News of the Month

July 10, 2004

Let’s see … what to do first? I know! Our glorious emperor has decreed that he is above the Constitution, when it comes to deciding how to wage war. First, here’s the report, from Reuters on June 8:

“President Bush, as commander-in-chief, is not restricted by U.S. and international laws barring torture, Bush administration lawyers stated in a March 2003 memorandum.

“The 56-page memo to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the president’s ‘complete authority over the conduct of war,’ overriding international treaties such as a global treaty banning torture, the Geneva Conventions and a U.S. federal law against torture.

“ ‘In order to respect the president’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign ... (the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority,’ stated the memo, obtained by Reuters on Tuesday.

…

“The memo labeled as unconstitutional any laws ‘that seek to prevent the president from gaining the intelligence he believes necessary to prevent attacks upon the United States.’ ”

What does the Constitution say about that? Article VI, “The United States,” says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. …”

So specifically, according to the Constitution, the Geneva accords on the treatment of persons held prisoner as a result of war are “the supreme law of the land,” with as much authority over the government – and everyone in it, including the “president” – as the Constitution itself. For Bush to claim that his ability to conduct war renders any restriction on his freedom to torture prisoners unconstitutional, is itself unconstitutional – that is, illegal. It’s also dangerous, because it says that our flight-suit-in-chief has let himself be convinced by his puppeteers that he is above the Constitution (picture).

This is not a man we want running this country. He needs to be impeached, and then removed from office, before the fall conventions, to give the Republicans a chance to nominate candidates who are at least interested in living up to their oaths of office.

Here’s another reason we don’t want W in charge of this country any more: You may remember, back in April of last year, I reported some clinicians’ expert opinions that George W. Bush was certifiably insane. Well, that opinion is now shared by a sizeable number of staff members within the White House, as well. Listen to this report from Washington newsletter “Capitol Hill Blue” from June 4:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artmen/publich/article_4636.shtml

So is impeachment possible? In a newsletter from his web site, VoteToImpeach.com, former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark lays these charges at the feet of the Bush cabal:

“(1) The Bush Cabal Has Subverted the Constitution and Caused the Powerful U.S. Military to Commit the Most Serious of All Crimes

“President George W. Bush chose to wage a war of aggression against Iraq, which had not attacked the United States and presented no imminent threat to our people, or legitimate interests. A small cabal – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, and Rove – wrested decision making processes from established institutions of government to reinforce President Bush’s desire to seize Iraq, defying international institutions, the opinions of humankind and the rule of law to commence a disastrous criminal military adventure.

“War of aggression is the first offense listed in the Nuremberg Charter as a Crime against Peace. The Nuremberg Tribunal after hearing evidence of Nazi crimes in World War II convicted the leaders of waging wars of aggression, which it called ‘the supreme international crime.’ At Nuremberg, the Chief U.S. Prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, promised posterity that in the future all nations, including our own, would be held accountable for such crimes.

“(2) The Bush Cabal Pursues Its Policy of Regime Change In Iraq, Haiti, and Elsewhere, Even as its Criminal Acts Catch Up with It

“The Bush cabal continues its policy of regime change seeking to continue its control of Iraq by causing the installation of a man with also known, close ties to the CIA as Prime Minister of Iraq, among other U.S. paid agents …, thus assuring greater conflict as Iraq struggles for real independence and sovereignty. Former CIA agents have stated Prime Minister Allawi was responsible for fatal bombings of civilian targets in Iraq including a movie theater and a school bus during the 1990s.

“(3) Only Impeachment Now Can Prevent Further Lawlessness by the Bush Administration And By Its Warning, Future Administrations

“There will be more aggression before the November elections and more after, whatever the outcome, if the American people do not act now to impeach President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell, who has finally claimed he supported the war of aggression against Iraq and also who presented false information before the United Nations in its justification, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Ashcroft, who has pervasively violated the Bill of Rights and appeased and condoned criminal acts by government, and other civil officers of the United States.”

Well, we certainly can’t get rid of just W, and leave his ventriloquist and Richelieu, Dick Cheney, to take over officially. I mean, he’s in charge now anyway; so removing the figurehead would change nothing. Here’s a report from Agence France Presse about our imperial Vice President, showing that he also considers himself above the law:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0531-02.htm

And as long as we’re talking about lousy presidents, let’s discuss Ronald Reagan for a minute. We recently spent a weeks-long national orgy of artificial grief over his death, when in actuality death was probably the kindest thing that could have happened to him in his condition. I know I’d prefer a quiet death to a decade of mindlessness.

