Religious Right

Pope Versus President

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:26:07 -0400

The Vatican’s recent snub of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is only the latest salvo in the battle between Pope Benedict XVI and President George W. Bush. This tug of war has profound implications for both U.S. foreign policy and the critical Catholic vote in 2008's presidential race.

Overlapping Agendas

Things haven't always been tense between Bush and Benedict. They share similar views regarding abortion, gay marriage, and other hot-button conservative issues. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (as Benedict was known before becoming Pope in April 2005) even helped Bush secure the White House for a second term.

Specifically, after Bush visited the Vatican in June 2004, complaining that "Not all the American bishops are with me," Ratzinger sent a letter to US bishops, ordering them to refuse Communion to "a Catholic politician … consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" - a thinly-veiled reference to John Kerry. Ratzinger added that any person even voting for this Catholic politician would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." Probably no surprise, then, that Bush increased his margin among Catholics by 6% from 2000 to 2004.

In an interesting twist, Ratzinger also partnered with George W. Bush's brother Neil in a foundation "to promote ecumenical understanding and publish original religious texts" in 1999. Oddly enough, business credit reports listed the foundation as a "management trust for purposes other than education, religion, charity or research," leaving the true nature of the Neil Bush/Cardinal Ratzinger venture unclear.

In 2005, Ratzinger was named as a defendant in a U.S. lawsuit suit accusing him of conspiring to cover up the sexual abuse of minors. At the center of the controversy was a May 2001 confidential letter he had sent Catholic bishops across the world ordering them to keep evidence of the sexual abuse of minors by clergy secret until 10 years after the child had reached adult status.

Soon after becoming Pope, however, Ratzinger was dismissed from the case. A US federal judge decided the lawsuit would be incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

Disagreements Multiply

On many contentious issues since then, Pope Benedict XVI has disagreed with the Bush administration's policies, but only politely and indirectly. For example, Benedict has spoken in favor of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is often at loggerheads with Bush administration foreign policy.

Similarly, Benedict's Vatican has taken a firm stance against global warming, even acquiring a carbon offset forest to make the Vatican the first entirely carbon neutral sovereign state." He has called for greater international co-operation to fight ozone depletion, yet not overtly criticized White House foot-dragging in that area.

The gloves came off, however, regarding the war in Iraq. In a May 2003 interview, Ratzinger said, "There was not sufficient reasons to unleash a war in Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.'"

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was similarly contentious for former Pope John Paul II, who sent a special envoy to the White House in March 2003 in an effort to prevent an attack. The papal envoy's pleas fell on deaf ears.

Vatican criticisms of the Bush administration’s military intervention in Iraq have continued unabated. French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, told an Italian magazine in August 2007, "The facts speak for themselves. Alienating the international community (with the U.S. push for war) was a mistake." Tauran, who has referred to the invasion and occupation as a "crime against peace," also said that Christians in Iraq "paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship" of Saddam Hussein.

Rice Rebuffed

As such, it is perhaps unsurprising that Benedict failed to honor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's urgent request for a private meeting last month. The Italian periodical Corriere della Sera reported that Rice was hoping to capitalize on the Pope's moral authority by having a papal audience focused on the Middle East. Instead, Rice was told that Benedict was on holiday and had to settle for a telephone conversation with a lower Vatican official.

The ongoing tensions between Bush and Benedict over Iraq put America's over 75 million Roman Catholics in a tricky position for 2008. By supporting candidates hawkish on the Bush administration's Iraq policies, are they defying the Pope and the Catholic Church?

For its part, the powerful United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has taken a firm stance against the US presence in Iraq. A July 2007 letter to House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), USCCB noted, “The current situation in Iraq is unacceptable and unsustainable, as is the policy and political stalemate among decision makers in Washington … our nation must have the moral courage to change course in Iraq.”

Dissent is swelling up from the grassroots as well. In August 2007, an alliance of religious groups calling itself Catholics for an End to War collected 10,000 signatures for an online petition “urging leaders to commit to a responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops.” Sister Simone Campbell of the national Catholic social justice lobby NETWORK said, "Church leaders and individual Catholics have opposed U.S. policy in Iraq since before the war began," adding that the petition “lets thousands of Catholics unite to speak out even more strongly for an end to the violence and occupation.”

