This month, nearly all U.S. troops in Iraq will come home — except, of course, for the 4,500 who died there.
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched the Iraq war in March 2003 based on lies and misinformation. Soon it turned into a brutal occupation. Besides the 4,500 troops killed, more than 30,000 Americans were wounded, and at least 100,000 Iraqis were killed, most of them civilians.
The war cost us more than $1 trillion, while the cost to our international relations and our own democracy is immeasurable. Think of the words that Bush and Cheney have added to our lexicon: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, Blackwater, WMD, Halliburton, waterboarding and more.
Bush and Cheney now boast about their misdeeds in this misbegotten war.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Russia votes for change from Putin!!!
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s party may win a reduced majority in Russia’s parliament, partial election results show, forcing it to work with other political groups.
United Russia’s backing fell to 50 percent from 64 percent in 2007, the Moscow-based Central Election Commission said on its website, with votes from 72 percent of precincts counted. The party’s results at yesterday’s election had been estimated at 45.5 percent and 48.5 percent by two exit polls.
“Given the new composition of the Duma, on individual issues and on certain questions, we will have to enter into coalition bloc agreements,” President Dmitry Medvedev told supporters at the party’s campaign headquarters late yesterday. “This is normal, this is parliamentarianism. This is democracy.”
The loss of United Russia’s two-thirds majority, which allowed it to change the Constitution singlehandedly, is the first time the party’s support fell from one nationwide election to the next since it was set up 10 years ago. Putin, 59, next year may be forced to make unpopular cuts in social spending and raise the pension age to balance the budget.
The premier, who plans to return as president next year to give him potentially almost a quarter-century in power if he runs again in 2018, lost support as stalling wage growth and the government’s shortcomings in curbing corruption repelled voters.
United Russia’s backing fell to 50 percent from 64 percent in 2007, the Moscow-based Central Election Commission said on its website, with votes from 72 percent of precincts counted. The party’s results at yesterday’s election had been estimated at 45.5 percent and 48.5 percent by two exit polls.
“Given the new composition of the Duma, on individual issues and on certain questions, we will have to enter into coalition bloc agreements,” President Dmitry Medvedev told supporters at the party’s campaign headquarters late yesterday. “This is normal, this is parliamentarianism. This is democracy.”
The loss of United Russia’s two-thirds majority, which allowed it to change the Constitution singlehandedly, is the first time the party’s support fell from one nationwide election to the next since it was set up 10 years ago. Putin, 59, next year may be forced to make unpopular cuts in social spending and raise the pension age to balance the budget.
The premier, who plans to return as president next year to give him potentially almost a quarter-century in power if he runs again in 2018, lost support as stalling wage growth and the government’s shortcomings in curbing corruption repelled voters.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Citizens United v. FEC = is not the American Way!!! Demand Social Justice Now...
The movement to amend the U.S. Constitution to get corporate money out of elections is picking up some serious steam.
On November 9, thousands of Americans attended one of more than 200 house parties nationwide -- organized by PFAW, Public Citizen, Move To Amend and other allies, and joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders -- to mobilize and plan for a day of action on the upcoming January 21st second anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court decision that unleashed unlimited corporate spending in our elections.
It's high time YOU got on board!
SEVEN bills proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision have been introduced in the current Congress -- FOUR just this month, including one introduced last Friday by Rep. Ted Deutch to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
Here's just a glimpse of the growing national movement!
• In Colorado, the Jamestown Board of Trustees unanimously passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment establishing that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights and that the First Amendment does not protect unlimited political spending as free speech. And voters in Boulder City passed a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would state that corporations are not people and reject the legal status of money as free speech.
• In California, the city councils of Fort Bragg and Richmond passed resolutions this year supporting an amendment to ban “corporate personhood.”
• Missoula, Montana voters approved a local ballot referendum urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that clearly states that corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as citizens by a three to one margin.
• Residents of Monroe, Maine passed a Local Self-Governance Ordinance stating that "no corporation doing business within the Town of Monroe shall be recognized as a ‘natural person’ under the United States or Maine Constitutions or laws of the United States or Maine."
And many more resolutions have been introduced in state and local legislative bodies across the country.
