Friday, June 19, 2009

Free Speech? Irresponsible Speech? Intolerance?

I learned in undergraduate school that it is not a very bright idea to poke at a psycho. The Right-wing blowhards have some real psychos in their audiences.  They are easily pushed to violence.

I am a huge supporter of the first amendment. Nevertheless, I hate to see it used to protect hate speech every bit as much as I hate to see porn protected.


Free speech, irresponsible speech, and the climate of intolerance in 2009
Download a PDF version of this report here.

For more of PFAW's research and reporting on the Far Right, visit the Right Wing Watch blog.

Shortly after anti-government terrorist Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in April 1995, President Bill Clinton urged Americans to challenge those who use powerful political and media platforms to promote the kind of inflammatory falsehoods that poison public discourse, make civil conversation impossible, and can ultimately lead to violence.  The reaction from right-wing leaders of the day was sadly predictable and by now familiar: they claimed that Clinton was seeking to “silence” voices of dissent, even though his speech affirmed that the First Amendment protects both the purveyors of irresponsible speech and those who challenge him.

Today a similar dynamic is stoked by an even more powerful right-wing media machine and networks of online activists.  And far too often, high-ranking elected officials join pundits and other extremists in promoting wildly false and inflammatory charges designed to convince Americans that President Obama and his allies are dangerous enemies of American values who are bent on destroying religious liberty and stripping Americans of their guns and their freedom of speech.

People For the American Way’s analysis from fourteen years ago is worth reconsidering today in the wake of recent acts of domestic terrorism and the flowering of ever-more inflammatory rhetoric. Here’s a short excerpt:
Language that attributes heinous motives and goals to individuals and organizations -- such as accusations that liberals are out to destroy Christianity or that advocates for civil rights for gays and lesbians want to molest young children -- destroys any recognition of common interest and any hope of finding common ground among political opponents. That is a terribly dangerous situation in a democratic society.
It is tempting to reassure ourselves by saying that hate speech is the denizen of only the furthest fringes of American political life. Unfortunately, that assertion is clearly not true. Elected officials and highly visible political leaders are among those who spread messages of fear and suspicion, over and over, day in and day out. The repetition of such messages cannot contribute to the well-being of our communities or the health of our society at large. Regardless of whether such messages "cause" violent behavior, they clearly serve to legitimize those who do violate the law.
Sound familiar?  In the wake of the assassination of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion zealot and the killing of a guard at the Holocaust Museum by a white supremacist who feared that the government was getting ready to take away his guns, right-wing pundits have reacted with anger against any suggestion that they devote some self-reflection to rhetoric that may have inspired the killings.  The same was true last year when a gunman opened fire in a Unitarian Universalist church in Tennessee, his stated hatred for liberals fueled by the invective that enriches pundits like Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly, whose books were found in his home.

Of course, even irresponsible pundits cannot be held directly responsible for the actions of followers who turn to violence, but there is little question that the hatred they foment day after day creates a climate in which such violence is more likely and less surprising.  We call on public officials to resist the temptation to gain admiration and supsport from far-right activists by embracing and repeating the most outrageous and incendiary speech.
Anyone who believes we are overstating the case is not paying attention.  Examples of the excesses of inflammatory and demonstrably false far-right rhetoric can be found every day by reading the paper, following daily analysis at www.RightWingWatch.org, reviewing this series of “Right Wing Watch In Focus” reports, consulting www.MediaMatters.org, or checking a recent synopsis from Salon.

President Obama as Public Enemy Number One

Certainly, anyone who runs for national office enters a high-stakes rough-and-tumble arena in which they can expect fierce criticism from political opponents.  That’s been true throughout American history.  But even by those standards, the kind of charges made by far-right activists and repeated by conservative pundits with huge audiences as well as party officials and Members of Congress are stunning.  Janet Porter, a Religious Right pundit and author of The Criminalization of Christianity, recently called Obama “dictator in chief” and insisted, “This dictatorship must be stopped. And it must be stopped now.”  Actor John Voigt recently urged right-wing activists to stay the course and “bring an end to this false prophet Obama.” Former Southern Baptist Convention official Wiley Drake openly prays for Obama’s death.

President Obama as Usurper

President Obama and his non-traditional family background are the targets of ongoing smear campaigns that accuse him, among other things, of not being an American but a covert Muslim seeking to destroy American ideals.  An ongoing “birther” campaign led by far-right “news” service WorldNetDaily continues to push the claim that Obama is not an American citizen and is wrongly holding the presidency.  WND is now placing billboards asking “Where’s the Birth Certificate.” Rush Limbaugh recently joined those falsely claiming that Obama does not have a birth certificate.

