT

Now Is the Time for
a Left-Right Alliance

A rebel alliance already exists that could stop Bush administration attacks on the Constitution
By Thomas R. Eddlem

I'm currently a life member of the John Birch Society and formerly served on the staff of the organization for 13 years.

So why should any left-winger reading this care a fig about what I have to say?

Because of a conversation I had with another conservative magazine writer recently. In frustration at the unconstitutional excesses of the Bush administration, I blurted out to him: "The only people doing any good out there are the people at Air America." I expected to shock him with the statement, but his two-word reply shocked me: "And MoveOn.org."

We were both exaggerating for effect, but fact is, as my journalist friend continued, "We probably only disagree on, maybe, 25 percent of the issues." I'd have put the percentage a little higher, though I tacked an ending onto his sentence: "…and those issues aren't especially important right now."

When Air America started, I told myself and my friends that it would fail because it would be redundant. The Left already controls all the television networks besides Fox, along with most of the major newspapers. But here we are a year later, and the most penetrating news analysis on television is – and I'm not exaggerating here – Jon Stewart's Daily Show on Comedy Central.

I tuned into the Boston Air America affiliate when I became a community radio talk show host almost two years ago, thinking that I could use a few of their wild statements as a springboard to bounce my counterpoint. And although I got a few yuks out of quips about "Airhead America," I found that I agreed with the hosts more than I disagreed with them.

They criticized the Bush administration for deceiving us into the Iraq war. No problem there. They criticized Alberto Gonzales for his torture memos. Again, no problem. They criticized deficit spending, the PATRIOT Act, and corporate welfare. Hurray, hurray, and hurray!

So I called into a few "progressive" radio talk shows, identifying myself as a "right-wing radio talk show host," and explained my understanding of these issues. Stephanie Miller told me that I was a "not a very good right-winger." A liberal show host at my radio station even called me a "liberal."

But my views haven't changed one bit since I joined the John Birch Society during the Reagan administration. So this is not a conversion story.
What's changed is that the Bush administration has simply gotten that bad and that, according to some polls, we are almost at the point where most genuine conservatives realize it.

The Left and Right will never agree on the issues that liberal talk show host Ed Schultz likes to call "God, Guns, and Gays." Nor will we agree on most economic issues, such as Social Security or whether the federal government should have a role in health care.

Unlike the Hannitized Dittobots who call the so-called "right-wing" radio talk shows, you won't find me sporting "Club Gitmo" gear. I realize that what happened at Abu Ghraib could happen to any American faster than you can say "Jose Padilla."

These are some issues of common concern that could lead to cooperation between Right and Left. Does a "rebel alliance" against the evil neocon empire sound crazy? Not only has it already begun to take shape today, it's happened before.

The First Rebel Alliance

The American political Left and Right actively worked together on a project that literally saved the U.S. Constitution during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Back then, the Republican Party pushed for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution and became frustrated at failing to get the two-thirds vote in Congress needed to pass it. So the GOP led a push toward the first constitutional convention (con-con) in more than 200 years by pushing state legislatures to call a con-con. They needed calls from two-thirds (34) of the states. By 1987, President Reagan and Vice President Bush needed only two more states to call a con-con, a convention that would have had the same power to tear up our existing Constitution and write a new one from scratch that our Founding Fathers had in 1787.

An odd coalition formed that paired Common Cause with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum and the AFL-CIO with the John Birch Society. Conservatives got resolutions condemning the convention from the Daughters of the American Revolution, the American Legion, and even the National Rifle Association, which feared that the convention would tinker with the Second Amendment.

The coalition stopped the con-con steamroller cold, and in 1988 got the states of Alabama and Florida to pass legislation withdrawing their calls for a new convention. The legislatures of Louisiana, Utah, and Virginia followed with their own rescissions in later years, rolling the number of states calling for a convention back to a safer level.

The New "Rebel Alliance"

The entire U.S. Constitution had to be in danger in order for the Left and Right to work together in the past. That's just what it's taken for the alliance to form again. The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights are in danger again today.

The issues the Right and Left are already working together on are related to the Constitution: (1) Exposing the Bush administration's policy to eliminate the right to trial, as in the case of Jose Padilla, (2) Stopping the Bush practice and advocacy of torture, (3) Ending the administration's unnecessary Iraq War, (4) Eliminating unconstitutional, warrantless wiretapping, and the most objectionable parts of the PATRIOT Act, (5) Stopping multilateral trade agreements such as CAFTA, renewal of the WTO, and the upcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

The current Rebel Alliance is completely ad hoc and has no formal organization, for several reasons. First, we don't trust each other. Groups on the "paleoconservative" Right – those not in the Bush neoconservative orbit who have strong ideological reasons for joining an ad hoc alliance – include some of the organizations most disliked by leftists: The John Birch Society, Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, the Rockford Institute, the "Buchanan Brigades" of Pat Buchanan's American Cause, libertarian-leaning Lew Rockwell and his Ludwig von Mises Institute. And, of course, Antiwar.com, where the Rebel Alliance meshes and works together best.

Of course, we "right-wingers" don't trust you leftists at all either. Leftists will always view conservatives like me as paranoid radicals, and conservatives will always view the Left as the ideological heirs of Joseph Stalin. It will be hard for either side to even shake hands on the banks of the Elbe River at the end of any alliance of convenience. But a lot more could be accomplished with a little more cooperation, even something as a simple as an e-mail or a phone call regarding tentative campaign plans on issues of mutual interest on critical issues related to the U.S. Constitution.

The second reason that any sort of formal organization in this new alliance is all but impossible is because groups on both sides will likely drop in or out of the coalition, depending on the organization's agenda – or even the clash of personalities involved.

Any successful Left-Right cooperation should focus upon the U.S. House of Representatives. The chief lesson of the con-con battle was that the executive branch and the Senate, the legislative chamber of 100 men and women who want to run the executive branch, were not greatly swayed by grass-roots pressure. But House members are literally running for reelection nonstop and are particularly susceptible to broad-based pressure from the districts. With the Left unifying the Democratic Party, it would only take the swing of a couple of Republican representatives by the right in any committee in order to launch a Watergate-style investigation on the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or the contemptible policy of "extraordinary rendition."

Liberals are pinning their hopes on Democratic chances in November, but even a slight Democratic majority in the House of Representatives in January (a divided government I dearly hope will come to pass) would not solve the problem. Genuine reform and controls on the unitary executive will elude the nation without the assistance of the Right, as Democratic reforms either die in the closely locked Senate or by Democratic neocon implants in the House (there are Joe Lieberman types in the House too!) Whatever happens in November, the Left is going to need the Right to peel away more Republicans away from Bush and find more congressmen like Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

A little more coordination of effort could go a long way toward saving the U.S. Constitution from the depredations of the Bush administration, both before and after November.

Down with the neocon Evil Empire!
Long live the new Rebel Alliance!