Generations of Americans have come together to force much-needed change by amending the U.S. Constitution to expand democracy and protect fundamental rights. With the voice of the voter being increasingly drowned out by unlimited corporate spending in elections, the need has arisen again. Now, it's our generation's turn.
Please speak out now.
Thank you for standing up against corporate power run amok and for Government By the People -- the American Way.
On November 9, thousands of Americans attended one of more than 200 house parties nationwide -- organized by PFAW, Public Citizen, Move To Amend and other allies, and joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders -- to mobilize and plan for a day of action on the upcoming January 21st second anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court decision that unleashed unlimited corporate spending in our elections.
It's high time YOU got on board!
SEVEN bills proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision have been introduced in the current Congress -- FOUR just this month, including one introduced last Friday by Rep. Ted Deutch to expressly exclude for-profit corporations from the rights given to natural persons by the Constitution, prohibit corporate spending in all elections, and affirm the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations and to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures.
Here's just a glimpse of the growing national movement!
• In Colorado, the Jamestown Board of Trustees unanimously passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment establishing that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights and that the First Amendment does not protect unlimited political spending as free speech. And voters in Boulder City passed a ballot measure calling for an amendment to the US Constitution that would state that corporations are not people and reject the legal status of money as free speech.
• In California, the city councils of Fort Bragg and Richmond passed resolutions this year supporting an amendment to ban “corporate personhood.”
• Missoula, Montana voters approved a local ballot referendum urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that clearly states that corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as citizens by a three to one margin.
• Residents of Monroe, Maine passed a Local Self-Governance Ordinance stating that "no corporation doing business within the Town of Monroe shall be recognized as a ‘natural person’ under the United States or Maine Constitutions or laws of the United States or Maine."
And many more resolutions have been introduced in state and local legislative bodies across the country.
Generations of Americans have come together to force much-needed change by amending the U.S. Constitution to expand democracy and protect fundamental rights. With the voice of the voter being increasingly drowned out by unlimited corporate spending in elections, the need has arisen again. Now, it's our generation's turn.
Please speak out now.
Thank you for standing up against corporate power run amok and for Government By the People -- the American Way.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Third Jihad
No religious or political group should be able to open their doors, receive monies or operate without criminal law exposure in the USA unless they swear, and affirm to uphold the USA Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
Next, no religious institution in the USA should be allowed to teach it is supreme over any other form of faith.
The Third Jihad, the newest offering from the producers of the captivating documentary film, Obsession, explores the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this “homegrown jihad” poses to national security, western liberties and the “American way of life.”
The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.”
In 72 minutes, the film reveals that radical Islamists driven by a religiously motivated rejection of western values cultures and religion are engaging in a multifaceted strategy to overcome the western world. In contrast to the use of “violent jihad” and terror to instill fear in “non-believers,” The Third Jihad introduces the concept of “cultural jihad” as a means to infiltrate and undermine our society from within.
Jihad Manifesto
In the film, The Third Jihad, prominent attention is given to a document used in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).
The document, titled "An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group," was originally obtained from the website of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, which made it publicly available, along with many other documents from the trial. The trial, which was one of the largest terror funding cases in U.S. history, recently ended in a conviction, with guilty verdicts on 108 charges.
The memorandum, which is understood to be a strategic document produced by the Muslim Brotherhood, has been widely analyzed, including, notably, in an assessment by Pentagon Joint Staff analyst, Stephen Coughlin. NEFA quotes Army Lt. Col. Joseph Myers, who writes about Coughlin's review:
This assessment makes the point that the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a threat organization and the affiliated U.S. domestic Muslim NGOs and associations identified in the strategy document should likewise be considered part of the Muslim Brotherhood network, that these are 'front functional organizations operating as links and nodes of the overall network."
Coughlin writes that "It should be noted that the memorandum met evidentiary standards to be admissible as evidence in a Federal Court of law."
Stephen Coughlin's Department of Defense memo can be read here:
http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/CoughlinMemo.pdf
Some links for other articles mentioning the document:
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/230/finally-the-smoking-gun.com
http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/CT6%20zeyno.pdf
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/homeland_security_implications_1.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091707dnmetbrotherhood.35ce2b6.html http://cbs11tv.com/local/holy.land.foundation.2.506008.html
Next, no religious institution in the USA should be allowed to teach it is supreme over any other form of faith.