President Obama as anti-American

Sen. James Inhofe recently called President Obama’s speech in the Middle East “un-American” and flatly asserted “I just don’t know whose side he’s on.”  As journalist Steve Benen has noted, Inhofe has previously accused Obama of “disarming America” and intending to let “hard-core terrorists” run “loose in the United States.” During last year’s presidential campaign, Inhofe questioned whether Obama loves America.

President Obama and Liberals as Enemies of free speech and religious liberty

Religious Right leaders routinely smear President Obama, Democratic Party officials, and gay-rights activists as enemies of free speech and religious freedom, and portray progress on marriage equality, hate crimes bills, and anti-discrimination legislation as steps toward criminalizing Christianity. Typical is the claim of Rep.  Louis Gohmert, who told right-wing activist and radio host Janet Porter that hate crimes legislation would so restrict free speech that her introduction of him, as well as her claims that the law would protect pedophiles at the expense of Christians, would be illegal: "You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.
Pat Boone recently wrote a column, “Christians, here come the lions,” in which he warned,“The end of our religious freedom in America could be at hand.”  He continued:
Our new president, his administration, a Congress and much of the judiciary ruled by ultra-liberal, "progressive" and humanistic men and women, egged on and abetted by the ACLU, are actively making plans and devising bills that will force Christians to either obey the new laws, or be fined, jailed – or who knows? Perhaps physically punished, imprisoned, or worse.
Falsely claiming that liberal activists and political leaders are trying to make public expressions of faith illegal, or are preparing to round up Christians and throw them in jail is a recipe for angry and divided communities.  But it’s a standard technique of the Religious Right, even when the claims have little relation to the truth.
Right-wing leaders falsely claimed that President Obama was out to silence right-wing radio even after Obama had stated explicitly that he was opposed to any effort to re-introduce the “Fairness Doctrine.”  And Religious Right leaders continue to insist that federal hate crimes legislation is designed to silence pastors and other critics of homosexuality, even though the legislation includes explicit affirmations of First Amendment protections for speech and religious liberty.

Earlier this year, Religious Right activists and Republicans in the Senate waged a publicity campaign that massively distorted a routine provision in the stimulus bill that prevented public funds being directed toward colleges and universities from being used to build or renovate houses of worship.  Led by the ACLJ’s Jay Sekulow, Religious Right leaders and their media allies accused Democrats of waging a “war on prayer.”  Sen. Jim DeMint told CBN’s David Brody that “Democrats are looking for every opportunity to purge faith and prayer from the public square.”

Also earlier this year,  Focus on the Family ran a video on its website claiming that President Obama was trying to “silence” Rush Limbaugh and suggesting a parallel to oppression under the Nazi regime.  It includes a  young woman paraphrasing the famous “First they came for…” remarks attributed to Martin Niemoller and concludes, "When they came for me, well, actually, they didn't come for me, because by then, I was living in a socialist country, where my preacher's sermons are approved by the U.S. Department of Orthodoxy."

President Obama as Socialist or Fascist

Former and likely future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is among many right-wing activists who call Obama a socialist.  Huckabee warned earlier this year that the U.S. was becoming the Union of American Socialist Republics, and said about Obama’s budget, “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”  Sen. James DeMint told attendess at the Conservative Political Action Conference that Americans might have to take to the streets to stop America’s slide into socialism.   Others have decided that there’s more mileage in calling Obama a fascist, including pundit Jonah Goldberg, author of “Liberal Fascism,” and right-wing entertainer Glenn Beck, who said, with Nazis marching behind him, "People are once again feeling oppressed by an out of control state…. Like it or not, fascism is on the rise.”

Taking Away Americans’ Guns

When James Von Brunn, a racist and anti-Semite, shot and killed a guard at the U.S. Holocaust museum, a note left in his car read, "You want my weapons -- this is how you'll get them.” The Holocaust museum killer, like the murderer of three policemen in Pittsburgh in April, was afraid that the Obama administration was going to take away his guns. He could have heard that from plenty of places, including the National Rifle Association and other gun groups, pundits like Fox News’ Glenn Beck and CNN’s Lou Dobbs, and Sen. Tom Coburn, who has accused the Obama administration of supporting policies aimed at “disarming us.”  “Remember,” warned Soldier of Fortune magazine, “the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.”  Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council called President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court “a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”

Department of Homeland Security Report

Right Wing Watch has extensively documented the Right’s campaign of falsehoods against the Department of Homeland Security’s report on the potential for right-wing domestic terrorism.  The campaign of distortions led to the report being withdrawn by DHS chief Janet Napolitano, though recent tragic events have made it seem prescient.  Right-wing leaders decided to get political mileage out of portraying the report as one more attack on conservatives, free speech, and on Christianity.  Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America told the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow that the report is a direct attack on the church. "[It's] a direct assault on the basic principles of religious beliefs that have been here since the time of Christ," she argues. "These are the things that Christ died on the cross for."