In other words, being dovish on Iraq might help the next Democratic presidential contender win Roman Catholic votes. Whether the current front-runners qualify for that distinction, however, is another matter.

This article first appeared in Foreign Policy in Focus. Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives’ Handbook series, and can be contacted at www.HeatherWokusch.com .

Homophobia is the Only Republican "Value"

Bob Fertik — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:27:09 -0400

What does it take to be expelled from the GOP? Emptywheel nails it as always:

When David Vitter admitted to using a prostitute service, no Republicans asked him to resign.

When it became clear that Pete Domenici had asked Bush and Gonzales to fire David Iglesias because the US Attorney didn't trump up charges against Democrats, no Republicans asked him to resign.

When it became clear that Bob Ney and Ted Stevens and John Doolittle and Don Young had been paid in exchange for legislative favors (that is, had accepted bribes), no Republicans asked them to resign.

When Tom DeLay was indicted for money laundering, no Republicans asked him to resign.

But because Larry Craig wiggled his foot under a men's bathroom stall, Pete Hoekstra and Norm Coleman and John McCain have asked him to resign.

Of course if politicians had to declare their sexuality on their campaign reports, I'm sure we'd find just as many gay Republicans as Democrats.

And if they had to declare the abortions they've had or caused, I'm sure we'd find just as many Republicans as Democrats.

Yet somehow the GOP has a "lock" on religious right voters whose top issues are homosexuality and abortion.

Can someone explain to me how Republicans get away with this institutional hypocrisy? Is it simply because religious right leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and the late Jerry Falwell are/were just Republican stooges?

Update 1: Kos highlights rightwing homophobia in his typical hatemail:

From: chuckrod@xxxx

This is the most lacking website I think I've ever seen. Fuck you is the ass on this one. you people are borderline if not completely retarded. I dare you to reply to my e-mail. you don't have the balls, you people remind me of Hitler's bunch, all talk. I would bet your all a bunch of little faggots circle-jerking each other. Your gaggle of faggots do not represent the fighting soul instilled in real Americans, something you will never be. Move your pathetic ass to Mexico, or Iraq, somewhere that your ideaology fits. 3rd world, hide behind your keyboard, if you walked out in public and said the shit you say in these little coward pages you'd have your ass beat down

Two things immediately stand out: 1) "Hitler's bunch" weren't "all talk". That was sort of the problem with them. They acted. And 2) just about every single one of these hatemails include virulently anti-gay rhetoric, a real hallmark of the O'Reilly Right. For a group that is supposedly "outraged" at the "hate" on Daily Kos, they exhibit a venomous hatred of homosexuality beyond any reason.

In any case, given this guy's ideology, and that of the majority of O'Reilly acolytes who email the site, I would recommend they move to Saudi Arabia. That anti-gay, anti-woman, hyper-conservative theocracy fits their ideology to a "t".

Indeed.

Republican Congressman Blames His Gay Sex on His Fear of Black Men

davidswanson — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:39:42 -0400

According to news reports, Florida Representative Bob Allen (Republican) was arrested last July 11 for soliciting sex from an undercover black male cop. The reason he gave was his fear of black men...

Now many will quickly ask what rational person would believe such a cockamamy story ?

But hold on, now.. READ THE REST

Guest Commentary: Not Your Father's Party

Chip — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:51:52 -0400

Do you think you couldn't possibly have anything in common with a Republican, a former Reagan White House counsel? Then read on:

When I began asking questions about what I saw going on at Colorado Springs in 2004 I never expected that the inquiry would lead me to the horrifying conclusion that our country had been taken over by people who have used our own freedoms to enslave us. But that is what happened. When I began I, like most people, was focused on the personal. I believed that what was happening at the United States Air Force Academy, the harassment of cadets and staff with unwanted evangelism, was limited in scope. As the months passed, however, I found myself forced to constantly reassess my basic assumptions. The logic of events was stark and undeniable. Promises of an open inquiry were ignored; decent and courageous people like former Air Force Chaplin MeLinda Morton were intentionally muzzled to ensure the truth would not be heard and the wrongs righted.