The Third Jihad, the newest offering from the producers of the captivating documentary film, Obsession, explores the existence of radical Islam in America and the emerging risk that this “homegrown jihad” poses to national security, western liberties and the “American way of life.”
The film, which is narrated by devout Muslim American Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, opens with the following statement: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are radical. This film is about them.”
In 72 minutes, the film reveals that radical Islamists driven by a religiously motivated rejection of western values cultures and religion are engaging in a multifaceted strategy to overcome the western world. In contrast to the use of “violent jihad” and terror to instill fear in “non-believers,” The Third Jihad introduces the concept of “cultural jihad” as a means to infiltrate and undermine our society from within.
Jihad Manifesto
In the film, The Third Jihad, prominent attention is given to a document used in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF).
The document, titled "An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group," was originally obtained from the website of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, which made it publicly available, along with many other documents from the trial. The trial, which was one of the largest terror funding cases in U.S. history, recently ended in a conviction, with guilty verdicts on 108 charges.
The memorandum, which is understood to be a strategic document produced by the Muslim Brotherhood, has been widely analyzed, including, notably, in an assessment by Pentagon Joint Staff analyst, Stephen Coughlin. NEFA quotes Army Lt. Col. Joseph Myers, who writes about Coughlin's review:
This assessment makes the point that the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a threat organization and the affiliated U.S. domestic Muslim NGOs and associations identified in the strategy document should likewise be considered part of the Muslim Brotherhood network, that these are 'front functional organizations operating as links and nodes of the overall network."
Coughlin writes that "It should be noted that the memorandum met evidentiary standards to be admissible as evidence in a Federal Court of law."
Stephen Coughlin's Department of Defense memo can be read here:
http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/HLF/CoughlinMemo.pdf
Some links for other articles mentioning the document:
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/230/finally-the-smoking-gun.com
http://www.hudson.org/files/documents/CT6%20zeyno.pdf
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/homeland_security_implications_1.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/091707dnmetbrotherhood.35ce2b6.html http://cbs11tv.com/local/holy.land.foundation.2.506008.html
Friday, September 9, 2011
Bachmann & Perry Dominionists?
First the American Constitution is clear…..church and state are separate.
Second 24% of Americans are not Christian, 25% are Catholic and 51% Protestant (10 denominations).
So to think that a Christian movement will dominate the USA = unlikely. And given there are 4 billion non-Christians worldwide the Global domination is unlikely.
But somehow in the midst of an economic crisis, horrible job market, no social safety net; the Republican front-runners are both making religion central to their platform.
I would really like to leave religion to families, government to government, and business to business, military to military, and weather to weatherpersons.
Nonetheless let’s explore what some of this might mean:
Bachmann is close to Truth in Action Ministries; last year, she appeared in one of its documentaries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. In it, she espoused the idea, common in Reconstructionist circles, that the government has no right to collect taxes in excess of 10 percent, the amount that believers are called to tithe to the church. On her state-senate-campaign website, she recommended a book co-authored by Grant titled Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which, as Lizza reported, depicted the civil war as a battle between the devout Christian South and the Godless North, and lauded slavery as a benevolent institution. “The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith,” the book said.
One could go on and on listing the Dominionist influences on Bachmann’s thinking. She often cites Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the anti-abortion movement, who held seminars on Rushdoony’s work and helped disseminate his ideas to a larger evangelical audience. John Eidsmoe, an Oral Roberts University professor who, she’s said, “had a great influence on me,” is a Christian Reconstructionist. She often praises the Christian nationalist historian David Barton, who is intimately associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement; an article about slavery on the website of his organization, Wallbuilders, defends the institution’s biblical basis, with extensive citations of Rushdoony. (“God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved,” it says.)
In elaborating Bachmann’s Dominionist history, though, it’s important to point out that she is not unique. Perry tends to be regarded as marginally more reasonable than Bachmann, but he is as closely associated with Dominionism as she is, though his links are to a different strain of the ideology.
The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies. Certainly, there are overlaps between the traditions—Oral Roberts, where Bachmann studied with Eidsmoe, was a Pentecostal school. But it’s only recently that one group of Pentecostals, the New Apostolic Reformation, has created its own distinct Dominionist movement. And members see Perry as their ticket to power.