Gays as pedophiles

One appalling development has been the return to public discourse of public officials openly equating gay rights with support for pedophilia, a false and hugely inflammatory charge that seemed to have faded somewhat as equality for gay people gained support among the American public.  But in their desperation to defeat hate crimes legislation, members of Members of Congress joined James Dobson and other insisting that Democrats were giving rights to pedophiles at the expense of Christians. One WorldNetDaily story used the phrase “Pedophile Protection Act” no fewer than four times in referring to federal hate crimes legislation under consideration, once quoting Rep. Louis Gohmert of Texas using the term.

Abortion

Religious Right leader James Dobson dismissed President Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, saying “But you can’t compromise with evil. I mean, in what way are you going to compromise with the killing of babies?” His guest, former Bush administration official Tim Goeglein, responded, “There is no compromise. There can be no compromise on the question of the defense of the innocent pre-born.”

After the killing of Dr. George Tiller, some reporters examined the rhetoric that had been used by his critics, including pundit Bill O’Reilly who had repeatedly called him a baby killer and mass murderer and who had urged people to besiege Tiller’s clinic.  O’Reilly was furious when challenged on whether his rhetoric or actions may have helped to incite Tiller’s murderer.  Some anti-abortion activists dutifully criticized the killing, but then seemed to offer justification.  Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry said that Tiller had “reaped what he sowed.”  Colorado Right to Life’s Bob Enyart told the Los Angeles Times that abortion providers should expect violence. “If a Mafia hit man gets killed, people recognize it's an occupational hazard," he said.

Right-Wing as a “Resistance Movement”

People For the American Way Foundation reported earlier this year on the Right re-tooling itself into a “resistance movement.” 

That effort began as soon as the votes were counted last November. “I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now part of the resistance movement,” says Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America. CWA is mobilizing religious conservatives with the claim that “We face a president and Congress more hostile to unborn children, to marriage, to religious freedom, to free speech, to protecting our country than has ever existed in our history.” Right-wing Catholic leader Deacon Keith Fournier similarly pledged to be part of a “massive resistance.”

Author Orson Scott Card, who recently joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage, wrote last year that supporters of “traditional” marriage would consider the U.S. government and the U.S. Constitution their enemy if gay Americans were permitted to legally marry:
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. […] American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

Conclusion:  A Call for Responsible Dissent and Engaged Citizenship

Among Americans’ most prized possessions are the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  In a free society, controversial public policy issues should be expected to generate vigorous and even heated debate.  Our political leaders should expect to be subject to exacting scrutiny and energetic criticism.  And Americans must be willing to embrace the First Amendment rights even, or especially, of those whose opinions we disagree with and find offensive.
But Americans must also be willing to use their First Amendment freedoms to challenge those who exploit their political positions or media megaphones to promote lies that are intended to inflame rather than inform, that encourage paranoia rather than participation, and whose consequences are at best divisive and at worst, violently destructive.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Midwest Meltdown: Climate Change Report

Aren't these folks some of the ones that don't believe in science? Are they the ones who believe that Climate Change is a huge liberal conspiracy?

Not all of them, no doubt, but a huge number of them, according to recent shocking polls, are the great deniers of good science and great believers in myth, taken literally.

God Help Us All, Every One!

Massive Report Details Midwestern Climate Change Impact



Lost in the shuffle of health care politicking, Iran election drama, and David Letterman apologies, a giant multi-agency federal report was released yesterday on the current and future impacts of climate change in the United States. While it's widely understood that developing nations will suffer first and foremost from global warming, the study -- conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program -- predicts that rising temperatures could have serious consequences for how Americans live and work. Released just as the House of Representatives prepares to take up the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the Obama administration hopes the new data will influence the Congressional debate. "This report is a game-changer," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official Jane Lubchenco told Grist yesterday. "This report demonstrates in concrete scientific information that climate change happening now, and it’s happening in our backyards."

Because the research is broken down by region, the paper highlights in detail the ongoing impact of climate change on the Midwest. Already, average temperatures have risen in the past few decades, with the largest increases in winter. Heavy downpours are now twice as frequent as they were a century ago (as the recent weather in Illinois has demonstrated). And large heat waves have become more frequent than anytime in the last century -- other than the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. Without action to curb our carbon use, the report notes that precipitation and temperature changes are projected to grow.

What does that mean for the state residents? 

