Nightmare America

Time we paid a bit of attention to Bush's New America, the one where they can drag you out of bed in the middle of the night, haul you off to who knows where and try you before a secret military tribunal using evidence coerced under torture:

Last Friday, the AP and New York Times wrote about a leaked proposed draft bill on detainees that is supposed to be the Bush administration's response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that invalidated the administration's beloved military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. "According to the draft, the military would be allowed to detain all 'enemy combatants' until hostilities cease.'" The issue among lawyers is the vagueness of the definition of "enemy combatant" which is defined as "a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners who has committed an act that violates the law of war and this statute". The lost rights may include: barring hearsay evidence, the Constitutional guaranty of a speedy trial, the defendant's access to evidence, a defendant being barred from his own trial and reports say "probably allow the submission of coerced testimony". Under the proposal, a person could be detained until "hostilities cease" and that's a mighty long time in an unending global war on terror especially when they continue to feed the flames. You can find the proposal here.

I think that some of the offenses listed are sort of vague too particularly "Pillaging" which seems to me could be petty theft.

The title link takes you to FindLaw's legal explanation of the proposal by Michael C. Dorf. Note the mention that the proposal shows a crossed-out provisions would have restricted its application to persons who are not citizens of the United States. So, they mean to apply this to you and to me.

Note also in the FindLaw article, the reference to the application of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 that is supposed to place this proposal within the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Dorf points out, however, that Bush's signing statement to DTA "indicated he thought that, notwithstanding the actual language of the DTA, his constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief gave him the power to treat detainees however he wished, if he judged such treatment to be in the national interest." Dorf brings up the concern that this proposal, if made law, could put American Soldiers at risk for our own violation of the Geneva Conventions and concludes that Congress should reject this proposal. If Bush wants this, what do you think Mark Kirk will do if given the opportunity to vote for it?

Jay Footlik Speaks to Moraine Township Democrats

Sunday evening, Jay Footlik spoke to the Moraine Township Democrats. I talked to him a little bit before and to his mom afterward. Jay and I have something in common, we both grew up in Skokie and both went to Loyola Law School, he in LA and I in Chicago. I also learned that I went to the same high school as his mom, at different times. More noteworthy, Jay is a principal in RSLB Partners, a Washington, DC-based consulting firm (that incidentally needs to fix the link to the index page of its website). He served as a Special Assistant to President Clinton in the White House Office of Public Liaison and spent four years in Israel, working on a variety of projects related to the peace process, and as a consultant in the political, non-profit and business arenas. Jay was also a vice president at Ruder-Finn, a DC communications and public relations firm.

Here is my perspective on the discussion:

Jay talked about the political aspect of the Bush Administration's foreign policy and how that has affected war and peace in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions. He believes that it is a mistake for Democrats to talk about Iraq as an issue in and by itself. The issue is far larger and the mess is already created, so now we have to deal with it. He thinks we should talk about how 6 years of pursuing a tough-talking, but short on firm and decisive action, foreign policy has left the United States with diminished influence and ability to build coalitions required to be effective as the world's sole superpower.

For all their talk about the "axis of evil" (and Jay agrees with the term), the Bush administration has done little to diminish its influence. Jay pointed out that Bush took down the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, but all that means is that we have taken away the two largest enemies of Iran allowing them to build their nuclear program and influence in the regions. This newly emboldened Iran has been free to miss deadlines in international controls of its nuclear program and is now thumbing its nose at the latest proposed agreement. Jay also offered the example of Bush's handling of Syria as illustration. The Syria Accountability Act passed Congress overwhelmingly, he said, and sanctions could have been imposed thereunder, but all Bush did was impose the lightest and most meaningless sanctions including one that refuses over flight privileges for Syrian airlines that don't use them anyway. For all the tough national security talk out of the Bush Administration, it has left Iran and Syria to their own devices with little challenge. We are simply not safer or more secure today because of Bush's policies.

That part of the discussion reminded me of the policy brief on China's soft power written by Joshua Kurlantzick, Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace wherein Kurlantzick argued that Bush's policy toward China is leaving them free to influence emerging countries in its region and around the world toward a totalitarian form of capitalism. Bush's foreign policy seems to be resulting in exactly the opposite of what we say we want in the world. We are less secure with violent and inhumane regimes increasing their influence in the world.

Jay then moved to the Israel/Lebanon conflict and discussed how the Bush administration's Iraq policy that increased animosity in the Islamic world toward the west and emboldened Iran together with its neglect of mounting threats in the Middle East has contributed to this proxy war between Israel and Lebanon. As the world's only superpower and Israel's strongest ally, Jay believes that the US must be as involved as it can. He feels that we should have had an envoy stationed on the ground in the area at all times, and while that could not have guaranteed that the war would not have broken out or peace would come to the region, it would have helped with negotiations and the US would have a foothold from which to work. It would have prevented the need for Rice's emergency trip to the region which I'll add did not end up so good for her or anyone else.

What Jay is ultimately looking for is an international force with teeth that can disarm Hezbollah so it is no longer a threat to Israel or the civilians of Lebanon. He supports continued bombing of Lebanon by Israel, I guess after the 48 hour cease fire called after Saturday's bombing of civilians including children at Qana. Afterward, he thinks an international coalition needs to shore up the Lebanese government to meet the needs of its citizens and provide central services that will help them restore normalcy.

After his initial comments, Jay took questions. One participant asked about the escalation risk. Jay responded by talking about moderate Arab regimes working with western countries to diminish the risk. I was left wondering if that is realistic any more. I'd been watching MSNBC for much of the afternoon and got the impression that we are at grave risk of losing the support of the moderate Arab countries.

During the Q&A, Jay added the Israeli perspective on the results of Bush's Iraq policy. Bush and Co. liked to tout the safety of Israel as a reason for invading Iraq, but to the Israelis, it only created nearby chaos and a new regime close to Iran with a new leader that speaks against Israel. He added that the mood in Israel is somber.

Another participant asked about creating our own oil embargo to force us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Jay talked about a project he is working on for a bi-partisan organization called SAFE and said that our energy policy for the past 30 years has not done enough to reduce our oil dependency. I've been saying for a long time that we should have listened to Carter back in 1979 when he told us we'd have to reduce our oil consumption. Imagine how far along we'd be if we heeded his warning rather than buying into the Reagan fake happy talk that we could use all the oil we wanted.

Jay spoke in no uncertain terms when it came to discussing the Democratic history of supporting a secure Israel. He pointed out that it was Democratic Presidents from Carter to Clinton who brought the most security and peace to Israel, including lasting peace accords with Egypt and Jordan. (I fear those agreements could be ruined in this war.) We will be strengthening Israel by electing a Democratic Congress in 2006 and Democratic President in 2008 because we need leadership that will listen to divergent opinions and engage in diplomacy.

I agreed with Jay on his criticism of the Bush administration's neglect of the region and the effect of the Iraq war and lack of tough action to support all the tough talk. I also agreed that Democrats can do a better job on foreign policy and truly make the world a safer place. I am skeptical that the international force of which he spoke is possible now with all the killing, bitterness and animosity. Hezbollah and Hamas positioned themselves in the region as not only terrorists, but providers of humanitarian aid to refugees, the sick, the poor and otherwise needy. That aid was a major component in their increased influence and power in the region. There is going to be a huge humanitarian crisis when the bombing and shooting is over and there seems to be little will on the part of current American leaders to provide it. George Lakoff recently discussed the competencies of the Bush Administration on Kos and in his post pointed out that conservatives do not believe as a matter of political philosophy and national vision that humanitarian aid should ever be provided as government's role is only to provide security and maintain a free marketplace. There also doesn't ever seem to be will on the part of the international community to provide such aid in the amounts and over the long time periods necessary to create a sphere of non-American western influence. So, how do we prevent Hezbollah or Hamas or their successors from again using the great unmet needs in the region to increase their power?

I have a few more questions. How can the US scrape together an international coalition at this late hour and in this climate of mistrust? How can we prevent this situation from only strengthening Hezbollah and Hamas and widening the abyss between the Islamic world and the west? How can this war end in any kind of normalcy for decades to come? Why can't we put more money toward humanitarian efforts which win the peace in the long run? How can we ever say that war will bring us to peace? It never has before and don't give me WWII because it was the aftermath that created the peace, the Marshall Plan and increased commerce with our former adversaries and probably more commonality to begin with that created the lasting peace after WWII. Does any of that seem likely here?