“The New Apostles talk about taking dominion over American society in pastoral terms,” wrote Wilder in the Texas Observer. “They refer to the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society: family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business. These are the nerve centers of society that God (or his people) must control.” He quotes a sermon from Tom Schlueter, New Apostolic pastor close to Perry. “We’re going to infiltrate [the government], not run from it. I know why God’s doing what he’s doing ... He’s just simply saying, ‘Tom I’ve given you authority in a governmental authority, and I need you to infiltrate the governmental mountain.”
According to Wilder, members of the New Apostolic Reformation see Perry as their vehicle to claim the “mountain” of government. Some have told Perry that Texas is a “prophet state,” destined, with his leadership, to bring America back to God. The movement was deeply involved in The Response, the massive prayer rally that Perry hosted in Houston earlier this month. “Eight members of The Response ‘leadership team’ are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement,” wrote Wilder. “The long list of The Response’s official endorses—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.”
We have not seen this sort of thing at the highest levels of the Republican Party before. Those of us who wrote about the Christian fundamentalist influence on the Bush administration were alarmed that one of his advisers, Marvin Olasky, was associated with Christian Reconstructionism. It seemed unthinkable, at the time, that an American president was taking advice from even a single person whose ideas were so inimical to democracy. Few of us imagined that someone who actually championed such ideas would have a shot at the White House. It turns out we weren’t paranoid enough. If Bush eroded the separation of church and state, the GOP is now poised to nominate someone who will mount an all-out assault on it.
We need to take their beliefs seriously, because they certainly do.
Second 24% of Americans are not Christian, 25% are Catholic and 51% Protestant (10 denominations).
So to think that a Christian movement will dominate the USA = unlikely. And given there are 4 billion non-Christians worldwide the Global domination is unlikely.
But somehow in the midst of an economic crisis, horrible job market, no social safety net; the Republican front-runners are both making religion central to their platform.
I would really like to leave religion to families, government to government, and business to business, military to military, and weather to weatherpersons.
Nonetheless let’s explore what some of this might mean:
Bachmann is close to Truth in Action Ministries; last year, she appeared in one of its documentaries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. In it, she espoused the idea, common in Reconstructionist circles, that the government has no right to collect taxes in excess of 10 percent, the amount that believers are called to tithe to the church. On her state-senate-campaign website, she recommended a book co-authored by Grant titled Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which, as Lizza reported, depicted the civil war as a battle between the devout Christian South and the Godless North, and lauded slavery as a benevolent institution. “The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith,” the book said.
One could go on and on listing the Dominionist influences on Bachmann’s thinking. She often cites Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the anti-abortion movement, who held seminars on Rushdoony’s work and helped disseminate his ideas to a larger evangelical audience. John Eidsmoe, an Oral Roberts University professor who, she’s said, “had a great influence on me,” is a Christian Reconstructionist. She often praises the Christian nationalist historian David Barton, who is intimately associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement; an article about slavery on the website of his organization, Wallbuilders, defends the institution’s biblical basis, with extensive citations of Rushdoony. (“God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved,” it says.)
In elaborating Bachmann’s Dominionist history, though, it’s important to point out that she is not unique. Perry tends to be regarded as marginally more reasonable than Bachmann, but he is as closely associated with Dominionism as she is, though his links are to a different strain of the ideology.
The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies. Certainly, there are overlaps between the traditions—Oral Roberts, where Bachmann studied with Eidsmoe, was a Pentecostal school. But it’s only recently that one group of Pentecostals, the New Apostolic Reformation, has created its own distinct Dominionist movement. And members see Perry as their ticket to power.
“The New Apostles talk about taking dominion over American society in pastoral terms,” wrote Wilder in the Texas Observer. “They refer to the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society: family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business. These are the nerve centers of society that God (or his people) must control.” He quotes a sermon from Tom Schlueter, New Apostolic pastor close to Perry. “We’re going to infiltrate [the government], not run from it. I know why God’s doing what he’s doing ... He’s just simply saying, ‘Tom I’ve given you authority in a governmental authority, and I need you to infiltrate the governmental mountain.”