For one, we can expect poorer air quality and more frequent and severe heat waves, similar to the crisis that hit Chicago in 1995, killing over 700 people. Significant reductions in Great Lakes water levels will hamstring businesses that rely on the waterways for shipping, as well as the people that rely on them for drinking water  and local ecosystems that rely on them for survival. Furthermore, the combination of precipitation growth in winter and spring, more heavy downpours, and greater evaporation in summer will lead to more frequent flooding and water deficits.  Last year, floods devastated towns along the western border of the state, as well as in Iowa and Missouri.

Springfield blogger Will Reynolds brings up another great point in his first reaction to the report. While Democratic lawmakers from agricultural-heavy states -- including Reps. Debbie Halvorson and Jerry Costello -- have suggested they might derail the Waxman-Markey climate change bill because it might raise prices on supplies, farmers should probably look at the bigger picture:
While the longer growing season provides the potential for increased crop yields, increases in heat waves, floods, droughts, insects, and weeds will present increasing challenges to managing crops, livestock, and forests.
Spring flooding is likely to delay planting. An increase in disease-causing pathogens, insect pests, and weeds cause additional challenges for agriculture. Livestock production is expected to become more costly as higher temperatures stress livestock, decreasing productivity and increasing costs associated with the needed ventilation and cooling equipment.
While the report is heavy on the doom and gloom, Environment Illinois' Max Muller says in a statement that the crisis can be partially diverted if policymakers take affirmative steps to green the economy. "The good news in this report is that the future isn’t written yet," he says. "By repowering America with clean energy, we can not only avoid the worst impacts of global warming, but can also recharge our economy, and put Americans to work at millions of clean energy jobs."

Last legislative session, state lawmakers passed a major bill to improve Illinois' energy efficiency and promote renewable energy production. Will the congressional delegation follow their lead?
 
Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user Simonds.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Good News About The News


There is so very little good news about our news in the last nearly 30 years.

CNN correspondent refuses to confirm anchor’s assertions

From time to time, I bet, a cable news anchor has told you what to think about what happened. And I’d wager, too, that the anchor has asked a reporter or correspondent, “You agree, right?” It’s irritating and profoundly misleading.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Glenn Beck: sobbing again

The main problem with Mr. Beck's project is that he may well find himself dragging out a chapter in American history that the GOP would just as soon forget, for numerous reasons.

How shall we count the ways?


Thursday, June 18, 2009
 
 
 

We came together. We promised ourselves that we would never forget. On September 12th, and for a short time after that, we really promised ourselves that we would focus on the things that were important -- our family, our friends, the eternal principles that allowed America to become the world's beacon of freedom.

-- Glenn Beck, in announcing "The 9/12 Project" on Fox News Channel, March 13, 2009.
Surely, you remember Sept. 12, 2001, and the days that immediately followed, those rough weeks immediately after the worst terror attack ever on U.S. soil. Don't you? It was a frightening time but also a rare moment of spiritual renewal and a sense of shared national purpose, when all Americans, liberal and conservative, without regard to race, creed or color, came together...to denounce the president of the United States as a socialist and a dictator and even question his citizenship and thus his very legitimacy to serve as commander-in-chief.

What? That's not how you remember those highly charged days right after the 9/11 attacks? Then clearly you are not caught up in the spirit of Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project, which the increasingly highly rated FNC host unveiled with great fanfare in the early days of Barack Obama's presidency, which is apparently when it dawned on Beck for the first time that America's sense of purpose had gone AWOL. Since then, Beck has talked frequently of the project -- which has spawned chapters around the country, driven by Beck's growing influence -- without ever really offering a coherent explantion of what exactly The 9/12 Project is, let alone what it's supposed to accomplish. The site's home page does offer a nod to the real "9/12" period back in 2001:
"The 9/12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the values and the principles of the greatest nation ever created."

Hey, so far, so good -- that does indeed sound like that brief and now-distant era when you saw those magnetically attached American flags on every car in every section of town and when both parties sincerely applauded George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress, the time that liberal icon Frank Rich of the New York Times recalled in this poignant column as an "outpouring of affection and unity that swelled against all odds in the wake of Al Qaeda’s act of mass murder."

So how does Beck's project carry on that spirit today, nearly eight years later?

Well, it starts by giving visitors a dose of news headlines -- headlines like this one: "President Obama Gets Booed at AMA Speech." Doesn't that remind you of President Bush's "bullhorn moment" right after 9/11, when the nation rallied behind the president at a tough time? Me neither. The other headlines are in the same vein: "Access to White House Vistor List DENIED. Why?" or a video, "Wondering If We Are a Christian Nation or a Muslim Nation: WATCH THIS."