As a Republican and an Academy graduate I find myself in head on conflict with my own oath to protect the Constitution. As a Jew I confronted a situation through ears that still hear the cries of my people walking silently into the brick buildings that would reduce them to ash. I cannot stand still and let that happen to my country.

You know about the law suit we filed; that suit took on the issue directly, based on the 1st Amendment Right of members of the military to choose their own spiritual paths, unhampered by those placed in positions of authority and on the basis of the Establishment Clause and Clause Three of Article Six, which prohibit the existence of a national religion. That is what has happened. America now has a national religion whose tenets extend to a foreign policy that sees war in the Middle East as the fulfillment of its core mission. The power block responsible for the take over are now, effectively, in charge of the mightiest weapon the world has ever known, the United States Military.

My law suit was one element in the larger battle to take back America . That might seem excessive or alarmist; I only wish that was the case.

I undertook this campaign to oppose those who were violating the principle of separation of Church and State head on and to make the public aware. I now understand that to undo the damage done Americans must come together to organize the dispersed elements opposing these forces that have gone so far in converting America into a theocracy that substitutes one parochial world view of the Bible as law, displacing the democratic foundation of our nationhood.

Every American should be awake to the real and present threat that the take over of America's military poses to our national security and to each of us personally. America is poised today on the brink of a disaster of global proportions. This situation has been moving towards its own logical conclusion while nearly all of us overlooked the clear and present danger signs posed by the coalition of unlikely forces who have come together in a voracious grab for power. Even those of us who have understood some parts of the larger problem have failed to see the connections. That is the past. Today we need to take action.

Those who have carried out this stealth operation, an imperious fascistic contagion growing for the last 30 years, have an agenda. That agenda demanded their patience. They have been. We must not be patient as we fight back. We must act now.

In late 2005 I founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. As I studied what was happening I began to hear from our own noble and honorable sailors, soldiers, marines and airmen from all religious traditions at military bases in the US and all over the world. They all told the same horrifying story; my concerns grew.

Here is what we face.

First, the corporate interests: These for profit businesses have worked to ensure their streams of income, focusing on augmenting their own profits and avoiding liability for the damage they well understood they inflicted on America and to people around the world. To accomplish those ends they developed a collation of think tanks and not-for-profits that justified their actions, using ideas cauterized to make their actions seem plausible.

They knew they needed to change the institutions and expectations of Americans to ensure they would keep control. To that end they employed political operatives to build up the facade of respectability those ideas needed. Think of the Heritage Foundation and the words of such as Ann Coulter, John Fund, and Robert Novak. That facade is what we today know as the NeoConservatives or “NeoCons.” You can think of it as the public relations firm presently employed by those rapacious corporations which work through our government.

The third element, funded in large part by the corporate interests but acting from their own agenda, are those who are now coming out of the shadows. As their power grows their need to remain unseen diminishes. Paul Krugman and others identify these as the Theocons. It was the action of the Theocratic agenda that awakened me to what is happening. These elements are the broad strokes that bring into the light the behind the scenes action that is destroying our nation and the hope for peace and prosperity that has always been so present for Americans.

It is not simple until you understand who and why it has happened. The corporations wanted power and money; the NeoCons were willing to make it happen for power and money. The Theocons, a tool made up of elements from a formerly marginalized and unrespected segment of the Christian community, were able to realize their dreams of power and money by becoming the tool that made the whole possible.

Today the man with his finger on the button, those who will receive the order to strike; many of those who will then be expected to put their lives on the line to carry out American policy; have been molded by the influences of these elements. A power conversion has taken place that has nothing to do with freedom or religion. Many thinkers and writers saw the potential for such a threat over the last several generations. But it is our generation and those who follow who now have no choice but to take action.

Corporate interests and the patient and long range plan of Christian Reconstructionists have made this possible with the cooperation and coordination provided by the NeoCons If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I would think it was bad science fiction. But when I wake up the nightmare continues. The threats to my family, the rising tide of violence aimed at me and those I love, and those whose courage has drawn them to stand with me affirm the truth of what we confront.

It began in the early 70s with the thought by a small group of Republicans that control of the GOP could be guaranteed by taking advantage of the newly disenfranchised Southern Democrats through elements in the Evangelical churches there. You will recognize the names of those whose plans have been drawn so large today. Karl Rove, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy, John Hagee and Jack Abramoff were among them.