Thanks to Moraine Township Democrats for providing this forum for discussion and to Ross Nickow for sharing his pictures.

House of Commons/Blair on Lebanon/Blair's Bush Buyers remorse?/Can we have Bill Back?

On July 25, 2006, Blair argued in the House of Commons that it has to end as it started with the release of the Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. (double click on the arrow within the picture to play--whether you agree with Blair or Menzies Campbell here, the House of Commons is always a sight to behold)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Kl7TRFEdQ


Blair today per BBC News: He said it was "an absolutely tragic situation" and called for a United Nations resolution to halt the Lebanon conflict "now".

Rice said this as she decided to remain in Israel rather than traveling to Beirut as originally scheduled: "I am here in pretty difficult and dicey circumstances because I do believe that it is better to try and address these issues face to face with the parties," and repeated the US position."We have to try and do our work well so that there will not be more and more and more incidents over many, many more years." While I don't dispute Rice's words here, I'd sure like to trade her in for Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright right about now. Members of the Bush administration always seem to be able to identify the "hard work", but they never seem to be able to do it.

How do people go back to normal and live their lives when so much bad has happened and is that the ultimate failure of Bush foreign policy?

A minister in Minnesota bravely stands for separation of church and state

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline or exercises.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines.... Every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.~~Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller 1808

Bush, Kirk and their republican collegues like to confuse their political message with a religious message because it benefits them politicaly. Bush is ordained by God to be president, the congress can mindlessly support him as good servants of God, and they are all allowed to maintain illegal and immoral wars and domestic policy in the name of that God. Anyone who disagrees with them on any issue is immediately branded anti-religious. Speech is chilled, opposition is silenced and bad policy is stays in place out of fear.

This is the danger our founders well understood and sought to prevent by requiring separation of church and state. They came from a long history of been there done that with the mixture of religion and government: the world was to be forever flat, scientists revealing natural truths had to be eliminated through imprisonment or death, ancient manuscripts containing discoveries in mathematics were bleached and written over with religious text to be lost for centuries, men died so a king could throw over one wife for another, independent land owning women were burned as witches and of course their property confiscated by the deemed faithful. By the mid 18th century, our wise founders decided the world had seen enough of the ills caused by the mixture of church and state. and wrote the prohibition explicitly into our Constitution.

Over the years, we have forgotten, failed to heed their warnings and respect the laws they wrote for us by allowing Bush and his crew to insinuate their politics into our houses of worship.

Recently, there have been several accounts of republican takeovers of churches and synagogues that have forced longtime members to leave and general strife and disunity. However, Sunday's New York Times reports the story of a Reverend who refused to allow a right wing republican takeover of his church. Rev. Gregory A. Boyd of Woodland Hills Church in suburban St. Paul, MN, refused to have his church sponsor political work and responded to the clamoring of a vocal politicized minority of his church by delivering "six sermons called "The Cross and the Sword" in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a "Christian nation" and stop glorifying American military campaigns."

Interestingly, Boyd came to his decision after observing a Fourth of July church service that ended with a video of fighter jets flying over a hill of crosses. “I thought to myself, ‘What just happened? Fighter jets mixed up with the cross?’ ” he said in an interview. Boyd became uncomfortable with the notion that his religion was thought of as being about "seeking power over others — by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars." Sort of reminds me of the war and Bush cheerleading Mark Kirk does at houses of worship in our district.

Rev. Boyd recognized what our founders recognized long ago, but Bush and Kirk want us to forget: that control of our religious institutions by political ones is untenable because it makes religion an agent of political ambition and damages both religion and government in the process. Boyd lost 1/5 of his flock, but kept 4/5s adding new members relieved to be free from the political pressure and strife. Their church is the better for it.

Dave Swanson Asks: Where Were You When They Took Your Rights Away? I ask, Where Was My Congressman?

Dave Swanson of Democrats.com, After Downing Street and Progressive Democrats of America is working on Camp Democracy which will be taking to the DC mall on September 5th. Swanson writes to announce Camp Democracy in Truthout and on his blog in a piece entitled Where Were You When They Took Your Rights Away?

In his article, Swanson lists all of the Bush Administrations illegal assaults on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government. Here is just a small sampling of Dave's sampling:

• Illegal spying on phone calls, phone records, internet use, bank records, and observation of legal nonviolent activities.
• Illegal detentions including the rounding up of thousands of citizens and legal residents for detention or deportation.
• Illegal torture, maintenance of secret camps, and extraordinary rendition.
• Illegal war – launched illegally on the basis of feloniously misleading Congress and the American public.
• Illegal use of funds in Iraq that had been appropriated for Afghanistan.
• Illegal leaking of classified information, including the identity of an undercover agent, in order to mislead the Congress and the public, and in order to punish truth tellers.
• Illegal use of signing statements to reverse 750 laws passed by Congress.

Click on the title link to see the entire list.

The list does not include all of the economic assaults on Americans such as the bankruptcy so-called reform bill, all of the program cutting, education underfunding, environmental assaulting deficit creating Bush budgets.

I don't see a single item on Swanson's list or the economic assaults that come to mind that Mark Kirk wasn't knee deep in or at least stayed completely silent on while his others that he actively supports acted.

So, where was Mark Kirk when they took our rights away? Where was Mark Kirk when they took our middle class lives away?

He was an active and gleeful participant.

If you don't say something now, do something now, how will you feel when you last chance to say something has passed?

If you have any thought in your mind that things might settle down, take a look at this.

Kirk is Delay all over again

Sometimes the comments are just so good I have to front page them. Early this morning, Dylan wrote:

Glad I didn't stay up all night waiting to see how Kirk voted on the tax cuts tied to the minimum wage bill.

At nearly 2am, in the middle of the night, the Republicans in the U.S. House passed H.R. 5970: to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

Motion to reconsider laid on the table.

Agreed to without objection.On passage Passed by recorded vote: 230 - 180, 1 Present (Roll no. 425).

Hopefully, Reid will live up to his promise to kill the hybrid bill, along with its 10-year, $300 billion-plus cost, when it reaches the Senate.

"The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again," Reid said. "Blackmailing working families will not change that outcome."

"Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum wage workers, 'We'll raise your minimum wage but only if we can give an estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America,'" said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

I'll add that this is just another example of how Delay's influence is still in our congress and there in part through our very own congressman, Mark Kirk. Delay said "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes." –Tom DeLay, March 12, 2003 (Source). Kirk apparently agrees. Delay said: "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour [the minimum wage in 1996] are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist." –Tom DeLay, during a debate in Congress on increasing the minimum wage, April 23, 1996 (Source).

Kirk used those very real working families to get another large tax cut for the 7,500 wealthiest families. He's Delay all over again.

Guys like Kirk give you guys like Tom Delay

How many Tom Delay supporters does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One

I am sure Mark Kirk can very competently screw in a light bulb.~~a Tenth District Tom Delay Joke

I went to the Tenth Dems (got it Mark, Tenth, not 10th) screening of The Big Buy, a film about the money laundering scheme to funnel illegal corporate money from TRMPAC to RNC for particular hand picked TRMPAC candidates. After the screening there was a discussion group. One man asked, "He's gone, so why are we still talking about Tom Delay?"

Good Question.

Because the Tom Delay mindset is still embedded in the republican party and in our Tenth District congressman, Mark Kirk.

Kirk voted with Tom Delay something like 86.13%. Kirk also voted to protect DeLay when he voted for fake Orwellian ethics rules and one that actually made it harder to investigate members of congress in H.R. 4975, H.R. 4682 and H.Res. 5.

Tom Delay is all about dirty tricks politics and from what we are seeing now, it appears that Kirk's campaign might be up to some dirty tricks themselves.

Tom Delay is against separation of church and state and Kirk votes against measures to preserve the separation voting for a national day of prayer when he got up in front of Temple Beth Judea and said did not and never would. He has also voted for bills that allow government to establish religion.

Tom Delay is against enforcing environmental protections and Kirk has voted for a budget that underfunded the EPA by 21% (H.Con. Res. 95) and to use Hurricane Katrina to weaken the clean air laws (H.R. 3893).