Other sections of the 9/12 Project are devoted to the voices of the everyday citizens who come there and who, in the words of the project credo, "stand united as Americans," although mainly united in their opposition to Democrats. One user-generated area of the site is simply called "Stand Up and Lead," which visitors do by writing comments like "jburdett", who was reluctant to sign up for the site because "I was afraid they (sic) “government” would remove me from my job in some way, or some brown shirt ACORN folks would single me for a good pushing around." "spec4pat" writes in to say "I'm ashamed that the tyranny we fight is growing on native soil." "acharlie2005" chimes in that "What Osama can not do; Obama and his lap-dogs are doing!" -- if that doesn't capture the spirit of 9/12, I'm not sure what does! Poster "dsame" gets to the point succinctly: "Obama Is Satan I now believe it."

Can it get more insane than this?
Of course, the real passion is saved for a different part of the site called simply "Vent." This is where people make ugly jokes about Nancy Pelosi and where "JoJo54" writes: "It was just reported that ACORN goons were in the NY state capitol building knocking GOP senators and their aides to the floor. IS THIS THE SPARK THAT STARTS IT ALL??????????Are we stepping into a violent phase?" I don't know, but the tone there seems almost hopeful, doesn't it? The "Vent" section is different from "News From You," where readers post items like "Why Obama Wants To Hide Birth Certificate."

Yep, I guess it can!
There's also an entire section of the 9/12 Project web site called "2nd Amendment," since nothing captures the spirit of charity and solidarity of than weeks after the 9/11 attacks than the basic American right to carry around a fully loaded AK-47 around.

I don't know about the events of 9/11 being a huge plank in the platform for supporting military-style automatic weapons, but Bush and Cheney certainly gave me second thoughts about my usual stance about automatic killing machines.

I think you get the general idea -- there is nothing here that would remind you of the real September 2001, when Americans gave pints of blood and millions of dollars for victim relief. And here's the thing: I honestly have no problem with Glenn Beck using his TV- and radio-generated clout to set up a highly politicalized Web site, one where people can criticize the president and leaders of a certain political party. In fact, I'm not sure if I buy into the supposed premise of the site credo that 9/12 was so great because there was a lack of "political parties"; I happen to think political parties and debate are exactly part of what makes America great, even -- and maybe especially on 9/12, when the political parties forgot to debate -- or even read -- the USA Patriot Act.

What's is highly troublesome is this: The way that Beck once again so casually uses the tragedy of 9/11, and the slaughter of nearly 3,000 Americans, as a simple prop, as a tool to gain new followers who will watch Glenn Beck's show and buy Glenn Beck's books and accumulate more of this kind of warped politcal influence for Glenn Beck in 2009. Because Beck wants nothing to do with the actual reality of 9/11 or 9/12; in fact, he is the only major American media figure to admit that he hates the survivors of the 9/11 victims, stating from a radio studio right here in Philadelphia in September 2005 that "when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up!" I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining.

And we did our best for them." (I'm proud to say I was the blogger who first exposed this sick diatribe.)
Rather than atone for that outrageous comment, Beck now compounds it by creating an entire project that uses the memory of 9/11 -- and by extension the people who died that day -- as the foundation for a site largely given over to hatred and bogus claims about the current president of the very nation, our nation, that was attacked eight years ago. How pathetic. Beck promised a project that would be dedicated to America's "eternal principles" -- but the only eternal principle that Glenn Beck really holds is "Glenn Beck."

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Judge to review Cheney interview in CIA leak case


I doubt seriously that Jon Stewart or any other late-night comedian  really considers war crimes, nor treason, comical? It is only the lame, limited hangout + major cover-ups that are comical; because they are stupid!
 
It's time for total transparency, authenticity, borne of the courage to face reality in the U.S.A., not to mention other areas of the globe.

Time to get real, Peeps!

Let's look into those interviews by the 9/11 Commission. You remember those interviews. The interviews, taken without oaths,  by the president and V.P who refused to talk unless they were together. Is that too much to ask in a supposed Democracy?


WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Thursday that he wants to look at notes from the FBI's interview with former Vice President Dick Cheney during the investigation into who leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan's decision to review the documents followed arguments by Obama administration lawyers that sounded much like the reasons the Bush administration provided for keeping Cheney's interview from the public.

Justice Department lawyers told the judge that future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics who would ridicule them.

"If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren't going to cooperate," Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith said during a 90-minute hearing. "I don't want a future vice president to say, `I'm not going to cooperate with you because I don't want to be fodder for 'The Daily Show.'"

Sullivan said the Justice Department must give him more precise reasons for keeping the information confidential than they had in previous court filings.