Largely credulous and uneducated the evangelical elements that became their raw material contained strains of thinking from individuals like R. J Rushrooney and Gary North. Margaret Mead once said that only a small determined group ever changes things. Ms. Mead was thinking of positive change; she could not have imagined the vision and motives that moved a small group of Baptists to take over the Southern Baptist Convention by stealth to achieve first a power base and to move on from there to apply the same methods to civil government and our military. But that is what happened.

Today the platform of the Republican Party in Texas reflects their goals. These are consistent and explicit, including the substitution of the Bible for the rule of law in America. In their world capital punishment for sodomy, adultery, for unruly children, and the end of free speech are desirable goals mandated by God. Lying to achieve the ends they believe are appointed by an unimaginable vision of God are entirely acceptable.

Paul Krugman said in his article, For God's Sake, “In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement - the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right - suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. "Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure," he wrote, "and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order."

Krugman does not cite the documentation of this, though it exists in a letter written by Dr. Steven Hortzel dated March 13, 1990. The letter exhorts the recipients on how to take over their local Republican precinct. The back of the letter lays out the Platform which includes ending minority status for homosexuals, an end to the right to abortion, the sovereignty of the family instead of having that status rest with individuals, as intended by the rights theory on which America is founded. And most frightening, in their view the Church will control what is and is not a crime. The same letter sports the direction to, “Vote twice on election day.” So much for respect for our law and the institutions of America.

Today the Platform of the Republican Party of Texas reflects that agenda. The goal of the Texas Republican Party is to "dispel the myth of the separation of church and state."

Organizing and planning far in advance with funding provided by corporations through those we now know as NeoCons, they laid out the stealth plan that has been followed until the present day. You can hear this admitted in clips of a tape assembled recently by Dr. Bruce Prescott. The voices of J. R, Rushrooney, now deceased, and Gary North, his son-in-law, say it all.

No rogue elements were responsible for what took place at the Air Force Academy. Funding provided by those major corporations who put us in Iraq to augment their profits and ensure control of oil funded the NeoCons who wrote the orders taking us to the Middle East against all truth; through the same funding source grew the 'religious' institutions that have taken control of our military. To them the separation of Church and State, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, is a myth like Bigfoot and Paul Bunyan to be dispelled, by their own words.

We can expect violence. The head cleric of St. David's Episcopal Church of Topeka, Kansas came out to support me; five hours later his church was burned to the ground. A synagogue where I spoke was desecrated. My home has been targeted by feces and beer bottles; our tires slashed; dead animals have twice been placed on our front porch. The death threats come in ceaselessly. It is not convenient and safe to confront and defy those in power; I know that but I refuse to back down. They may try to harm me but I will not go quietly; I will be a Jew from the Warsaw Ghetto, not Berlin. I will be an American from Lexington and Concord, not an American from Halliburton and Blackwater.

With all the bad news it is heartening to note that some people are standing up and fighting back. Every day we are joined by more Americans who hear, understand, and come prepared to take action.

Dr. Bruce Prescott moved to Norman, Oklahoma three years ago and started an organization called, “Main Stream Baptists,” that is challenging the primacy of Christian Reconstructionists in the Baptist faith in the same town that supplied those who carried out the take over of the Southern Baptist Convention. When Bush hosts 'religious leaders,' it is those people who receive the invitations.

Next January between 20,000 and 30,000 Baptists from all races will gather. They will be representing hundreds of thousands of Baptists who affirm the original belief that brought Baptists to America, the freedom to worship as they pleased. Together they will forge a New Baptist Covenant making them the largest Baptist group in the United States. The group includes former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton; the announcement took place in Atlanta, Georgia in January of 2007.

Others, secular and religious, for instance the Methodists who stood up to oppose the Bush Library at SMU stand with us.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that this is not a partisan battle. I am a Republican who had the honor of serving as Assistant General Counsel in the Reagan White House and as General Counsel to two time presidential candidate H. Ross Perot. I am a Jew proud to stand with Christians, Muslims, agnostics and atheists, and others who, like those I just mentioned, are committed to the vision of an America for which generations have laid down their lives. Stand with me on this and you stand with men and women who dreamed a freedom that the real Jesus would have recognized. At the end of the day, it's simply all about just one thing; our beautiful United States Constitution. Each of us free; each of us equal, living lives where we confront not the dead words of the past but the living truth that is tomorrow.