With guys like Kirk, the legacy of Tom Delay lives on, and with Tom Delay still on the ballot in Texas in a district gerrymandered miles long to insure a republican victory, who knows if we won't have him in congress once again.

Tom Delay is for ending all federal programs that help people and Kirk votes for every budget that does just that.

Tom Delay is for unending war, and Kirk is too.

It's the Kirk's of the world that allow the Delays of the world to get elected and perpetrate their dirty tricks politics and bad governing. We are still talking about Tom Delay because he is still in our everyday lives every time Mark Kirk votes against people and our constitution.

Open thread: WAR WAR WAR and little else...

War in Afghanistan.
War in Iraq.
War in Lebanon.
War to come with Syria and Iran.
Only cosmetic work being done here at home with costs, bankruptcies, foreclosures soaring, and wages declining....
...and mom just told me she's hit the limit on her Medicare D and it's only July.


What do you think about all this? Good ideas? Bad? Good decisions, bad decisions, innocent mistakes? Do we have a congress working for us? Who is the President working for?

Vent Away. Open Thread

Kirk, Superduperlicious, but no substance

Americans need to make themselves less susceptible to advertising. It seems that all someone has to do is create a slick looking ad and we buy it lock, stock and barrel. Tom Delay and TRMPAC knew that when they laundered corporate money to give it to Texas state candidates for advertising. The republicans have also used it against war hero Max Cleland morphing the face of the Vietnam war hero's with Osama bin Laden. Swift boaters used it against Kerry and Bush uses it on the night news every night for his litany of wars.

Snickers knows it too. They have new bus ads with the Snickers design and any old word in the box that usually contains the name of the candy bar. The bus ad I saw says something like Superduperlicious. It is supposed to make us think of a Snickers bar. It works. I have not eaten a one in years, but I immediately thought about a Snickers bar when I saw the bus (although I did not purchase one and have no intention of purchasing one--I prefer Dove dark chocolate, no nuts).

Mark Kirk uses advertising too. He's for anything that makes good copy, doesn't matter if it is a good idea for governing. Kirk's latest is the new school and library block the internet bill they call the "Deleting Online Predators Act"--oooh how clever of a name. Some NYC ad agency probably thought it up. Name notwithstanding, the bill requires schools and libraries that obtain federal funding to use filters that block particular websites, particularly My Space. Good copy protecting children from internet predators--Dateline NBC would have you think the entire country is made up of internet predators--so the public is all set for this one. Problem is, those who care more about governing and really helping out families than good press say it won't work. Schools and libraries are not where these kids meet predators.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said: "However, I don't believe it will adequately address these issues. It is overly broad, ambiguous, and the E-rate program was not designed to be the cop on the block."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said the bill, "Makes good press releases, but it won't save one single child from one single incident. This will not solve the problem."

The American Library Association says its libraries already use these filters, so this bill really does absolutely nothing.

What we probably need is to stop passing Bush budgets that underfund the schools, taking away good supervised programs, in favor of putting kids in front of computers all by themselves to go fish. Kirk always votes for those Bush budgets.

Again, Kirk has done nothing for the people of the Tenth District except add to the cackle of political advertising. When will Americans get off the superficial buzzwords of advertising and look for substance? I think they are ready. I don't see the big run on Snickers bars.

Is Kirk's Push to Increase the Influence of China Without Insisting on Human Rights and Workers Rights Reforms a Good Idea?

One of Mark Kirk's pet projects is the U.S.-China Working Group. Kirk sees his role as one of promoting business with China, discussing intellectual property issues, but not discussing difficult issues such as the amount of US debt owned by China (about $260 billion) and its constant worker and human rights violations.

Is promoting China as a business and political leader without seeking reform a good idea for Americans? For the people of the world?

I have always believed that Kirk's support for China is problematic because of that country's lack of attention to worker and human rights and because in his discussions, Kirk fails to mention that and the downside of allowing China to own so much US debt. He also avoids the nagging issues of alleged Chinese political and economic corruption. One major issue that I have always had with Kirk's unquestioning promotion of Chinese business is that the desire of republicans like Kirk to increase trade with China followed on the heals of the US Federal Court's decision in the Saipan slave labor case. The Court determined that Chinese workers brought to Saipan, part of the US Mariana Islands, as slave laborers were subject to American labor laws. What to do with all those Chinese slave laborers shipped to Saipan? To Kirk the answer was easy: lift US trade restrictions against China and bring the slaves back to China!

In a June 2006 Policy Brief, Joshua Kurlantzick, Visiting Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace added to my concerns about increasing the power and influence of China. Kurlantzick discusses what he calls China's soft power which he defines as its "ability to influence by persuasion rather than coercion." Kurlantzick argues that the problem with China increasing its soft power over other emerging powers in Asia is that it brings its values and models along with it. As China continues to grow economically without increasing human freedoms or rights or embracing democracy, it sends the message that a dictatorship ignoring the rights and needs of its people can do rather well without consequences. Isn't that the exact opposite of the message the US wanted to send on the fall of the Soviet Union?

Kurlantzick says:

But in some ways China’s soft power could prove disastrous for Southeast Asia—for democratization, for anticorruption initiatives, and for good governance. China has already begun to export its own poor labor, political, and environmental policies. In northern Burma, Chinese government-linked companies contribute to widespread deforestation, and China has shown little interest in Southeast Asian nations’ concerns about the environmental impact of dams on China’s upper portion of the Mekong River. Instead China has refused to join the Mekong River Commission, the organization monitoring the river.

Meanwhile China’s support for authoritarian regimes in Cambodia and Burma forestalls democratization or at least better governance in those nations. In Cambodia opposition politicians complain of Chinese support for the ruling party, and journalists report that when they write about subjects displeasing to China—like Taiwan—the embassy harasses them. In Burma China’s aid packages and frequent state visits have undermined U.S. and Southeast Asian efforts to push the ruling junta into a dialogue with the democratic opposition; instead, China’s actions have encouraged other powers, like India, to move closer to Rangoon. In the Philippines, where international watchdogs have long highlighted government corruption, China has offered some $400 million in aid to a major infrastructure project, the Northrail rail line. Local activists warn that the Chinese aid was provided with no transparency in bidding and with no significant environmental impact assessment.

In the worst possible case, China’s success in delivering strong economic growth while retaining political control could serve as an example to some of the more authoritarian minded leaders in the region, like Cambodia’s Hun Sen, who admires China’s economic and political system. In controlling development from the top, of course, Beijing’s model rejects the idea that ordinary citizens should control countries’ destinies. And as China’s power grows around the world, the influence it projects, as in Southeast Asia, could be similarly bad for a range of developing nations. As Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations has noted, the Chinese firm Shougang International Trade and Engineering reportedly has done little to upgrade safety at the Hierro de Peru mine it purchased in Peru in the early 1990s. Peru’s Labor Ministry recorded 170 accidents, including two fatal ones, at the mine in one year alone. When labor unions in Peru protested, Beijing allowed Shougang to bring imported laborers from China to work at the mine. Similarly, in Africa Chinese assistance to authoritarian states like Zimbabwe and Angola has raised concerns. International corruption watchdogs warn that China’s aid package to Angola, reportedly as large as $6 billion and given without pressure for poverty reduction or coordination with international financial organizations, will allow the Angolan government to revert to its old habits, skimming the aid for itself.

It is not that I have anything against the Chinese people or culture. In fact, I truly value and appreciate Asian culture and admire many of their historic views on religion. What I am concerned about is that, when Mark Kirk promotes China as an economic and political power, he is purposely silent on human rights, workers rights and basic human freedoms. He specifically stated that he thought only IP issues were important to discuss. Kirk cares only about increasing business with China and does not care who is harmed or what values are promoted along the way. Many commenters on this blog have referred to Kirks ultimate personal goal of becoming a lobbyist for Chinese business interests. I would ask Kirk to consider others before his own personal goals for once. In promoting Chinese business interests, Kirk should consider the Chinese people including its underpaid and overworked workers, the people in surrounding nations most subject to its influence and potential wrath, the Taiwanese who are threatened by our new friendship with China and who are older friends of ours, the people of Tibet who have suffered under Chinese occupation, the people of other emerging nations likely to be influenced by Chinese business and political influence, and the people of the United States and his own district who will be subject to employment competition with slave laborers. The sale of pirated movies and fake handbags is by far not the only issue we must address when doing business with China.

