Ironies Galore. What Will We Get? Right-Wing Justice or Constitutional Justice?

The Supreme Court has decided to hear the case of Al-Kidd v. John Ashcroft, G. W. Bush's Attorney General, according to this: Justices to Hear Appeal Over Liability for Detention - NYTimes.com. Ashcroft is appealing and he is claiming he is IMMUNE to law suits or prosecution for any illegal policy while in office. I can see that this case will be a real irony, and a problem, for the five Right-Wing Supremes. Will they decide for the King? Or will they choose the Constitution?

At the heart of the case is whether a public official, John Ashcroft, is immune from being sued for the policies he implemented while serving as Attorney General. So far, two courts, an Idaho Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled in favor of Abdullah Al-Kidd and against Ashcroft. So, will the Supreme Court reverse two judgments against Ashcroft? If it does, then it will be saying that a public official can do anything they want and not worry about being held accountable.

Al-Kidd was arrested and held as a "material witness" and hailed as the "second most important" arrest "in the country" by both Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller in their fight against terrorism in public statements and Congressional testimony. But, Al-Kidd was never called as a witness to a case, nor was he ever charged with committing or planning a terrorist act. In fact, there was not one iota of proof that he did anything illegal or that he had one iota of information that could be used as a witness against a terrorist. And, Al-Kidd had already told the FBI all he knew before he was arrested. Ashcroft and the FBI had nothing; zilch, and they never did. They did, however, concoct a number of false statements for a court-issued warrant for Al-Kidd's arrest. And, they did use extreme interrogation techniques to question Al-Kidd, such as keeping him naked, never letting him sleep, and holding him in small, isolation cages. His arrest and detention was all done because the agents "thought he was guilty or was planning something." They had no evidence for the slightest "probable cause" arrest. And so, two courts upheld Al-Kidd's claim that he could sue Ashcroft and the agents - that Ashcroft and the FBI agents violated his constitutional rights, under the Fourth (unlawful search and seizure) and Fifth (among other things - held without due process) Amendments, by arresting and holding him.

The ironies are galore. On the one hand, Attorney General Eric Holder, under a Democratic Administration, is defending Ashcroft, of a Republican Administration, against the very things that Holder has claimed to be unconstitutional; such as illegal wire taps, violation of civil rights, invasion of privacy, illegal search and seizure, etc. If Holder wins, then he himself is protected and immune from prosecution for the things he does in office, even when a court decides that he acted illegally. Of course, he could say, "trust me. I won't do anything bad." That doesn't sooth my skepticism. On the other hand, if the five conservative justices overturn the lower courts, and say that Ashcroft is immune, they are protecting Eric Holder in a Democratic Administration by giving him immunity, and all future public officials, of course. They are also confirming, once and for all, that the constitution is indeed dead, as Justice Scalia claimed in a speech once. If it is dead, then we are ready for a King... or a dictator. It's all a matter of time and which President, now or in the future, wants to take up the scepter and crown.

Oh well. We could look at the bright side. If the Constitution is dead, then we won't need congress, and that means that all the Tea Party congressional candidates won't be needed after all. Or, maybe they will help the matter along. LOL. By then, however, all those that didn't vote will, perhaps, understand to late that voting for qualified people matters. Another irony.

Dave

And One More Thing

As the very same people who insulted all of those who are for Freedom of Religion and our Constitution when they marched against the Mosque and are today amassing in the Washington Mall to insult Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I have to say one more thing that maybe hasn't been thought of regarding the so-called outrage against the Cordoba House (the Mosque) and against those other Mosques across the country.

Do you realize that our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting along side of and training Muslims? Do you realize that our mission there is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims in those countries? So "they" can fight for their own war against Taliban oppression? The single most thing America is known for the world over is our Freedoms, and we are respected for it, and people yearn to come here because of it. If anything has made us great in the minds of people, it is our Constitution. How then can we win the hearts of minds of those who fight with us against the radical elements who would do us harm if our own people will not stand for freedom and tolerance?

The fact is that we can't. The movement against Freedom of Religion will affect the minds and hearts of millions of Muslims who want peace with us and fight with us. The so-called Glenn Beck Rally will affect our troops within our military, probably causing dissension among our troops. These movements are insults to anyone who took an oath to protect the Constitution. They are insults to General Patraeus in Afghanistan whose sworn duty is to do his best to project our Freedoms in Afghanistan, to train its military and police forces who are Muslim.

So, what is driving these movements? Is it spite? To do anything and everything to oppose our values out of spite? To dismantle our government? To disrupt our society? To "strut" in front of our neighbor? Where are those who would speak out against these movements? It seems that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are doing bin Laden's work for him.