That is America and it is worth dying for. As a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, the father of two graduates as well as one current Academy cadet, the brother-in-law of yet another graduate, and the son of a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy I believe in the vision that is America with every fiber of my being.

###

Mikey Weinstein is an attorney and businessman who served 10 years active duty as an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG) at military installations from California to Washington, D.C. The former federal prosecutor spent three years in the Reagan White House and served as the Air Force's first Chief of Telecommunications and Information Systems Procurement Law.

Mikey's family has deep and distinguished military-academy roots spanning nearly 60 years: His father is a Naval Academy graduate; and Mikey, his brother-in-law, eldest son and daughter-in-law are all graduates of the Air Force Academy (from where his youngest son is scheduled to graduate in 2007). Mikey and his wife of almost three decades, Bonnie, reside in Albuquerque, N.M.

Mikey Weinstein, former Reagan White House counsel, president and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and author of the new book, With God On Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military discusses his background and attempt to prevent the American Taliban from taking over the Armed Services and the firing of his friend David Iglasius, one of the fired U.S. attorneys.

Hear Charles Goyette interview Mikey Weinstein. (34:22)

Virginia Interfaith Center Releases Video Public Service Announcements on Bias

davidswanson — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:47:34 -0500

Watch them here:

Contact them here to help place these on TV stations.

Ask Rep. Virgil Goode to watch them and tell you what he thinks of them here.

Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?

Heather Wokusch — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:16:35 -0500

It's not overstating the case to say that 2007 could be make or break for US democracy.

The Bush administration's cutbacks and rollbacks in 2006 were so frequent and so egregious that many Americans stopped paying attention, gave up hope or else failed to see the onslaught as part of a larger pattern.

Which brings up the f-word.

In 2007, I’ll be decreasing to two articles a month, so wanted to end the year ‘with a bang.’ The past few days I’ve been thinking about Laurence Britt’s 2003 article about the 14 elements of fascism... how would they apply to life under Bush today?

Below is the first of a two-part series for BuzzFlash. I'm imagining that folks here at Democrats.com have a lot more examples for each category. I'd love to hear them -

Happy holidays!

Heather

* * *

Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - attributed to Benito Mussolini, Italian dictator

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Hermann Goering, Luftwaffe commander and Third Reich official

It's not overstating the case to say that 2007 could be make or break for US democracy.The Bush administration's cutbacks and rollbacks in 2006 were so frequent and so egregious that many Americans stopped paying attention, gave up hope or else failed to see the onslaught as part of a larger pattern.

Which brings up the f-word.

In 2003, Laurence W. Britt wrote a seminal article comparing fascist regimes, such as Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, to life under Bush. While the term fascism has been widely overused (in August, Rumsfeld even accused war critics of "a new type of fascism") Britt's analysis eerily resonated back then and is worth a second look today.

This two-part series recaps Bush's record in 2006 under the framework of Britt's "fourteen common threads" of fascism and makes predictions for 2007. ***The examples below are more indicative than exhaustive; Project for an Old American Century has a comprehensive links page spanning Bush's presidency.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

In July, Bush signed the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act so Americans could "express their patriotism here at home without burdensome restrictions."

What burdensome restrictions?

With similar fanfare, he issued a "proclamation" in October noting that patriotism "can help our children develop strength and character."

Less than two weeks later, he authorized the building of 700 miles of double-layered fencing along the US-Mexican border.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

Bush started off 2006 by weakening a new law banning the torture of prisoners. Soon after, the Army shut down a probe into Iraqi prisoner abuse, despite the fact that no Americans involved had even been questioned. In June, the Pentagon decided to strip the US Army Field Manual of Geneva Convention protections which ban "humiliating and degrading treatment." A Brooklyn federal judge ruled that non-US-citizens could be detained and indefinitely held on "the basis of religion, race or national origin."

Bush finally admitted to the existence of secret CIA prisons across the world in September, simultaneously calling for a resumption of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay.