Cheney agreed to talk to FBI agents in June 2004 as they were investigating the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters the year before. Her name was revealed after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The leak touched off a lengthy inquiry that led to Cheney's former top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, being convicted on charges of obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. During his trial, jurors found that Libby lied to the FBI and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, and he never served prison time.

Libby was the only person charged in the case. No one was charged with leaking Wilson's name.
In July 2008, the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department seeking records related to Cheney's interview in the investigation. The Justice Department declined to turn over the records, and CREW filed a lawsuit in August.

The Justice Department reported in court filings that it found three documents totaling 67 pages that related to the watchdog group's FOIA request, but said the documents were exempt since they were part of a law enforcement matter and their release could interfere with future cases. They also said the interview contained classified material and that presidential communications were shielded to allow candor with the president and his advisers.

CREW argued that the public has a right to know the role that Cheney played in the leak and why he was not prosecuted.

Libby told the FBI in 2003 that it was possible that Cheney ordered him to reveal Plame's identity to reporters. The prosecutor in that case, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said in his closing remarks at Libby's trial that there was a "cloud" over Cheney's role in the case.

Fitzgerald told members of Congress who also sought the information that Cheney set no conditions about the use of his interview with investigators.

A Cheney spokeswoman declined to comment on the case.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

ARE OBAMA'S FINANCIAL PROPOSALS A ROAD TO REAL REFORM?

June 18, 2009

By Danny Schechter
THE OBAMA FINANCIAL REFORMS: ROAD TO CHANGE OR PERDITION?
Stabilizing A Flawed System is Not The Same As Restructuring Or Remaking It
By Danny Schechter
Author of Plunder
A recent study cited by the Editor of the Financial Times argues that we are now in a Depression although no one wants to use the term or face the music.
Recall that it took the National Bureau of Economic Research a full year to recognize the reality of a recession that analysts at investment banks had been acknowledging for as long. Despite everything that has happened, and is continuing to occur on the economic front---a rise in unemployment claims, mounting foreclosures, and escalating bankruptcies—the sense of crisis is being downplayed to stoke confidence and encourage the belief in “green shoots” and an emerging recovery.
The Obama Express is in full motion with new announcements, proposals, and laws signed daily. Yet, something’s missing. Au Contraire, Mr. Maher, there is no lack of audacity, just a failure to recognize that cosmetic alterations do not fundamental change make. What we have is a political elite that is more Clintonesque than Rooseveltesque. (If only the Repugs were right with their fears of the Socialist menace!)
These proposals, described as “new rules for the road,”  were mostly embraced by the banks, a sign they are not tough enough. The Congress will probably approve them quickly because they were “hammered out” through a process of negotiations that seems to have heard more from the industry than public interest advocates.
The Washington Post tells us:
“Time and again, lawmakers, regulators and industry lobbyists pressed their concerns behind closed doors at the White House and the Treasury Department, according to participants.
“Turf-conscious regulators opposed the idea to consolidate banking oversight agencies and took their appeal over the Treasury directly to the White House. Ultimately the administration spared all but one agency.
“A few key lawmakers argued against merging the two federal agencies that oversee the stock and commodity markets. That did not happen.
“Insurance companies fought over whether a national regulator should oversee them. The White House dropped the proposal.”
Etc. Etc. Etc, ad nuseum.
So now we have 88 pages of financial reforms as if the authors of this compromised and consensualized agenda were being paid by the word. The President is telling us that “mistakes” were made as if massive crimes, theft, fraud and unregulated greed were not involved in causing the calamity at the heart if the crash of the economy.