According to Wilder, members of the New Apostolic Reformation see Perry as their vehicle to claim the “mountain” of government. Some have told Perry that Texas is a “prophet state,” destined, with his leadership, to bring America back to God. The movement was deeply involved in The Response, the massive prayer rally that Perry hosted in Houston earlier this month. “Eight members of The Response ‘leadership team’ are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement,” wrote Wilder. “The long list of The Response’s official endorses—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.”
We have not seen this sort of thing at the highest levels of the Republican Party before. Those of us who wrote about the Christian fundamentalist influence on the Bush administration were alarmed that one of his advisers, Marvin Olasky, was associated with Christian Reconstructionism. It seemed unthinkable, at the time, that an American president was taking advice from even a single person whose ideas were so inimical to democracy. Few of us imagined that someone who actually championed such ideas would have a shot at the White House. It turns out we weren’t paranoid enough. If Bush eroded the separation of church and state, the GOP is now poised to nominate someone who will mount an all-out assault on it.
We need to take their beliefs seriously, because they certainly do.
Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him???
President George Washington
In this enlightened age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States
President John Adams
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
Alexander Hamilton
When Alexander Hamilton was asked why the U.S. Constitution made no mention of God, he said the country did not require 'foreign aid'
Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution fashioned in 1787 is a secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or a supreme being anywhere in the document.
President James Madison
Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States
President Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
President Theodore Roosevelt
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
President John F. Kennedy
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute –
Martin Luther King Jr.
(The 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting state-supported prayer in public schools was) "sound and good, reaffirming something basic in the Nation’s life: separation of church and state."
Senator Barry Goldwater
"Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
"By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our two hundred plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. . . ."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I do not make decisions [as governor] based on what have I learned through my Bible studies, what have I learned in my religious classes in school. I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, and I think that's what . . . the law is."
Europe's bloody theocratic wars
This brings us, finally, to the serious discussions that dominionists and their enablers, like Miller, are trying to prevent. The first of those is about the very nature of American democracy. For nearly 200 years, Europe was torn apart by a series of religious wars and their bloody aftermath - the major reason that the United States was founded as a secular republic. We're potentially on the verge of forgetting all that history and suffering through it again, just as we're now suffering through forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression. Those centuries of war began with the German Peasants' War of 1524-26, in which more than 100,000 died; continued through the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War on the European continent; and lasted until the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). This was the bloody European history of religious intolerance and strife that many, if not most, American colonialists were fleeing from when they came to the New World.
It was also this bloody history that gave rise to the development of classical liberalism, affirming the individual right to religious liberty and replacing the top-down theocratic justification of the state with Locke's concept of the bottom-up social contract, based on the consent of the governed. The ideas that Locke perfected took generations to develop. Religious tolerance, for example, began as simply a matter of pragmatism: unless people stopped killing each other for differing religious beliefs, war in Europe would never end.
But gradually, the idea took hold that tolerance was a positive good, and key to this new perspective was the recognition that torturing someone to change their beliefs could not produce the desired result of a genuine heartfelt conversion. Thus, the moral rejection of torture - another feature of classical liberalism - had its roots in the evolution of the idea of religious liberty. The idea of utterly forgetting the prolonged bloody history that the United States was born out of is no laughing matter.
The same could be said of the myth that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, with laws based on the Bible. Of course most Americans were Christians at the time, but the leading intellects were decidedly less so, much more influenced by Enlightenment thought. There were many, such as Jefferson, who were better described as Deists, who believed that God had created a rational universe, but did not intervene supernaturally thereafter. They deliberately used terms like "the Creator" and "Nature's God" to affirm their distinctive, non-Christian view.
Moreover, God was not mentioned at all in the Constitution, and religion was only mentioned to exclude its influence, stating that no religious test should be required for office. Finally, US law was based on British common law, not the Bible. The Supreme Court itself is a common law court, following common law precedents and practices. And British common law traces back to Roman law, which first came to England centuries before Rome adopted the Christian religion.
Of course the intolerant religious right wants us to forget this. How else could they ever gain power, except through massive forgetting of who and what the United States really is? Not to mention who and what they are: the most fundamental enemies of the United States, who would, if they could, return us to the centuries of blood before the US was born, the nightmare out of which the United States awakened.