In October, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, handing Bush the power to identify American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain them indefinitely without charge. For good measure, the Act eliminated habeas corpus review for aliens and provided retroactive immunity in US courts for officials (such as Bush) who authorized the offending actions.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice-relentless propaganda and disinformation-were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite "spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

In February, the United American Committee organized rallies across the country to fight so-called Islamofascism and to "unify all Americans behind a common goal and against an enemy that is seeking to destroy values we all hold dearly."

Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) stirred up anti-Muslim bigotry by writing his constituents: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

CNN host Glenn Beck got into the act by challenging Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim elected to Congress: "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." Rep. Goode also took a swipe at Ellison, by suggesting that without a tough stance on immigration "there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office." Goode failed to note that Ellison's ancestry in the US traces back over 260 years.

In December, the Inter Press News Agency reported: "Recent polls indicate that almost half of U.S. citizens have a negative perception of Islam and that one in four of those surveyed have 'extreme' anti-Muslim views ... a quarter of people here consistently believe stereotypes such as: 'Muslims value life less than other people' and 'The Muslim religion teaches violence and hatred.'"

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

The administration's war spending for FY 2007 is expected to reach $170 billion, with roughly $7 billion per month in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. That has meant cuts to domestic social and development programs.Bush's proposed FY 2007 budget, for example, slashed funding for a full 141 programs, ranging from educational grants to maternal/child health services to rural fire assistance. The same budget requested $6.4 billion for nuclear "weapons activities."

The line between war and entertainment blurred further in 2006, with three separate military television channels (The Military Channel, the Military History Channel and the Pentagon Channel) beaming 24/7 into millions of Americans' homes. In August, the Army revealed plans to build a 125-acre military theme park, designed to help armchair warriors "command the latest M-1 tank, feel the rush of a paratrooper freefall, fly a Cobra Gunship or defend your B-17 as a waist gunner."

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

In January, the stridently anti-abortion Samuel Alito was confirmed to the US Supreme Court. Alito had previously argued that the strip-search of a mother and ten-year old girl without a warrant was constitutional.

The following month, the Supreme Court ended an injunction protecting abortion clinics across the country and agreed to reconsider a ban on certain abortion procedures.

In 2005, Bush appointed a veterinarian to handle women's health issues at the FDA, and in 2006, he tapped Eric Keroack for the Health and Human Services Department. Keroack opposes contraception, has described premarital sex as "modern germ warfare," and espouses the bizarre, unscientific belief that casual sex depletes "bonding" hormones, yet is now heading family planning programs for the whole nation.

The National Security Department revised its guidelines regarding access to classified government information in 2006 so that "sexual orientation of the individual" more strongly impacted the granting of security clearances. The Pentagon also admitted to spying on groups opposed to the ban on gays and lesbians in the military.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

Tony Snow, an anchor from the slavishly pro-Bush Fox News, became White House Press Secretary. Fox continued featuring propagandist on-screen text, including: "Attacking Capitalism: Have Dems Declared War on America?"
"Is the Democratic Party Soft on Terror?"
"Dems Helping the Enemy?"
"Is the Liberal Media Helping to Fuel Terror?"

ABC did its pro-Bush part by running a factually-inaccurate miniseries shifting blame for the 9/11 attacks towards Bill Clinton. Intriguingly, an ABC investigative journalist had reported months earlier that the Bush administration was tracking his phone calls to identify confidential sources.

In February 2006, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Bush administration was spending more than a billion dollars each year on PR to promote its dubious policies. The FCC soon began investigating the administration's fake news reports, but that didn't stop the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from issuing taxpayer-funded misinformation criticizing the global-warming film, An Inconvenient Truth.

In August, the US military offered a $20 million public relations contract to sanitize the carnage in Iraq. Months later, a Pentagon self-assessment unsurprisingly found that the military's propaganda program in Iraq was, in fact, legal.

Thanks to Bush's partisan appointments, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (mandated to prevent political interference in public broadcasting) is now run by: CEO Patricia S. Harrison, former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee; Chairperson Cheryl Halpern, a Republican fund-raiser; and Gay Hart Gaines, an interior designer "long active in Republican Party affairs ... a trustee of the Palm Beach County Republican Party, and a board member and president of the Palm Beach Republican Club."

A recently-declassified Pentagon document entitled "Information Operations Roadmap" states that the Defense Department will "'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system." The document also notes that US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum."