Bloomberg surveyed the wreckage: “Financial firms worldwide have recorded more than $1.4 trillion in writedowns and credit losses since 2007 as the U.S. housing market collapsed and the economy sank into recession.”
Billions spent to unlock credit and get banks lending again have led nowhere. The financial news service quotes Tim Backshall, chief strategist at Credit Derivatives Research LLC in Walnut Creek, California.
“It is becoming clearer that banks are not as willing to lend,” he said in an e-mailed message. “With their risk rising once again, risk premiums on non-financials must rise commensurately.”
They don’t see a recovery around the corner either, “The broad sense is we have not seen the bottom there yet,” said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Virginia. “For later this year, and into next year, there are just big question marks out there.”
Question marks indeed.
What are the questions we should be asking? What happened to changes for ratings agencies that gave high marks for bogus mortgage securities? Why trust the Fed which, in the words of one critic “started the fire” through low interest rates to extinguish it
Simon Johnson, the ex-IMF Chief now at MIT asks some others:
•Has the President really been briefed on the supposed benefits of having large financial institutions with great economic power and pervasive political influence?  Don’t just claim that these are a good thing – tell us, in detail and preferably with numbers, what we the public gain from the presence of these behemoths among us.  Keep in mind that “everyone has them” is no kind of argument – something so manifestly dangerous is not to be blindly copied.
•Why was executive and other compensation so notably absent from the latest Geithner-Summers joint statement of our problems and likely solutions?  Does the President really expect us to believe that any set of reforms will work if they do not directly constrain the amounts that can be earned from misunderstanding risk today and hoping that the consequences do not appear on your watch?  Does he have any idea of how the people who run big financial firms will game whatever controls try to limit their risk-taking?
•. Can President Obama finally talk about the much broader break down of corporate governance in this country, with boards of directors serving no discernible purpose in terms of limiting the excesses of corporate executives in the financial sector but also more broadly?  Surely, without a reform package that includes measures to address this core issue, we will get exactly nowhere.”
Perhaps “exactly nowhere” is the real destination” in the sense that the real goal of the Geithner-Summers-Obama “reform” package seems to be to restore the old financial order, not restructure it,  or heavens forbid,  bring it under public control and accountability.  New Rules and regulations are great, but do they add up to real reform?

Have the banks really acknowledged their role in the demolition derby that wrecked the economy? Not really, even as Llloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs admits, "We know that we have an explicit contract with our shareholders to be responsible stewards of their capital . . . we regret that we participated in the market euphoria and failed to raise a responsible voice."
Is that all they are copping to? A few weeks back. Goldman paid $60 million to Massachusetts to settle a complaint that they funded mortgages “designed to fail.”  They admitted no wrong-doing, in a practice so common when Wall Street gets its fingers caught in the cookie jar of criminality.
Tell that to the millions losing their homes.
After helping to fund the subcrime market, Goldman was hailed as a visionary for turning against it. “it made $4bn profit from betting against the sub-prime mortgage market, and because - bar the fourth quarter of 2008 - it has continued to make a profit throughout.”
Clearly the profiteers are far more secure than their victims. Here are the thoughts of some knowledgeable people who want progressive change and who are in the know:

Former Investment Banker Nomi Prins: “The plan makes no mention of reconstructing the financial system.”
Marshall Auerback sees an opportunity for real reform squandered.
“As with so much of the Obama administration, great-sounding words, but nothing in the way of substantive change.  Particularly disturbing are the moves on derivatives, notably “credit default swaps”. Excuse us for not liking a market that is rigged in favor of the sellers, the monopoly dealers, who even today refuse to allow open price discovery in credit default swaps among and between other dealers.  True to their Wall Street ethos, Summers and Geithner have capitulated on the most important aspect of derivatives, by refusing to place these instruments on a regulated exchange, where transparency and standardization would be far more operative.
A New Way Forward: “It’s not enough to try to patch up the current system. We demand serious reform that fixes the root problems in our political and economic system: excessive influence of banks, dangerous compensation systems, and massive consolidation. And we demand that the reform happen in an open and transparent manner.”
“You go to war,” the not missed Mr. Rumsfeld once said “with the army you have.” Unfortunately in the case of Financial Reform, we are being led by Generals at the top but there are no troops or people’s army below to hold them accountable, much less push them to emulate a more aggressive approach a la FDR,
Organizing put this president in office. Only organizing can push him to do what must be done. Can we get the Congress to toughen up these uneven and timid proposals?
News Dissector Danny Schechter, blogger in chief at Medichannel.org, is making a film based on his book PLUNDER (Cosimo) news.dissector.com/plunder. Comments to Dissector@mediachannel.org
Author's Bio: News Dissector Danny Schechter is blogger in chief at Mediachannel.Org He is the author of PLUNDER: Investigating Our Economic Calamity (Cosimo Books) available at Amazon.com. See Newsdisssector.org/store.htm.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Will The Newest Iranian "Revolution Fail?"

More importantly, can we stay the hell out of it?
After 8 horrible years of GOP, Texas-style swaggering, the last thing Democrats in Iran need is for us to talk loudly and carry a small stick. Thanks to Bush and Cheney, that's all we have  left, a very small stick, so we should keep our big mouths shut. 

Until we can trust that we do, in fact, still have a Democracy, we have no business judging any other nation's attempts at achieving rule by the people.

 

History suggests the coup will fail -Patrick Cockburn (Read article)

"Mass rally and public martyrdom are part of the Iranian revolutionary tradition, just as the barricade is part of the tradition in France. A difference between 1978-9 and today is that the Iranian government has no intention of letting history repeat itself. Nor is it likely to do so. The Iranian revolution was carried out by a broad coalition from right to left which had religious conservatives at one end and Marxist revolutionaries at the other. The Shah and his regime had a unique ability to alienate simultaneously different parts of the Iranian population which had nothing in common. His cruel but poorly informed Savak security men convinced themselves that communists and revolutionary leftists were the danger to the throne and not the Shia clergy."