The Golden Rule:
"Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the interests of each, subversive of human rights and potentially persecuting in character; to oppose union, lawfully and honorably, is not only the citizen’s duty but the essence of the Golden Rule – to treat others as one wishes to be treated." From "Statement of Principles," Liberty magazine, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
In this enlightened age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States
President John Adams
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
Alexander Hamilton
When Alexander Hamilton was asked why the U.S. Constitution made no mention of God, he said the country did not require 'foreign aid'
Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution fashioned in 1787 is a secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or a supreme being anywhere in the document.
President James Madison
Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States
President Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
President Theodore Roosevelt
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
President John F. Kennedy
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute –
Martin Luther King Jr.
(The 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting state-supported prayer in public schools was) "sound and good, reaffirming something basic in the Nation’s life: separation of church and state."
Senator Barry Goldwater
"Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
"By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our two hundred plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. . . ."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I do not make decisions [as governor] based on what have I learned through my Bible studies, what have I learned in my religious classes in school. I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, and I think that's what . . . the law is."
Europe's bloody theocratic wars
This brings us, finally, to the serious discussions that dominionists and their enablers, like Miller, are trying to prevent. The first of those is about the very nature of American democracy. For nearly 200 years, Europe was torn apart by a series of religious wars and their bloody aftermath - the major reason that the United States was founded as a secular republic. We're potentially on the verge of forgetting all that history and suffering through it again, just as we're now suffering through forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression. Those centuries of war began with the German Peasants' War of 1524-26, in which more than 100,000 died; continued through the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War on the European continent; and lasted until the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). This was the bloody European history of religious intolerance and strife that many, if not most, American colonialists were fleeing from when they came to the New World.
It was also this bloody history that gave rise to the development of classical liberalism, affirming the individual right to religious liberty and replacing the top-down theocratic justification of the state with Locke's concept of the bottom-up social contract, based on the consent of the governed. The ideas that Locke perfected took generations to develop. Religious tolerance, for example, began as simply a matter of pragmatism: unless people stopped killing each other for differing religious beliefs, war in Europe would never end.
But gradually, the idea took hold that tolerance was a positive good, and key to this new perspective was the recognition that torturing someone to change their beliefs could not produce the desired result of a genuine heartfelt conversion. Thus, the moral rejection of torture - another feature of classical liberalism - had its roots in the evolution of the idea of religious liberty. The idea of utterly forgetting the prolonged bloody history that the United States was born out of is no laughing matter.
The same could be said of the myth that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, with laws based on the Bible. Of course most Americans were Christians at the time, but the leading intellects were decidedly less so, much more influenced by Enlightenment thought. There were many, such as Jefferson, who were better described as Deists, who believed that God had created a rational universe, but did not intervene supernaturally thereafter. They deliberately used terms like "the Creator" and "Nature's God" to affirm their distinctive, non-Christian view.
Moreover, God was not mentioned at all in the Constitution, and religion was only mentioned to exclude its influence, stating that no religious test should be required for office. Finally, US law was based on British common law, not the Bible. The Supreme Court itself is a common law court, following common law precedents and practices. And British common law traces back to Roman law, which first came to England centuries before Rome adopted the Christian religion.
Of course the intolerant religious right wants us to forget this. How else could they ever gain power, except through massive forgetting of who and what the United States really is? Not to mention who and what they are: the most fundamental enemies of the United States, who would, if they could, return us to the centuries of blood before the US was born, the nightmare out of which the United States awakened.
The Golden Rule:
"Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the interests of each, subversive of human rights and potentially persecuting in character; to oppose union, lawfully and honorably, is not only the citizen’s duty but the essence of the Golden Rule – to treat others as one wishes to be treated." From "Statement of Principles," Liberty magazine, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
'Tortured' US Veterans to sue Rumsfeld
Oh Donnie, how about that 8th Ammendment to the US Constitution: The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former US secretary of defence, must face a lawsuit filed against him by two American men claiming they were wrongfully held and tortured by US forces in Iraq.
The US Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling last year allowing the men, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, to pursue claims that Rumsfeld and unnamed others should be found personally liable for their treatment - despite efforts by the former Bush and current Obama administration to get the case dismissed.
The two men worked for a private security company in Iraq in 2006 and said they became concerned the firm was engaging in illegal bribery or other corruption activities. They notified US authorities and began co-operating with them.
The appeals court ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that the decisions were made at the highest levels of government.
"We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention," the court ruled in a split decision.