Saddest Story of the Day

Sad: Even Tim Johnson's (R-IL 15th) own supporters have no idea what he does all day.




Sadder: Kirk voted Yes for the Oman Free Trade Agreement. That figures because Oman, like China, does not recognize workers rights. More slavery out of Kirk's office. Kirk has no respect for working people around the world. Why would you think that he has any respect for you?


Saddest: The Conyers update:
"I decided to file suit against the President in Federal Court in Michigan, along with 11 Senior Democratic Members of Congress. This suit was necessary because of a clear violation of the constitution. When the President signed the Deficit Reduction Act (which "reduced" the deficit by cutting taxes, health care benefits, and student loans), he signed into law a bill that had not passed the House and Senate. A different version of the bill passed each house of Congress with a multi-billion dollar difference in funding for life-saving medical equipment. Anyone who ever watched Schoolhouse Rock knows this to be a problem."

It's pretty sad when a U.S. Congressman feels the only way he can explain Article I of the Constitution to the President of the United States is to refer to a 30 year old children's cartoon--School House Rock's "Bill". Note the two major differences between the 1970s and now. One is that congressmen no longer talk to their constituents to get ideas for important laws as referred to in "Bill"; they talk to their corporate donors. The other difference, the whole notion of a veto. The president no longer has to veto much. He just makes a vague signing statement that he has no intention of enforcing the law. Poor "Bill". He wanted to be a law so very badly and he wanted to do it constitutionally.

Saddest of all for us in the Illinois Tenth is the lack of concern of our own congressman, Mark Kirk. He does not support the Conyers lawsuit and has not said one single word about Bush making a non-Bill a law. Apparently, Kirk could not care less what becomes legislation.

"The right of representation in the legislature [is] a right inestimable to [the people], and formidable to tyrants only." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776.

Something Kirk is not talking about

We have seen what Mark Kirk wants to talk about, beetles, baby 401Ks, and puppies, but it is important to look at what he is not talking about.

One major aspect of republican leadership supported by Kirk by omission is Bush's use of signing statements to flout legitimately passed laws. As a member of Congress, one would think Kirk would be offended when Bush declares his intention to disobey a law duly passed by Congress, but Kirk is ever silent on the issue.

What is a signing statement? Historically, a signing statement is an official document in which the president advises the executive branch how the are to interpret it. The executive branch is constitutionally charged with enforcing the laws, so they do have to intepret the laws.

So, what's the problem with Bush's signing statements when they are needed for the executive branch to do its job? The executive branch is supposed to enforce laws, not make them or alter laws passed by Congress. The problem with Bush's signing statements is that he uses them to inform Congress that he has no intention of enforcing various laws or parts thereof. He is also using signing statements to take over the role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution and determining whether or not laws are or are not constitutional. Bush is using signing statements to take control of the legislative process and the judicial process, damaging separation of powers and checks and balances in the process.

One argument recently made by the American Bar Association against Bush's use of signing statements is that they operate as unconstitutional line item vetos taking away Congress' power to override vetos by 2/3 vote. The ABA also cited several cases where signing statements have been used to limit the power of Congress in foreign policy, setting qualifications for presidential appointees and most significantly, Congress' power to investigate the executive. Another argument against Bush's signing statement made by the ABA is that they have been devoid of legal authority or detailed explanation. The president merely says he doesn't think a law is constitutional or applies to him and that's that. No explanation is given, so his reasoning can never be analyzed or criticized. Since signing statements are not mentioned in the Constitution, there is no mechanism for judicial review of them either. It's Bush, a guy who cannot keep his hands off the German Chancellor or keep his mouth closed while he chews, out there on his own being the entire federal government.

The Tinsel Wing Blog has compiled the short list of Bush signing statement examples here. Most people are aware of Bush's signing statement that he can waive enforcement of the McCain anti-torture bill. However, it is important to note that Bush made 500 of these signing statements in his first term. He has used signing statements to avoid investigation of how the Patriot Act is being enforced, avoid giving Congress information on scientific information prepared for the government, interfere with Congressional investigation of Iraq if he, the president, all by himself determines there is a national security risk, require the military to use illegally gathered intelligence and alter legal advice given by military attorneys to their commanders. This is serious stuff, but Kirk could care less.

One recent and scary development is that Justice Scalia has taken up Bush's signing statements as law stating they must be taken into account in the courts interpretation of a law.

See also John Dean's commentary on Bush's signing statements. Dean thinks they will come back to haunt Bush. That the abuse of power is leading to increased internal leaks and Congressional backlash. I don't know. Bush has been able to keep control of all that so far by threatening leakers and whatever hold he has on guys like Kirk that I cannot figure out.

Bush and his crew are bent on destroying our Constitution and replacing it with their twisted fascist view of government. The ABA panel made an interesting observation as reported in the New York Times. They recommend Congress pass a law giving Congress standing to sue the president for failing to enforce its laws:

In another recommendation, the panel suggested legislation to provide for judicial review of signing statements. It acknowledged that the Supreme Court had been reluctant to hear cases filed by members of Congress because lawmakers generally did not suffer the type of concrete personal injury needed to create a “case or controversy.” But the panel said that “Congress as an institution or its agents” should have standing to sue when the president announces he will not enforce parts of a law.

They go on to describe another despot who suspended duly enacted laws by the people's house:

The issue has deep historical roots, the panel said, noting that Parliament had condemned King James II for nonenforcement of certain laws in the 17th century. The panel quoted the English Bill of Rights: “The pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal.”

If the British Parliament in the 17th Century figured out how to make the king enforce their laws (they called it the "Glorious Revolution"), one would thing the US Congress could figure out how to require a 21st century elected official subject to a 230 year old written and revered Constitution, and a 4 year term limit, to enforce its laws. However, with guys like Kirk in office who go along for the ride because it helps them maintain their office and do not really care about the rightful powers and duties of that office, it is unlikely Congress will be moved to do so. That is why we need to retire Kirk in favor of a congressman who cares that the laws of the United States are properly created, interpreted and enforced.

Oh, for all you history buffs, in 1688 King James II ultimately took the suggestion of William of Orange and his rather large army, and left England. That was interpreted as an abdication of his throne, his daughter Mary and her husband William III took over and in 1701, James died of a brain hemorrhage in France.

We don't need an army like the 17th century Britons did; we have elections. We just need everyone to get out and vote for Dan Seals for Congress and send Mark Kirk home with a copy of the Constitution so he can study it and learn what our government is supposed to look like.

Let's not bury our heads in the sand any longer

By guest blogger, Sharon Sanders

As this world spins out of control, we, as a nation, cannot sit back and say “This is our destiny. Nothing can be done.” This is true only if we let it happen. We must really begin to talk about the coming Armageddon. We need political dialogue and must not entrust our collective destinies to those we call our leaders. Let’s not bury our heads in the sand any longer. Our children deserve better and we’re all in this together.

Our planet has gotten smaller and smaller via technology and our global economy. Our enormous appetite for oil and abuse of the natural resources of other countries has not only made us enemies abroad but at home as well. Iran is brewing and paying for home-grown terrorists here in the States. This is not a biblical Armageddon. It is man-made. We, as Americans, cannot remove ourselves from the problems of the rest of the world.

We seem to have learned nothing from the Korean, Viet Nam and Iraq Wars. We cannot make the rest of the world in our image—an image the Far Right administration and Congress have twisted to reflect a skewed self-righteousness, a set of false moral standards that they insist the rest of us must live by, a Constitution and Bill of Rights spiraling backwards to less tolerant times, and a foreign policy designed in black and white, no shading, no complexities, no planning or thought of consequences.

What to do. Well, I do know that what Bush and the Republican extremists are doing isn’t working. We all want peace in the Middle East, but even if Hamas and Hezbollah were destroyed, they’d only be morphed into other groups with other names. The Iraq War has been an utter failure with over 100 civilians dying daily, let alone the horrible deaths and injuries of our soldiers, and we have unintentionally, but predictably, handed the Shiites in Iran and Iraq the gift of spreading Islamic extremism throughout the area. Good planning, Mr. Bush. Great democracy you’ve brought to the Middle East.