But what kind of President was Reagan, really? I’ve seen a few articles recently on him and his presidency that didn’t follow the mythology put out by Fox, CNN, and their ilk; but this one, by Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch magazine, is the one that best and most accurately describes what kind of president Ronnie Ray-gun was:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06112004.html

One of the bright spots of the summer happened on June 25– the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11: the Temperature at Which Freedom Burns” finally came out. After Disney kowtowed to Jeb Bush’s blackmail and refused to release it, two distributors stepped up and got it out. If you haven’t seen it, go see it! If you have seen it, go see it again, and help make sure those with the real power in this country – the money – know that we see through Bush, and won’t stand for another 4 years of his fascistic domestic policy and terroristic foreign policy. Oh: everybody sitting down? One of the best reviews of the movie came from the Fox television reviewer, Roger Friedman. He said:

“As much as some might try to marginalize this film as a screed against President George Bush, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ – as we saw last night – is a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty – and at the same time an indictment of stupidity and avarice.”

Stupidity and avarice – what better summary of the entire catastrophe that’s been the Bush administration?

So where does that all leave us for the 2004 elections? On the one hand, George W. Bush may – may – be the worst president in US history. I mean, we’ve had some stinkers; Wilson, for example, was a nice enough guy, but look what he gave us –World War I and the Great Depression. We’ve had some incompetent presidents – Grant, Harrison, and Reagan spring to mind – but not only is W personally incompetent, his whole administration is the very definition of “incompetent;” just look at the mess they’ve made in Iraq.

On the other hand, though, unless something truly wonderful happens – like the removal from office of W and his entire gang of thugs – we here in Texas are going to vote for George W. Bush, whether we like it or not. Huh? Well, remember the days when only white, land-owning men were “people” as far as the law was concerned? Remember that archaic remnant of those days known as the Electoral College? Every state election for President is a winner-take-all race, and – sad to say – W is going to take Texas. Unless that miracle happens.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us free to vote our hopes, and not our fears. In other words, it leaves all of us free to vote for something, instead of worrying that we might, by voting for anyone but the Democratic nominee, give Bush the win. Bush is going to win Texas, which means he’s going to get all of this state’s electoral votes. So when your friends tell you that voting for the Libertarian candidate for President is “wasting your vote,” tell them that a vote for the Libertarian candidate is a vote for principle, a more effective vote than one for John Kerry.

This year, in this state, you have three choices: the Democratic wing of the Republocrat Party, the Republican wing of the Republocrat party, or the Libertarian Party. The Greens didn’t make it through the ridiculous set of hoops the state of Texas throws in the way of “third parties,” and so they won’t be on the Presidential ballot this year. No other parties or independent candidates made it, either. The Libertarian Party is the only way we have to say “No” to the Republocrats’ two rich New England Skull-and-Bonesmen.

But, you know: that’s OK. No – that’s not just OK: it’s great! This year’s Libertarian candidate for the office of President is Austin’s own Michael Badnarik, a champion of the Constitution and individual liberties. I know Michael, and I can tell you without hesitation that not only is a vote for him a vote against the Republocrats’ stranglehold on the United States, it’s also a vote for the best man in the race. A vote for Badnarik is one more small step towards breaking this country free of the Republocrat stranglehold and the old politics of money, power, and privilege.

OK; enough about politics. How about that other big “don’t talk about it” – religion? The Dallas Morning News, usually not known for its investigative reporting, published a 4-part series last month, on its front page, about Catholic priests who sexually abuse little boys, then get out of town (or our of the country) with the help of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Here are the URLs of the four stories, in order:

www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/062004dnproklep.275b904e1.html
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/062104dnprovasquez.202f8.html
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/062204propriestpt3.1db08.html
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/062304dnprodominic.1de2b.html

Appalling. The same church that is against the liberty of women to decide what happens to their own bodies, especially in the area of reproduction, is for the liberty of its priests to rape little boys – and get away with it. Read the articles – again, I’m not making this up: you can find links to all four of them on my web site. Congratulations to the Dallas Morning News for having the courage to call our attention to this ongoing perversion of liberty.