A district judge in Washington last week allowed a similar case to proceed involving an American translator who worked in Iraq with the US military and who said he was later detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and abuse.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former US secretary of defence, must face a lawsuit filed against him by two American men claiming they were wrongfully held and tortured by US forces in Iraq.
The US Court of Appeals in Chicago on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling last year allowing the men, Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel, to pursue claims that Rumsfeld and unnamed others should be found personally liable for their treatment - despite efforts by the former Bush and current Obama administration to get the case dismissed.
The two men worked for a private security company in Iraq in 2006 and said they became concerned the firm was engaging in illegal bribery or other corruption activities. They notified US authorities and began co-operating with them.
The appeals court ruled that while it may have been unusual for Rumsfeld to be personally responsible for the treatment of detainees, the two men had sufficiently argued that the decisions were made at the highest levels of government.
"We agree with the district court that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show that Secretary Rumsfeld personally established the relevant policies that caused the alleged violations of their constitutional rights during detention," the court ruled in a split decision.
A district judge in Washington last week allowed a similar case to proceed involving an American translator who worked in Iraq with the US military and who said he was later detained and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques and abuse.
Friday, August 5, 2011
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld WAS honored with the “Defender of the Constitution Award”….(whose constitution?)
A federal judge in the US has ruled that Donald Rumsfeld, the former defence secretary, can be sued by a former military contractor who was allegedly tortured and "unjustly" imprisoned in Iraq.
Lawyers for the man, who is in his 50s, said on Thursday that their client was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the US military and kept in detention for nine months.
Court papers filed on his behalf said he was repeatedly abused, and then suddenly released without explanation in August 2006, The Associated Press news agency reported.
Two years later, he filed suit in a US district court in Washington arguing that Rumsfeld personally approved torturous interrogation techniques on a case-by-case basis and controlled his detention without access to courts, in violation of his constitutional rights.
The lawsuit said the then civilian contractor was held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive.
Court papers filed on his behalf said he was repeatedly abused while being held at Camp Cropper, a US military facility near the Baghdad airport dedicated to holding "high-value" detainees.
Chicago attorney Mike Kanovitz, who is representing the plaintiff, said it appeared that the military wanted to keep his client behind bars so he would not tell anyone about an important contact he made with a leading religious official while helping collect intelligence in Iraq.
"The US government was not ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice,'' Kanovitz said in a telephone interview with the AP.
The government has said he was suspected of helping pass classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces get into Iraq.
But he was never charged with a crime, and he said he never broke the law and was risking his life to help his country.
Rumsfeld being shielded
The Obama administration has represented Rumsfeld through the justice department and argued that the former defence secretary cannot be sued personally for official conduct, AP reported.
The justice department also argued that a judge cannot review wartime decisions that are the constitutional responsibility of congress and the president.
And the department said the case could disclose sensitive information and distract from the war effort, and that the threat of liability would impede future military decisions.
But US District Judge James Gwin rejected those arguments and said US citizens are protected by the Constitution at home or abroad during wartime.
"The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously-declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad,'' Gwin wrote in a ruling issued on Tuesday.
Rumsfeld is appealing that ruling, which Gwin cited.
In many other cases brought by foreign detainees, judges have dismissed torture claims made against US officials for their personal involvement in decisions over prisoner treatment.
But this is the second time a federal judge has allowed US citizens to sue Rumsfeld personally.
Wayne R Andersen, US District Judge, said in the central US state of Illinois last year that two other Americans who worked in Iraq as contractors and were held at Camp Cropper, can pursue claims that they were tortured using Rumsfeld-approved methods.
Lawyers for the man, who is in his 50s, said on Thursday that their client was preparing to come home to the United States on annual leave when he was abducted by the US military and kept in detention for nine months.
Court papers filed on his behalf said he was repeatedly abused, and then suddenly released without explanation in August 2006, The Associated Press news agency reported.
Two years later, he filed suit in a US district court in Washington arguing that Rumsfeld personally approved torturous interrogation techniques on a case-by-case basis and controlled his detention without access to courts, in violation of his constitutional rights.
The lawsuit said the then civilian contractor was held without justification while his family knew nothing about his whereabouts or even whether he was still alive.