Realistically, we’re overextended militarily. If we rely on air strikes and “nuke” Iran and North Korea, just a little common sense would tell you that the fallout would not be restricted to our “enemies” but would endanger all of us, let alone the fact that the cause of “democracy” in the region would certainly not be enhanced—that is what’s left of it. Since we really don’t know where all the underground nuclear facilities are in both countries and our advanced technology and reconnaissance missions have not been able to locate them, what happens when we miss these targets? The answer is self-explanatory. I’m also betting that right after the November elections, there will be a call for a draft. How else are we going to have enough troops to carry on with our dirty deeds?

We need to remove John Bolton from the UN, replace him with a competent, clear-thinking individual who can help restructure the UN and put pressure on the rogue states to act rationally. We give billions to these countries now. It’s payback time. We can pressure them to act appropriately in terms of Israel and the other Middle Eastern countries. And finally, let’s put an international peace-keeping force in place to buffer Israel from its enemies. The alternative is Armageddon. We can only make rational decisions at this point by replacing the current Congressional extremists, and if we last that long, booting out this incompetent administration in 2008.

OK, you tell me

SATURDAY UPDATE: Here's more along the same line. DOD will sell sensitive weapons to just about anyone. Don't think for one minute that any of this is about bringing democracy or defending Israel. Guys like Bush and Kirk take advantage of difficult situations like Iraq and Israel for their own power and gain. Thing is, John Adams was correct when he said "facts are stubborn things" and all this is coming out into the open. It is a terrible shame it takes so much mysery and so many deaths for this information to come out in the open, but it eventually does. When the jig is finally up, guys like Bush and Kirk will scurry away, but with what will the rest of world be left? What will all the blastocysts do when the rest of us are gone?

Original post:

Let's see...Kirk gets up in front of a crowd in Chicago on Monday leading cheers for Bush's "support" for Israel. OK you tell me: how is this support for Israel? How is it support for democracy? The link takes you to an article about a $6 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia. You remember Saudi Arabia, the country where most of the September 11 terrorists came from; the country without a democratically elected leadership. Sounds more like they are into that whole let's make WWWIII our campaign slogan coming out of the right wing media and several republican leaders, (here too) .

Bush ignored the steaming pot of the Middle East for his entire administration. He and his neo-con buddies had no intention of promoting peace as had all prior administrations and gleefully stirred things up in the neighboring Persian Gulf region. Sounds to me like this is what they were going for all along. WWWIII...Bush says "make it so"... and little Israel right in the middle of all of it. With friends like this....

Another Kirk Vote for Theocracy

Wednesday was a big day for Theocracy. I missed a Kirk vote for federal government sponsorship of religion. Thanks to the fellow who pointed it out to me.

The vote was on a bill to approve purchase by the federal government of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego from the state of California. The site has a huge cross on it and California said that was a no no on state-owned land.

Mark Kirk said he was "passionate" about separation of church and state. He told me so himself at Beth Judea on June 4, 2006. I guess he was not telling me or the congregation that invited him there the truth.

Remember, Kirk also told the audience at Beth Judea that he voted against a National Day of Prayer, but he clearly voted for one. Why would anyone in the district support a congressman who is so embarrassed by his own votes that he tries to hide them?

District Court in California Refuses to Dismiss the EFF Class Action Lawsuit Against AT&T;

Wowee! Thursday, the District Court in the California EFF class action case against AT&T; rejected the government's motion to dismiss.

See my original posts about the the class action lawsuit here and a Texas case in which EFF filed an Amicus Brief here.

Read the Judge's decision in the EFF vs. AT&T case here.

Here's a summary of the Judge's decision for those MWDMorClick:

EFF's class of plaintiffs sued AT&T; for working with the NSA in its spying program in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, FISA and other federal limitations on electronic surveillance. The government argued the case had to be dismissed because the subject of the case itself was based on state secrets and harm national security. The Court's opinion provides a very interesting history of this defense. Remember what John Dean said about the state secrets defense in the Ellsberg case, there were no identified state secrets sought to be protected; they were just making it up.

The government's position specifically included a claim that the executive has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes" and a claim "that plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that the alleged searches were unreasonable, which would require a fact-intensive inquiry that the government contends plaintiffs could not perform because of the asserted privilege."

The Court went through the litany of public disclosures of the spying plan to show that the very subject of the case itself was not a state secret. It concluded that the information is not s state secret because the government has admitted spying on terrorist groups and contends that it is legal and has denied spying on the general public. The Court noted that AT&Ts; cooperation with the plan was also publicly known the plaintiffs were entitled to some discovery it being premature to assume that plaintiffs could not collect any evidence to establish its basic case without revealing state secrets . The Court also refused to conclude that the average terrorist would parse between different spying programs caring about some and not others.

The Court also refused to dismiss the case based on an argument by the government that the plaintiff class does not have standing absent an allegation that the government monitored particular communications or records of particular class members. Instead the Court focused on the alleged "dragnet that collects the content and records of [AT&T's] customers’ communications. It was more important, the Court determined, to look at what AT&T; had done by providing access to customer calls than what the government actually did with that access.

AT&T was not assumed statutorily immune to lawsuit for actions taken under government certification due to lack of an allegation by the plaintiffs that no such certification was obtained. The Court noted that the certification statute does not explicitly provide for a heightened pleading requirement and that the missing allegation could be inferred from the rest of the allegations. It also rejected the application of potential common law immunity for cooperating with the government or qualified immunity. AT&T; could not assume that its dragnet was legal.

Here are what the Court said about the executive's duty to protect the antion from threats:

But it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive’s constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. See Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 542 US 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion) (“Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.”). To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired. The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.

In the end, the Court suggested the use of an expert with high security clearance to receive and review the most highly sensitive information and offered to travel to the location of the materials rather than transporting materials to it. EFF attorneys said they support this approach to handling the rest of the case. However, I wonder who they could get who would not be predisposed to side with the government. At least it is clear that the District Court in California was willing to find alternatives for handling evidence to avoid early dismissal of the case taking its duty to adjudicate disputes seriously. The Court also acknowledged a few things we used to take for granted, but can no longer, being balance and separation of powers and the notion that we have any liberty left at all, that it has not yet been fully traded for some false notion of security...yet.

Discovery is to start in the case by August 8th unless it is stayed by the government's appeal.

EFF is hoping that this decision will give Congress pause in its effort to sweep all cases like this one into the secret FISA court. This Court has shown that conventional courts can effectively and carefully handle cases of this nature.

UPDATE: Kirk contributed to members of congress who voted against override of Stem Cell Research Veto

Take a look at fec.gov and you can find the names of the members of congress who voted against the override of Bush's veto of the Stem Cell research bill who have also received contributions from Kirk for Congress in the past:

Boustany
Brady
Drake
Hart
Istook
Kline
Kuhl
Renzi
Sessions
Shimkus
Forbes

Seems that Kirk for Congress has been less generous lately. Maybe they feel they need to hang onto those contributions more these days.

Hey, there's a church in my state! Hey, there's a state in my church!

The founders of our country, after years of experience with state run churches and church run states had had enough. They decided the best way to govern and pray was separately and they put it in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Since taking power, George W. Bush and his band of theocrats have worked in overdrive to dismantle Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state as illustrated by his veto on Wednesday of the Stem Cell research funding bill. As he signed the veto, Bush declared that he would protect the right of blastocysts nationwide to be put in the trash bin over helping ill and suffering human beings any day. Well, not really. He refused press for the veto, so we don't know what he said. Wonder why he did not want us to see him veto the bill for the much needed funding. Maybe he did not want us to see that he needed help spelling V-E-T-O.

Mark Kirk claims not to be a theocrat, but he never works to stop them, never speaks against their actions, and often votes right along there with them. He donates campaign dollars to many of the worst of them and he also campaigns at the pulpit.

Today, Kirk voted in favor of the Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2389, Roll Call 385. Denounced as disgraceful by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) , the bill prohibits the federal courts from hearing cases challenging the validity of the Pledge of Allegiance under the Constitution. It is clear that Kirk agrees, when violating the Constitution, the government must not be required to answer for itself in the courts. Here is part of the statement on passage of this bill by AU:

This is a disgraceful measure that jeopardizes the rights of religious minorities," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This is election-year pandering at its worst."

"The Pledge bill endangers the constitutional separation of powers, Lynn continued. “It would seriously undercut the ability of federal courts to ensure that the rights of religious minorities are not trampled by the whims of the majority.”

In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette that Jehovah’s Witness children could not be forced by state law to salute the flag in public schools in violation of their religious convictions.