And, on the same day that part 4 of that series appeared in the Dallas paper, the Austin American-Statesman had the story of an Austin church that allied itself foursquare on the side of bigotry. The church, which I won’t name here, has decided to withdraw from the Episcopal Church because that denomination recently decided to consecrate a gay man as a bishop. I mean, there have been gay bishops before – the United Methodist Church consecrated a gay bishop in Louisiana. ’Course, he was way in the closet; it wasn’t until after he died that it came out (in a Texas Monthly story) that he was gay.

Why is it that the sacrilegious right seems to think the only crimes there are, are sexual? They preach against the liberty of individuals to be who they are – unless, of course, who they are is OK with the person doing the preaching; they lobby against the freedom of sexual minorities to legalize their families; they consign to the fires of their hell anyone who chooses to dress (or not) as he or she wishes; but do you hear word one from them about the crimes committed against everyday people … well, every day by the Bush junta’s corporate masters? Nooooo.

They’re out there, trying to get our so-called president re-elected. Or should I say “elected for the first time,” since he wasn’t elected last time? And George is right in there, asking for help from organized religion for his campaign. In an article on June 11, the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) stated:

“During his June 4 visit, Bush asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A Vatican official told NCR June 9 that in his meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, ‘Not all the American bishops are with me’ on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism.”

Reminds me of when Lester Rolloff (he was a “preacher” who ran a children’s home that wound up being driven out of the state for abusing the children in its charge) told all the fundaments in Texas that they would serve God by voting for Bill Clemens, and serve Satan by voting for John Hill. Attorney General Hill lost that one, but you know what? A few months later, he came in to his office to find a man sitting outside his door, waiting to apologize to him for listening to Rolloff’s outlandish claims.

And listen to this, from the Washington Post of July 2:

“The instruction sheet circulated by the Bush-Cheney campaign to religious volunteers lists 22 ‘duties’ to be performed by specific dates. By July 31, for example, volunteers are to ‘send your church directory to your state Bush-Cheney ’04 headquarters or give (it) to a BC04 field rep’ and ‘talk to your pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive.’

“By Aug. 15, they are to ‘talk to your church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush-Cheney '04’ and ‘recruit five more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush-Cheney campaign.’ By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with members, and in October they are to ‘finish calling all pro-Bush members of your church,’ ‘finish distributing voter guides in your church’ and place notices on bulletin boards or in Sunday programs ‘about all Christian citizens needing to vote.’ “

But what about the separation of church and state? Oh, the Texas Republican Party (picture) has come up with an answer for that one. The platform they just adopted states, on page 8:

“The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation. … Our Party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State.”

Compare that to this statement by James Madison, the nation’s fourth President:

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

Somebody’s lying to you….

Next, let’s take a look at a couple of other ways that what Jim Hightower calls “the greedheads” are getting ready to do to us – and our liberties. First, consider the recently-introduced H.R. 3922, the “Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004.” A description from the AlterNet web site tells us:

“Legislation weaving its way through the US Congress demands all 50 states pass laws granting police the power to drug test drivers and arrest anyone found to have ‘any detectable amount of a controlled substance ... present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance.’ Though the expressed purpose of the law is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from US roadways, the proposal would do nothing of the sort.

“Most troubling, the proposed law – HR 3922 – does not require motorists to be identifiably impaired or intoxicated in order to be criminally charged with the crime of ‘drugged driving.’ Rather, police have only to demonstrate that the driver has detectable levels of illicit drugs or inactive drug metabolites in their blood, sweat, saliva, or urine. As many pot smokers know, marijuana metabolites are fat soluble, and remain identifiable in the urine for days and sometimes even weeks after past use. Consequently someone who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested on Friday and charged with ‘drugged driving,’ even though they are perfectly sober!

“Over the past five years, a small cabal of prohibitionists, drug testing proponents, and toxicologists have pushed for legislation criminalizing drivers who operate a vehicle with inert drug metabolites present in their system. To date, their efforts have persuaded ten states … to pass such ‘drugged driving’ laws, known as ‘zero-tolerance per se’ laws. Leading this charge is the Walsh Group, a federally funded organization that develops drug testing technology and lobbies for rigid workplace drug testing programs.”