Court papers filed on his behalf said he was repeatedly abused while being held at Camp Cropper, a US military facility near the Baghdad airport dedicated to holding "high-value" detainees.
Chicago attorney Mike Kanovitz, who is representing the plaintiff, said it appeared that the military wanted to keep his client behind bars so he would not tell anyone about an important contact he made with a leading religious official while helping collect intelligence in Iraq.
"The US government was not ready for the rest of the world to know about it, so they basically put him on ice,'' Kanovitz said in a telephone interview with the AP.
The government has said he was suspected of helping pass classified information to the enemy and helping anti-coalition forces get into Iraq.
But he was never charged with a crime, and he said he never broke the law and was risking his life to help his country.
Rumsfeld being shielded
The Obama administration has represented Rumsfeld through the justice department and argued that the former defence secretary cannot be sued personally for official conduct, AP reported.
The justice department also argued that a judge cannot review wartime decisions that are the constitutional responsibility of congress and the president.
And the department said the case could disclose sensitive information and distract from the war effort, and that the threat of liability would impede future military decisions.
But US District Judge James Gwin rejected those arguments and said US citizens are protected by the Constitution at home or abroad during wartime.
"The court finds no convincing reason that United States citizens in Iraq should or must lose previously-declared substantive due process protections during prolonged detention in a conflict zone abroad,'' Gwin wrote in a ruling issued on Tuesday.
Rumsfeld is appealing that ruling, which Gwin cited.
In many other cases brought by foreign detainees, judges have dismissed torture claims made against US officials for their personal involvement in decisions over prisoner treatment.
But this is the second time a federal judge has allowed US citizens to sue Rumsfeld personally.
Wayne R Andersen, US District Judge, said in the central US state of Illinois last year that two other Americans who worked in Iraq as contractors and were held at Camp Cropper, can pursue claims that they were tortured using Rumsfeld-approved methods.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Never o Borrower be....
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Thursday that the Constitution may trump the debt ceiling, allowing the administration a way out of the default impasse.
Negotiators are considering gutting the social safety net in exchange for a vote to lift the debt ceiling. Grassley, in a conference call with local reporters, said that there may be another way out.
"The 14th Amendment includes a public debt clause that insists the obligations of the government 'shall not be questioned.'"
"So people are looking at the fact that maybe the debt ceiling bill that Congress presumably has to pass for the government to borrow more maybe is contrary to that constitutional provision, and that the administration may take out [loans] on their own -- just to borrow money," he said.
Grassley said that he was personally supportive of the debt ceiling, because it focuses attention on spending, but that if its existence was unconstitutional, there was nothing he or his colleagues could do. "I think it's a discipline that Congress uses effectively from time to time, maybe not to cut down on the amount of spending but to have a refresher course," he said. "It's a good discipline, so it bothers me if the Constitution provision would trump it, but that would be up to the courts to say. But who's going to argue against the Constitution? It's the basis of our government; it's the law of our land, and everybody has to abide by it."
"The Constitution trumps the law, obviously," he said.
Seems logical that the supreme world power would also know how to manage its budget and not send the world into an economic tailspin by defaulting – but then again it is the US Congress that is involved….
Negotiators are considering gutting the social safety net in exchange for a vote to lift the debt ceiling. Grassley, in a conference call with local reporters, said that there may be another way out.
"The 14th Amendment includes a public debt clause that insists the obligations of the government 'shall not be questioned.'"
"So people are looking at the fact that maybe the debt ceiling bill that Congress presumably has to pass for the government to borrow more maybe is contrary to that constitutional provision, and that the administration may take out [loans] on their own -- just to borrow money," he said.
Grassley said that he was personally supportive of the debt ceiling, because it focuses attention on spending, but that if its existence was unconstitutional, there was nothing he or his colleagues could do. "I think it's a discipline that Congress uses effectively from time to time, maybe not to cut down on the amount of spending but to have a refresher course," he said. "It's a good discipline, so it bothers me if the Constitution provision would trump it, but that would be up to the courts to say. But who's going to argue against the Constitution? It's the basis of our government; it's the law of our land, and everybody has to abide by it."
"The Constitution trumps the law, obviously," he said.
Seems logical that the supreme world power would also know how to manage its budget and not send the world into an economic tailspin by defaulting – but then again it is the US Congress that is involved….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)