Dave

The Mosque Diatribe - The Great Meltdown

It all started with Pam Geller who writes the blog, Atlas Shrugs 2000. (I'm not going to give you a link to her blog. You're better off not knowing about it if you don't already. As the old saying goes, if you don't want to associate with the Devil, then don't invite him in.) Don't know who she is? The best description I've found is here, on "Loon Watch." She will say anything and do anything for attention, and money, since her blog has advertisers who pay her and she is vehemently racist. Her latest target just happen to be Muslim, who could be anyone, and Arab, who may not be Muslim. Both she and her advertisers like what she does because she is so outrageous that all of the crazy conspiracy theorist read her blog. Before she wrote her "conspiracy theory" article on the Mosque, nobody was paying any attention to it (the Mosque), not even Fox News, who had given the whole story of the Cordoba House a shrug. But, a few loons who read Geller's blog, such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, picked up on the story and off it went into viral mode. From there, Fox News backtracked and its loony bins, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly picked up on it, then Rush Limbaugh and now the virus has spread to the more "normal," albeit right-leaning, talk show hosts and opinion editors who usually keep there heads. Not anymore.

And, everything being said sounds sssoooo reasonable and logical that now we have 70% of the country against the "Oh My God! Terrorist Center - Ground Zero" Mosque and in other parts of the country people are picketing and demonstrating against mosques and good friends on Facebook are showing their so-called patriotism by publishing Toby Keith's latest oh so proud nationalistic clap trap. And, there is not one scintilla of evidence that supports any of the rage or hate. What started out by a bigot is now being used for political purposes to exploit fear, bigotry and hate and it is all paranoia, emotion and fear.

And, you know you're wrong. At least I hope you know you're wrong, or else we continue the meltdown into anarchy. Mob rule has never worked. Rule based on emotion and fear has never worked. In every case I've read about, the ultimate end of fear and emotion appears to be war, and we don't need to look any farther back than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to prove that point. But, you can go back as far as you want into any country who has ever gone to war, any war. It is all foolishness.

The issue has to do with the First Amendment to the Constitution and, unless you've been asleep or dead, you've already heard that. If you are among the 70%, then you've brushed that aside saying, "BUT," this or that. But, in this case, we should be "sensitive." But, in this case, we can't have a "terrorist training center" in New York. But, in this case, blah, blah, blah. I've even heard, "...the Constitution was written so long ago that it needs to be changed." If you believe that, then you're really out to lunch. The biggest and most meaningful "But" is, however, that all of the arguments against the Mosque are all nonsense.

The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In the days when this was written, the Jews were the "other" religion most hated and subjected to every kind of discrimination their neighbors could think up and there were no Jews among those who had the most to do with writing the Constitution. They were, after all, the ones who "killed" Jesus. You've heard that before. In fact, of those men who had the most influence in writing the Constitution, most were Christians, and a few could have been considered "devout" or even "fundamentalist" Christians. One wonders, then, how they could have given so much freedom to "other" religions? Especially to the Jewish religion. I happen to believe that it was their knowledge, and perhaps fear, of what they called "the beast," their term for the "mob," that was more inclined to be filled with passionate emotions and fear than reason. It turns out that they, the writers, were all very well read and had a deep knowledge of history, especially in regards to human behavior. They knew that the beast cannot rule because it goes this way one moment and the other way the next, all based on emotion. John Adams, probably the most influential in the final draft of the Constitution said, "Reason holds the helm, and passions are the gales." But, it appears that today, passions are the hurricanes and reason can no longer hold the helm. The seas are too rough. The Great Meltdown of America has started or is well underway.

So, whatever your reason is for not allowing the Mosque to be built, you need to let it be built, otherwise we've lost our way. In fact, following the likes of Pam Geller should make you ashamed of yourselves. The other question is if  it's Muslims we hate now, who is next? Hindus? Buddhists? Those who don't go to church? Or, do we go back to hating the Jews again? You lost me when you joined the beast on this path. I won't follow the meltdown.

Dave

O'Reilly's Language of Deception

What's that old saying about tempting the Devil? He's smarter than you, you know. He will decieve you. He knows the deceptive language. Bill O'Reilly is one of the most dangerous people in our country as far as I'm concerned, but you might not perceive that by listening to him. He sounds normal and informed. There lies the deception; he sounds normal. But, in fact his language is the language of deception. Take his Talking Points last night, November 11,2008, about the election.

First: According to Bill, Obama was elected because voters were worried about the economy and they voted for Obama's "one word" campaign of "change." "What change," Bill asks, suggesting that Obama had not described the change he sought. According to Bill, the "hard left" voted Obama into office overriding "ideology and dubious associations" and they, the hard left, would now expect something in return that would be more disastrous for the country than not. O'Reilly is already setting the stage for criticism of Obama's Administration before it begins. Anyone who actually listened to Obama and is aware of who endorsed him and who his advisers are will recognize O'Reilly's ruse.

• Obama's economic advisers include people like Warren Buffett, one of the world's richest people who believes that "rich people have to pay taxes too", in his own words, and Paul Volker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. These two men are not "hard left" advisers. They are capitalist who believe that corporate behavior should be tempered with moderate regulation to ensure that greed and self-interest don't override social needs. Corporations, they believe, should be responsible and accountable too. They are centrists and pragmatic.