A wide array of religious and civil rights organizations oppose the bill, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, American Jewish Committee, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Disciples Justice Action Network (Disciples of Christ), Friends Committee on National Legislation, Hindu American Foundation, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Council of Jewish Women, Sikh Coalition, The Interfaith Alliance, Union for Reform Judaism and Unitarian Universalist Association.

Up the sleeves of House republicans now is a $100 million school voucher plan, otherwise known as the let's loot the public schools and have the taxpayers fund our religious schools bill. The "gimmick" is that they are supposed to be giving poor students choices of school. However, the amount of the vouchers will never meet the tuitions, so the poor kids end up in even poorer public schools and the rich kids parents get yet another tax break and religious schools get taxpayer money unconstitutionally funneled to them; all just another days work for Kirk's friends, campaign donations, his work as assistant majority whip, and maybe even his vote if they need it.

Then, you'll remember was the whole Terry Schiavo incident Congress came into emergency session to legislate against that poor husband who was simply trying to do the right thing for his wife whose brain had liquefied. Kirk was right there voting to prolong their agony to satisfy a small band of religious radicals and one particular doctor who prefers to diagnose other doctors' patients from old, edited videotape.

I think Kirk is a little embarrassed about his pro-theocracy votes, campaign donations and friends, not that it ever stops him from voting and acting that way. Reason I say that is because when I saw him campaign from the pulpit at Beth Judea on June 4, 2006, I asked him about it. On my little index card, I asked him if he believes in separation of church and state. He answered that he was "passionate" about separation of church and state. He followed up touting that he is so very passionate about separation of church and state that he even voted against the national day of prayer after September 11th. That might have been a voice vote. I can find no record of it. Thing is, Mark Kirk actually voted for a national day of prayer with respect to the invasion of Iraq, H. Res 153, Roll Call 90 March 27, 2003. The resolution reads as follows:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation—
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States—
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.

Embarrassed enough to try to hide it maybe, but apparently not so passionate about separation of church and state, Mark Kirk wants laws passed requiring all Americans to seek guidance from God. Fine if it's just a suggestion or for those who believe in God, but a legislative call to all Americans to pray, fast and seek guidance from God? Does that seem like passionate separation of church and state to you? Is that what you think our founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment? Do you want to be told when to pray and to whom to pray and for what purpose and to what end? Do you want a church in your state? Do you understand that also means there will be a state in your church?

Breaking...Illinois long distance crippled

UPDATE: All long distance is back up.

"Major" fiber cut in Illinois and it will affect any calls that cross AT&T lines. They are reporting no estimated time of completion.

Is there any hope out there?

With war raging in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, Arlen Spector proving himself not to be the one hero of the republican party, but every bit the poodle AARs Mike Malloy said he was in moving to legalize warrantless spying on Americans, and the newsmedia focused on Bush talking with his mouth full, I am wondering if there are any shreds of hope out there. While I wait for some important news myself, I'm going to dig for some hope....

1. They are waiving the "fee to flee" for Americans stuck in Lebanon. Whose dumb idea was that anyway?

still digging...

OK, this isn't hopeful, but it is strangely interesting. Truthout was oddly hacked for a brief few moments Tuesday night. The hacker substituted an anti-religion message for the usual Truthout.org page:

Every war is caused by religion. We need to stop Believing in something that cannot be seen. Without religion we can focus more on Science and Technology. Why lose countless innocent lives over a "supreme being?" bombings and attacks on other human beings because of a book writen 200 years ago about someones adventures 2000 years ago?? Do not take this as an attack. TruthOut. Here is the truth. No matter who you pray to or what you believe in there is only one thing you can depend on in life... Death. So why waste your time trying to satisfy someone who already knows we are here? It is said we have a plan? destiny? Please, i ask anyone who sees this.. focus on the problems on hand. not a "conscience subsitute" If religion was non existent do you think that WTC would have been hit? the war in Israel would be going on? what about the halt on stemcell research? what about the holocaust. Its time to stop thinking with your hearts, and start thinking with your mind. Nature kills to many of us already. why let "god" kill more? Ill see you guys in the next phase of evolution. if my body is not there to see it. I know my ideas will be. Psyl3n5e is now heard

No, Mark, you cannot say that Psyl3n5e is speaking for any particular congressional campaign so stop typing now.

still digging for signs of hope...

1 1/2. Oh, there were the votes on stem cell research and the marriage amendment, but with a veto from Bush, the stem cells will be thrown in the bin rather than used for medical research and the marriage amendment isn't serious anyway. It's really just a gop GOTV event. If it ever passed, what would they do with themselves?

still digging....

2. Oh, how could I forget Ralph Reed. He lost and stayed that way like Bush should have done in 2000.

again, not hopeful, but fun:

2 1/4. There is a fun Al Gore video to watch. From the summer of 2000, so it's not new, but recently released. They should have showed this is a campaign commercial. In 2000, the press buzz about Gore was that he was stiff and boring, but that was never true. Now it comes out because of my favorite saying and pretty much the only thing that gives me any real hope: "Facts are stubborn things."~~John Adams

3. RFK Jr. says "80% of Republicans are just Democrats who don't know what's going on." So, all we have to do is show them what is going on, right?

What gives you hope?

Open Thread

I have a lot to do today, so I'll leave you with an email I received and an open thread:

Tonight, my phone rang, I looked at my Caller I.D., it said, "U.S. Govt." So being curious I answered it. It turned out to be an Army recruiter, he said he was based at my 17 yr old son's high school here in Cols, Oh. Sean will be a Sr. next fall. He asked to speak to Sean...I told him that he was not here - which he wasn't - and I told him in unmistakable and in no uncertain terms that he was forbidden to ever speak to him, and to never, never contact him again!!!! He politely said, "Yes sir." after each of my tirades, then hung up. I'm hoping that did it!

Take it away bloggers:

Kirk campaigns at rally

I am just back from the rally in federal plaza. Kirk was in usual form complete with holocaust imagery, an audience that knows little about him and is completely unable to ask questions because of the setup of the event, an outdoor rally, and of course, the ending campaign line about him going to Washington and making sure something....

Kirk cheered democracy but forgot to mention he doesn't believe in freedom of speech. He actually started to lead a little cheer. I don't remember the catch phrase now and it really didn't go over in a big way. Anyone there who remembers the phrase he was using can feel free to add it to the comments. No matter what the cause or what the war, I am always uncomfortable when war is the subject of a cheerlead.

Something that I don't understand. Kirk led a cheer for all the help from the Bush administration, but I don't recall seeing any offers of help from Bush other than a wish of good luck and a curse word on a mic he was supposed to think was off. What did I miss? Do you think Bush and Blair thought the mic was off? Do you think Israel can expect actual military help from the US if they need it? Do you think the US should send military help to Israel if it needs it?

As you can see, I have far more questions than answers. Kirk says he has all the answers. Do you agree with him?

Questions for Mark Kirk

Mark will likely be speaking at the JUF event in Federal Plaza this afternoon. If you get a chance, please ask him a few questions for me.

1. Why do you think it is wise to curtail freedom of speech in a time of war? Can't listening to all point of view help us to assure the smartest actions are taken?
2. Because you have said that even a reference to the existence of an opposition point of view is "alarming and recklessly dangerous", do you think Israel should shut down it's newspaper Haaretz and its website for publishing opposition material and having a different idea for how the defense could have been maintained?
3. Do you believe all countries at war including the United States should shut down their opposition newspapers and all opposition websites, television and radio stations? Should all peace groups and opposition parties also be shut down in times of war?
4. Why do you believe the Bush Administration was correct to discontinue the Mid-East peace initiatives of the Clinton Administration?
5. Why do you believe the particular strategy of this war was the best and only answer to Israeli security issue with Lebanon and Hezbollah?
6. Why do you believe it is important to hide all affects of a war from the people required to pay for it and fight it?
7. Do you believe in separation of church and state here in the United States? Oh, don' t bother asking him this one. I already did and he lied, but more on that later.

Could Kirk be a Victim of Groupthink?

Well, I've seen up close and personal that Mark Kirk does not believe in the freedom of speech part of the first amendment. He believes that any opinion other than his is "alarming and recklessly dangerous" and he'll act to suppress it. That is exactly what I think is alarming and recklessly dangerous about republicans. They believe that only their vision, viewpoint or opinions matter and everyone else has to be silent and walk in lock step, not even a question asked or dissenting comment made.