As with anything else in this corrupt society, you can find out what’s really going on if you just follow the money. And if you want to read this bill – or the ones I’m going to talk about next – for yourself, go to the Library of Congress’s Thomas web site, enter the bill number without punctuation or spaces (for example, “HR3922”), and click the “Search” button.

Those “next bills” I mentioned are a pair of identical bills, introduced into the US Senate and House that are going to further curtail our liberties by reinstating the draft. Not just “the draft,” but the draft on steroids. The bills are Senate Bill 89 (S89) and House Resolution 163 (HR 163), both labeled the ” Universal National Service Act of 2003.” You can read them at the Library of Congress site, too. For some strange reason, enough youth are not signing up to be maimed and killed in our illegitimate administration’s war for the control of oil in Iraq. We need more raw material for our corpse production industry – Halliburton isn’t making enough money yet!

What’s in the bills? Well, they cover everyone between the ages of 18 and 26. Not just “all males,” but everyone – male and female. There will be no college deferments and no flight to Canada (there’s a new treaty in place – you’ll just be returned). Everyone will have to serve their two years, even conscientious objectors, though they won’t be forced to kill people. And during the times they have all the corpse generation capacity they need, everyone will do their involuntary servitude “in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.” Brrrrrr.

Next, what has the so-called ‘PATRIOT’ Act done to our freedoms lately (picture)? In the New York Times of July 4, a British journalist reports this encounter with US “justice”:

“Two months ago, I traveled from London to Los Angeles on assignment for a British paper, The Guardian, believing that as a British citizen I did not require a visa. I was wrong: as a journalist, even from a country that has a visa waiver agreement with the United States, I should have applied for a so-called I (for information) visa. Because I had not, I was interrogated for four hours, body searched, fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed, and forced to spend the night in a cell in a detention facility in central Los Angeles, and another day as a detainee at the airport before flying back to London. My humiliating and physically very uncomfortable detention lasted 26 hours.

“I've since learned that mine was not an isolated case: since March 2003, when the Department of Homeland Security became responsible for immigration and border patrol, 13 foreign journalists were detained and deported in a similar manner ….

“With or without the special visas, journalists are now scrutinized by the Department of Homeland Security, which questioned me in detail in Los Angeles, and by the State Department, which – when I reapplied to travel back to the United States – asked me whom I was going to interview in the United States, what the nature of my article was and even what fee I would be paid. … Even with a visa, one can be turned back at any port of entry.

“American journalists working abroad, especially in free countries, are not accustomed to monitoring of this kind. By requiring foreign journalists to obtain special visas, the United States has aligned itself with the likes of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, places where reporters are treated as dangerous subversives and disseminators of uncomfortable truths.

“In June 2003, for example, the State Department cabled all its diplomatic and consular posts, urging them to pay attention to ''an increasing number'' of journalists being denied entry. ‘Aliens coming to practice journalism are not eligible on the visa waiver program or a business visa,’ it explained. ‘Journalists who attempt to do so … are subject to removal.’ “

And along that line, do you remember the movie The Hunt for Red October? Remember how the submarine’s Political Officer could overrule any decision, even an order by the Captain? That can’t happen here, right? Wrong. A June 27 Los Angeles Times article, reprinted in the Austin American-Statesman that day, reported:

“The Bush administration has ordered that government scientists must be approved by a senior political appointee before they can participate in meetings convened by the World Health Organization, the leading international health and science agency. A top official from the Health and Human Services Department in April asked the WHO to begin routing any request for participation in its meetings to the HHS secretary for review, rather than directly invite individual scientists, as has long been the case. Officials at the Geneva, Switzerland-based organization so far have refused to implement the request, saying it could compromise the independence of international scientific deliberations.”

No shout, Sherlock. It’s just one more step towards solidifying the neo-con men’s grip on power over every aspect of this country’ life. With any luck at all, he’s going to be out on his stupid little frat-rat bum in a few months, along with his entire retinue of would-be dictators. And God help us if he isn’t.

I said this once, but I’m going to say it again – go see Fahrenheit 9/11. And then, even more importantly, try to get your friends to see it, too, especially if they are still deluded into thinking that the Bush junta is the best choice for America.