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

U.S.Connections To A.Q. Khan Nuclear Network

Anyone really surprised by this? 
If you are shocked and/or surprised, it's way past time to start paying attention
 By S Rajagopalan 
17 Jun 2009 02:41:00 AM IST

‘US officials linked to AQ Khan’s N-network’ 



WASHINGTON: Top US officials allowed Pakistan in the 1980s to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons and were aware that the A Q Khan nuclear network was violating American laws, a US based watchdog has told the US Congress, citing a former CIA whistleblower.
 

Danielle Brian, executive director of Project on Government Oversight, told a Senate panel that CIA officer Richard Barlow, who then worked for the Pentagon, was fired for suggesting that the Congress should be made aware of the situation relating to Pakistan’s nuclear programme.
 

Brian related the Barlow episode to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee as one of the instances where whistleblowers have come to grief.
 

“The brave, honest public servants deserve better than this second-class system.” Bringing up Barlow’s findings, Brian said that working as a CIA counter-proliferation intelligence officer in the 1980s, he learned that “top US officials were allowing Pakistan to manufacture and possess nuclear weapons, and that the A Q Khan nuclear network was violating US laws”.
 

Barlow also discovered that top officials were “hiding these activities from Congress, since telling the truth would have legally obligated the US government to cut off its overt military aid to Pakistan at a time when covert military aid was being funneled through Pakistan to Afghan jihadists in the war against the Soviets”.
 

Brian said that after engineering the arrests of Khan’s nuclear agents in the US, he left to work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
 

“Top officials at the DoD (Department of Defence) continued to lie about Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Barlow objected and suggested to his supervisors that Congress should be made aware of the situation. Because Barlow merely suggested that Congress should know the truth, Barlow was fired,” she said.
 
© Copyright 2008 ExpressBuzz

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

GOP: You Either Believe in Democracy for Both Iran and U.S. or You Don't Believe in Democracy

We, the American people, could learn a few things from the Iranians or did they learn something from us back in the 60s, when some of us gave a damn.


by Chad Rubel

"The people... believe in democracy... They believe in the rule of law, and they -- I think they believe that this election's been stolen."

"... should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election." "The... people have been deprived of their rights." "But item number one is giving the... people a free and fair election."

"We stand with the people... in their struggle to participate in a democratic election and who deserve the right to freely assemble and voice their opposition to its questionable outcome."


These three remarks speak to the belief that in democracy, fair elections should be run that reflect the will of the people.

So who are these lefty, pinko, crazed politicians? Why, they are House Minority Leader John Boehner, former presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.
But here's the catch: they don't believe in that for us in the United States, but for those in Iran.

Here are the full quotes:

"The people in Iran believe in democracy," Boehner told Wolf Blitzer. "They believe in the rule of law, and they -- I think they believe that this election's been stolen."

"He (Obama) should speak out that this is a corrupt, fraud, sham of an election," said McCain on

NBC's "Today" show. "The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights."
"I think it's possible to engage. But item number one is giving the Iranian people a free and fair election," he said.

"We stand with the people of Iran in their struggle to participate in a democratic election and who deserve the right to freely assemble and voice their opposition to its questionable outcome," said
Eric Cantor, House Minority Whip.

Where was this Republican outcry in 2000 or 2004? The Iranian government has called for a partial recount, just like the Bush team wanted in 2000.

And this doesn't even dive into irregularities over preventing and deterring people from getting to vote in all of the above cases.

Republicans are fond of being more concerned about those in other countries rather than focus on those at home. Democrats haven't been completely blameless, either, often going along with their misguided policies.

One of the frustrations -- for regular, non-Washington people who identify with the Republican and Democratic monikers -- is that their priorities are low on the list compared to those in other countries. The politicians in Washington of both stripes are more concerned about the democratic process in Iran than they are about the democratic process in the United States.

By far, though, Republicans make up the majority of those at fault with democracy in the U.S. This makes the statements at the top of the page even more hypocritical and pathetic than normal.

George W. Bush preached about spreading democracy to the Middle East. But what kind of democracy is that? The kind in the history books in the U.S.? The reality of the U.S. democracy in the early 21st century? The kind where people take to the streets to protest election irregularities?

If top Republicans are going to step up for democracy in Iran, and ignore the will of the people of Minnesota in 2008 and the people of the United States in 2000 and 2004, then they don't really believe in democracy. And they should stop pretending otherwise.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......