Examples: Kirk claims to be pro-choice, but because he has to be in lock step he readily gives campaign contributions to feverishly anti-choice republican candidates and skips out on key pro-choice votes. Kirk claims to be a moderate, but to further his career as a republican he voted with the Bush Administration 85% of the time, including votes against limiting the power of lobbyists, against providing health care to veterans and for every program cutting, but debt laden Bush budget. It's all worked well for his career as now he is assistant majority whip in charge of enforcing the code.

Problem is that the lock step mindset has often been the cause of some of the biggest disasters in history. In his book, The Best and the Brightest, David Halberstam attributed much of the Vietnam disaster to the concept of groupthink. In agreement was Irving Lester Janis, the author of Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Janis defined groupthink as "A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

The New York Times recently referenced Kennedy's thoughts on the press after the Bay of Pigs disaster while defending their publishing of the leak regarding spying on international banking data. Prior to the Bay of Pigs action, the press self censored and Kennedy wanted them to. However, after the disaster, Kennedy's opinion changed. This is what New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller recently wrote about that failure to report on the Bay of Pigs:

Our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After the Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco.

Although he did not articulate it a such as the concept of groupthink was coined in 1952, Thomas Jefferson was fully aware of the dangers of a government wallowing in groupthink and was fully persuaded in the necessity of a free press and free speech for the new government he helped create:

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.~~Thomas Jefferson letter to Edward Carrington 1787

No government ought to be without censors; and where the press if free, no one ever will. If virtuous, it need not fear the fair operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth, either in religion, law or politics.~~Thomas Jefferson to George Washington 1792

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, which we trust will end in establishing the fact that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found is the freedom of the press. It is therefore the first shut up by those who fear investigation of their actions.~~Thomas Jefferson to Judge John Tyler of Virginia 1804.

Public officials who do not want to be subject to questions and are committed to stopping the dialogue are either afraid to tell us something or do not want us to have enough information to make an informed decision. Going along with the crowd has never been a good idea and everyones mother has told them so one time or another. Jefferson knew it and Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon found out the hard way. Kirk so wants to belong to the Bush crowd that he'll even give up things he has said he is "passionate" about, another part of our sadly dying First Amendment, but more on that later.

In 1935 W.E.B. DuBois wrote about people using others for political and economic gain, he was right then and he's still right

In 1935, W.E.B. DuBois, author and one of the founders of the NAACP, wrote this in his book Black Reconstruction:

God wept; but that mattered little to an unbelieving age; what mattered most was that the world wept and still is weeping and blind with tears and blood. For there began to rise in America in 1876 a new capitalism and a new enslavement of labor.

What DuBois was talking about is one of the oldest scams in the book still in use today and all you need to do is substitute the appropriate differentiating descriptions. In the post civil war time about which DuBois wrote, it was the corporate leaders and politicians race baiting both white and black workers against each other. They told the whites that the blacks were taking their jobs and forcing their wages down (funny they never mentioned that they could still give raises if they wanted to). There were a couple of severe post-civil war depressions and unemployed whites seeing some blacks working when they were not were satisfied that what their leaders told them was the truth.

These same leaders or their counterparts told the blacks that the whites hated them and would never let them into their labor unions, and much because of the former, the whites did not let the blacks into their labor unions and often attacked them for working. Blacks seemed satisfied from the evidence at hand that what they were being told was correct.

What happened to the workers? The white workers lost the union support of black workers and the black workers lost the ability to work for a decent wage in peace and acceptance. Both groups lost the ability to belong to strong united unions that would help them increase their wages, standard of living and health and safety.

Who won? The corporate leaders who made more money and the politicians who used hatred to stay in power.

The world wept and is still weeping over the use of good people by people who can profit in money and/or power from their mysery. Will we ever stop buying into the oldest scam in the book?

Using my free speech while I still have it

Please click on the link below. You will understand the reason that, despite a position paper which on the surface appears favorable to Israel, that Dan Seals, ( "10th District Democrats"), as evidenced by the position of his core supporters, expresses in writing, something quite different, quite alarming and recklessly dangerous! Israel at this perilous moment requires our unconditional support, not criticsm or denigration.

http://ellenofthetenth.blogspot.com/2006/07/many-in-israel-dont-agree-with.html Please note: there is a direct link from the "10th District Dems" (who support Dan Seals) website to this link.

The above is being sent around the emails and blogs by Kirk campaign supporters. They are trying to do two things with this email. First, they are trying to say that Seals is speaking through me which, of course, is riduculous. Second, they are trying to chill my free speech by causing me to worry that anything I say will be tagged on Seals or Tenth Dems which is also ridiculous. There is a third effect, or really only one valid one, albeit very unintentional on their part I would assume. They have given me a huge number of hits today and for that I thank them. Look at my site meter. It's going nuts! 122 hits as of 7:09pm and the night is young. Kirk's folks have done what I rarely manage except when I get a link from Kos or MYDD or that funny blog from the south "All Hat and No Cattle" which once linked to me.

I started this blog in August 2003, long before Dan Seals became the Democratic Candidate for Congress and long before I ever met him. At the time, I was working as a grassroots volunteer for John Kerry as webmaster for the Kerry grassroots group and had a reputation for speaking my mind and not necessarily John Kerry's. I was very busy up to the 2004 election, so the blog was pretty sparce until after. However, in November 2004, I started blogging in earnest so I could continue to voice my opinion.

I started this blog completely on my own and speak and claim to speak for no one and no one claims me as their reporter or mouthpiece. That is why the blog is and has always been called "Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog." It's completely mine except for guest blogs which are clearly marked as such complete with the names of the guest bloggers. I post what I want and consult with no campaign or organization for permission or comment.

My tag line has always been "Using my free speech while I still have it." I blog under that tag line because I have been very concerned about, not only the government's new restraints on free speech by creating free speech zones, threatening reporters and controlling newsmedia corporations, but also the self-imposed chill the republican attacks have caused people to put on their own speech. Many many people have contacted me over the years to tell me how very strongly they are against what this administration is doing and what congressmen like Mark Kirk do to further their political careers. However, often they add that they do not want to comment on the blog or they comment, but anonymously, suppressing their thoughts and feelings, because they are worried they will cause trouble or get into trouble. Some fear that the NSA will spy on their calls to granny. Others fear getting on some goverment list or fear retaliation at work, in their businesses or in their local communities. Although I find this fear hard to understand, I believe I have to try to understand because the retalliation some people fear is quite real.

The republican push to gut our traditional marketplace of ideas is so virulent that many people are chilled by it. This type of personal attack campaigning started out in the 1980s in parts of the country controlled by the extremist right wing. Far right wing religious extremist republicans learned that if they personally attacked opposing candidates, they could destroy them and easliy win and, even if they didn't win, they could sure control the dialogue. I remember seeing a program about this tactic on 60 Minutes back in the 1980s. I remember the program because at the time it worried me how easily really bad people could destroy really good people and win with lies and innuendo. Now, Kirk's campaign volunteers believe his campaign is in trouble, so they have brought this strategy here in a way no other local republican has ever done that I know of.

Occasionally, the republican attacks and threats do not work, but the targets have to be both brave and out there in the stark light of day like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. Think about it, the facts are undisputed, this administration actually outed a covert CIA agent to try to supress the speech of her husband who had information that disproved an administration lie being used to justify attacking Iraq. The Wilsons refused to allow their speech to be chilled by the most extreme of attack and for that, I hold them in my highest regard.

Well, the Kirk people, newly threatened by the bright shining star of Dan Seals, are attempting to use the same old right wing extremist attack strategy of lies and innuendo. The lie is that Seals has anything to do with my blog or the particular post. The innuendo is that the Tenth (sorry guys, not 10th) Dems do too. Ohhh, they link to me. Well, they link to lots of blogs, organizations and news sources and they control neither me nor any of them. They probably just find my blog interesting because I am one of the few well known bloggers from the area. I never used to think I was well know, but thanks to these Kirk campaign supporters, I guess I am now.