• Obama's economic and business endorsements include dozens of successful business people and economists, such as George Soros, a billionaire financier who has also stated that "the rich must also pay taxes." Mr. Soros, too, is not a "hard left" ideologue. Paul Krugman, Professor of Economics at Princeton University, also supports Obama. He too is not "hard left."


• Obama's economic policies oppose the Republican economic "Darwinism" that the strongest survive regardless of impact on the lives of people. Obama supports a more middle-of-the-road policy that supports communities as well as market-based economies. He is a capitalist, but he's not an ideologue.

Second: O'Reilly used the phrase "traditional values" to segway into his next talking point, below, but his use of the phrase is deceptive. One would think, listening only to the language O'Reilly used, that Obama is a departure from traditional values. Here's what I heard two people say in response to his election:

• Whoopi Goldberg on The View: "Now young men can 'pull their pants up' because they have no excuse for their behavior." I hadn't given any thought to the impact of Obama's election on young people's behavior. What a statement! Yes! All of you young men walking around showing your underwear, pull your pants up! You no longer have an excuse to be sloppy, rebellious or bums.


• The question, "how do you respond to Obama's election?", posed to a black man by a KGO San Francisco reporter got this response: "Black men no longer have the excuse that they are limited because they had no father in their lives. Obama had no father and look what he did." Yes! That's the correct response.

If those two responses to Obama's election do not show traditional values, then I'll eat my underwear. I see a return to traditional values like we've never seen before.

Third: O'Reilly used "traditional values" to segway into the ban on gay marriage vote in California, which passed by 51% of California voters. O'Reilly said it was a vote against judges who rule from the bench, those activists judges we hear about so often. According to him, California chose "traditional values." That's not what really happened.

What really happened was a con job of misinformation. Here's the truth.

• The California Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 on May 15, 2008, that gay marriage was legal based on the California Constitution's 1897 equal protection clause, so the majority of the court followed the word of established law; that all people are equally protected from discrimination. Proposition 8 was to change that law. The real question posed by Proposition 8 was whether we discriminate against some, but not against others. Do we make leapers and outcasts out of some people and not others? The court chose the rule of law over ruling from the bench. The question of whether it was a gay or traditional marriage was not the primary issue.


• Those who supported Proposition 8 used every fear tactic and lie they could scheme up to scare people into voting for it. Two big lies used were that we would be forced to teach gay marriage in school and that gays would persuade husbands to abandon their wives. Hogwash. Can anyone possibly believe that changing the constitution to discriminate will stop discussions in school? In my mind, changing the constitution would raise more questions in school than it would if it wasn't changed. Straight husbands leaving their wives suggested that the gay lifestyle was a matter of choice. I used to believe that too. But, my mind was changed after reading several articles about the medical research into the behavior. I now believe that it is not a matter of choice and that further medical research will discover the cause and cure it. Husbands will leave their wives for whatever reason whether the constitution is changed or not. Like I said, hogwash.

For thousands of years people with leprosy were outcasts. To my knowledge the medical profession did not really look into the disease until the late 1800s in a leaper colony in Hawaii. There, a doctor began to care for the leapers and discovered, if I remember correctly, that a bacteria caused the condition. From that day we began to treat leapers differently, not as outcasts but as patients in medical facilities. I believe that if we really want to solve the tragedy of gays, we need to look to medical and scientific research. We won't do that if we are convinced by the O'Reillys of this world to look away.

Fourth: O'Reilly took the blame for not following the economic meltdown and President Bush's economic policy failure for the past eight years. Now, he says, to correct his own failure he will follow Obama's Administration with more oversight and "ramp up our watch dog role."

Give me a break, Bill. Of course you will. Face it. Obama will never follow O'Reilly's agenda and O'Reilly will talk about every nit-picking, unjust criticism of Obama until Obama leaves office. O'Reilly will now support every constitutional requirement for the Presidency that he did not support under President Bush. Bill is "ramping" up his oversight with perfect timing. O'Reilly once announced boycotting French products. That month we imported four times more French products than ever before. Do us a favor Bill - retire.

I had a near and dear person tell me a few months ago that I can't dictate to them who to listen to or what to watch on television because they have a right to listen and watch whomever they want so they can learn for themselves. That's true. I can't. But, when is it a good idea to listen to deceptive, warped and distorted opinion to learn? Please be aware of how much is at risk if you do. A lack of better understanding and knowledge of important issues, for one thing. Inability to overcome ignorance, for another. The Devil really is smarter than us. He uses the language of deception perfectly and you will be persuaded if you listen. Turn people like O'Reilly off and turn on more informed sources. His ratings will drop and he'll eventually be dropped from television and radio and more informed sources will continue to be available because you're listening. America will be better off without Bill O'Reilly.