Also a lie is the notion that my post reflects a lack of real support for Israel. I support Israel. I want them to live in peace and prosperity in the world community. I have a distant relative in Israel, Ruthie. Ruthie is really the niece of my cousin by marriage. She has 4 small children to raise and has recently been left alone in the task. She is who I was mostly thinking of when I wrote the post which was inspired by the Gush Shalom in Israel, a real live and thriving Israeli peace organization, and the writings of local members of the American Tikkun community, a real Jewish community here in the US led by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

Ruthie was born and raised in Israel and even served in its military. Now, she has not only to feed, educate, protect and raise her 4 children all by herself, but she now has to do it during a war. Not the far away war that we have been experiencing here in the US and can easily ignore even when watching television news that has censored most mention of the real effects of war. Not war that someone else's children have to fight. Not war they can justify by putting a silly yellow "Support the Troops" ribbon magnet on their bumpers. Not the war Mark Kirk can use to scare Jewish constituents with holocaust imagery and get votes. No, a real shooting war that will cause her and her family real hardship, real danger, real distress, real loss and real fear.

Sorry Kirk folks. You really blew it here. There is a strong and thriving peace movement in Israel, so Kirk is not the hero of Israel he portrays himself to be. Many many Israelis want peace. The idea that it is dangerous to post a brief article about a real, existing and thriving peace movement in Israel, by and for Israelis, is ridiculous. The idea that American Jews have to fully support every war the Israeli government gets into, no questions asked, no comments made, is ridiculous and the idea that American Jews have to suppress information coming into the US about the wishes of the Israeli people themselves is ridiculous. Not only ridiculous, but plain old stupid because the rest of the world has news and knows and because maybe our US support of Israel should be support of the Israeli people and not one temporary government they could abandon tomorrow under their parlimentary system.

Kirk folks blew it futher because Seals and I see each other rarely and only say hi when we do. He's too busy to worry about me and I'm much more interested in issues and law than politics to take direction from any political campaign. Don't believe me? Read the blog and all the archives.

The Seals campaign doesn't tell me what to write or when to write it. The Tenth Dems don't tell me what to write or when to write it even though I know the correct spelling for their groups name. The real thing about Dan Seals, the Seals campaign, the Tenth Dems, my guest bloggers and me that ties us all together is that we have our own opinions and do not attack each other to suppress them. We believe in the free marketplace of ideas. That is a Jewish concept that my grandmother taught me years ago, and of course, a very American concept expressly written into our Constitution, which has allowed the Jewish people to prosper in America and work to help their Israeli nieces of cousins.

When we come down to it what matters in Israel are the nieces of everyones cousins and their children, mothers, fathers, husbands, and in-laws. Will they ever be able to live in the peace Americans like Mark Kirk are fortunate enough to enjoy? Seems like every time there is a chance of peace there are warmongers on both sides working to put a stop to it. There seems to be too much at stake and too many gaining money or power from the war to allow peace to grow.

All I have left to say on this topic is this: Hi Ruthie! I'm thinking about you and your kids all the time and I am sorry that my congressman and his campaign supporters see fit to use your country to their own political ends.

Sanders responds

Sharon Sanders responds to a comment on her July 5, 2006 post on this blog:

Obviously you missed the point completely. We are Americans first and foremost as much as we may love Israel and support the existence of a Jewish State. But this administration, Mark Kirk's administration, is taking our country down the path of fascism, something you as a Jew (if that in fact is the case), should be very concerned about. The Far Right under the guidance of James Dobson, Karl Rove, Jerry Falwell, Charles Coulson, Grover Norquist and others of the same persuasion fervently want to convert us into a fundamentalist Christian nation, all of us praying the same, thinking the same, and to hell with free speech, a free and open media, the right to pray as you wish or not at all, the right for a woman to make decisions about her own body, the right to be who you are, and the right not to be spied on by your own government. Do you want your children to be forced to pray in school, do you want them to be forced to be taught creationism rathern than evolution, do you want the Far Right to censor their textbooks and set their values? If that's what you want then you'll be very happy about the direction this country's heading.

You may not be scared, but I sure as hell am. I'm scared that this administration, Mark Kirk's administration, is destroying our democracy and is really responsible for the increase in anti-semitism in the states and elsewhere. You mention democrats that you allege are anti-semitic or have made anti-semitic statements. Even if that were the case, do you really believe that the Bush administration is any better. I believe they're far worse. Let me give you just one case. The Abramhoff scandal is a perfect example of subtle anti-semitism being placed in the public mind. We have a right-wing media who has managed to put Abramhoff's name on the front page hundreds and hundreds of times all over this country, as well as a continuous bombardment on the so-called news channels. Abramhoff is no angel, but let me tell you that all those who received his handouts and trips or were part of his deals, like Ney and DeLay, are just as guilty as he is. John Boehner, when trying to solicit the votes needed to become House Whip, had only two words in his policy statement that were in big, bold letters: "Jack Abramhoff", saying that the poor, innocent Republicans were duped by him. In plain speak: the Jew was the problem. Come on. Does anyone believe that these Republicans were really duped. And Boehner, once elected by his party, has done nothing to stop the lucrative gifts of the powerful lobbyists in Washington.

Here's another reason we need Dan Seals in Congress. The Bush administration, Mark Kirk's administration, has used the "War on Terror and 9/11" as an excuse to make Bush into King George. This administration attacked another country unprovoked, and as evil as Hussein was, terrorists were not "breeding" there. Bush and the cabal preemptively attacked Iraq using false claims of MWD as their excuse. If Mr. Bush really wanted to get the terrorists, he would have stayed in Afghanistan and gone after Bin Laden there. Instead the administration and the Republican Congress have wasted billions and billions of dollars filling the coffers of Halliburton and other corporations with no-bid contracts--and we have absolutely nothing to show for it except for the world's largest embassy city in the middle of Iraq. Calling himself a war-time president (his own war), Bush has used this as a phony excuse to make over 750 signing statements bypassing the Constitution. He was willing to have our shores protected by a Middle Eastern country that did breed terrorists and even now, allows them to make parts for the military.

So, as I said before, we can't hypocritically call for "democracy" in the Middle East when we are destroying our democracy here at home, and Israel cannot be the only excuse to vote for a candidate. I don't hear any loud cries and demands for peace. I do hear an occasional whimper. Bill Clinton is, in fact, the only one who really tried to negotiate peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Now, we have nothing but continuous bloodshed with no end in sight. Israel has all the weapons it needs to destroy its enemies in the Middle East if it so desired. Now AIPAC needs to support a man like Dan Seals who will work for peace will be as good a friend of Israel as Mark Kirk (if not better). I believe we need to change the direction this country's heading right now. We can't afford to wait.

Many in Israel don't agree with the Bush/Kirk plan for them

This is the post that caused Kirk campaign supporters to call for a moratorium on on free speech. Here is my response. Even if you are the staunchest advocate of Israel (which I argue that I am), do you really want the US to curtail the First Amendment of the US Constitution that has served us well for 230 years and has been the primary component of the health and prosperity of the American Jewish Community?

Here's the original post:

In case you think guys like Mr. "Second Holocaust" Kirk is a big hero in Israel, think again. Many in Israel don't want to be used as pawns in the American right wing/Bush Administration/Kirk Campaign Strategy/Arms Dealer and Oil Company plan for them. Click on the title link for details and pictures of Israeli demonstrations against the war. One picture is posted here (above) with a caption reading: "הפסיקו את המלחמה המטורפת!" translated "We have no children for superfluous wars!" Neither do we here in the US.

Here is a poem sample from the page:

Gush Shalom ad in Haaretz
Friday July 14, 2006.

Those who refused
To talk with
The Palestinian government
And declared a blockade
On the Palestinian people -
Got a conflagration in
The Gaza Strip.

Those who refused
A prisoner exchange
And sent tanks
Into Gaza -
Got a conflagration
Both In the north
And in he south.

Those who refuse
To talk even now -
May get a conflagration
Throughout the Middle East.

And in the end,
In spite of everything -
They will talk.

I hear Kirk plans to use a JUF Israel Solidarity demonstration as a campaign stump on Monday at noon in Federal Plaza. Nice...Mark. JUF should be ashamed of themselves if they allow him to use them and use the suffering of all sides in the Middle East to campaign. Kirk is happy to beat the drums of war in Israel because he has absolutely no plans whatsoever to go over there and do any real fighting. His only plan is to scare people into voting for him again. Thing is, by now people might just see that voting for him before only made the situation worse.