Meanwhile, domestic net neutrality remains under threat.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting "national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

Congress renewed the US Patriot Act in March, after a well-timed nerve agent scare on Capitol Hill. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and other prominent Democrats spoke of civil liberties yet voted for Patriot II.

Federal agents without warrants continued eavesdropping on the electronic communications of US citizens.

While under investigation in the Plamegate CIA leak case, Presidential advisor Karl Rove promised to turn terror into a congressional campaign issue. Schools in many states began conducting terrorism lockdown drills.

In October, Bush signed the John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act, weakening the 200-year-old Insurrection Act and increasing the president's power to deploy troops domestically. According to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), the development "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law."

The Senate finished up 2006 by unanimously voting for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA), an unwieldy bureaucracy charged with developing drugs and vaccines to deal with a domestic terrorist attack. BARDA is so secret it will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

Other pending "biodefense" legislation not only mandates that US citizens take recommended vaccines or drugs during a "public health emergency affecting national security" but also indemnifies both the US government and biodefense manufacturers against any resulting injuries.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the "godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

One perk of Bush's pandering to the religious right is the blind devotion he often receives in return. For example, the online Presidential Prayer Team had this "request" for December 28, 2006:
"Pray for President and Mrs. Bush as they spend the Christmas holiday at their Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, TX. Pray for the President as on December 28, he meets with the members of the National Security Council, including Vice President Cheney, Secretaries Rice and Gates, Gen. Peter Pace, Stephen Hadley, and J.D. Crouch ... As candidates continue to declare their intent to run for the presidency, pray for God's guiding of this process, asking Him for godly candidates and for a leader to be elected who will serve Him well."

Bush isn't above blurring the line between divine will and partisan politics himself. In proclaiming a National Day of Prayer this May, he noted: "May our Nation always have the humility to trust in the goodness of God's plans."

God's plans or Bush's plans?

The administration has also broken ground in providing government funding to religious groups - separation of church and state be damned. In FY 2005, for example, religious charities were awarded federal grants totaling $2.15 billion, a 7% increase over 2004. A full eleven federal agencies have now become part of Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program, most recently, the Homeland Security Department. In February, the IRS reported widespread political activity violations by churches and charities, including using the pulpit to endorse candidates, distributing partisan material and making improper cash donations.

* * *Look for the second half of "Bush and the F-word in 2006: Police State or Progressivism in 2007?" on Tuesday. Part II finishes reviewing Bush's record in 2006, makes predictions for 2007, and discusses how to ensure a more progressive future.

See you Tuesday -

Heather Wokusch is the author of The Progressives' Handbook: Get the Facts and Make a Difference Now series (listen to Heather's recent interviews on the books with Talk Nation Radio's Dori Smith). Heather can be contacted via her site www.heatherwokusch.com.

Christmas is CRAZY TIME for Reich-Wing Whack-Jobs

CactusPat — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 17:35:28 -0500

Not that they need a special time to be more whacked than what is normal (for them), but doncha think Christmas is CRAZY TIME for Reich-wing whack-jobs? Just this week as examples, we have Virginia congressman and whack-job extraordinaire Virgil Goode layin' down an anti-muslim racist screed in a letter to his constituents.

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States" if we do not adopt "strict immigration policies."

Then, not to be out bigoted by a Virginian, NC Congress-critter and also Reich-wing Bible-thumpin' whack-job extraordinaire, Robin Hayes has suggested the solution to the Iraq war is to have our soldiers convert all Muslims to Christianity.

"Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior." (more)

We also have Fox News w/radio talk show whackjob Tom Gallagher calling for "treasonous Liberals" to be locked up...

Talk Host Gallagher: ‘Round Up’ Olbermann, Damon, And ‘Put Them In A Detention Camp’
Yesterday on Fox News, talk radio host Mike Gallagher said the U.S. government should “round up” actor Matt Damon, “The View” host Joy Behar, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and “put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they’re a bunch of traitors.”

Gallagher was upset over Behar’s comment that Time magazine should have chosen a controversial “Hitler-type” like Donald Rumsfeld as its Person of the Year. Gallagher said Damon should also be incarcerated because he “attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney”; he didn’t explain why he wanted to imprison Olbermann. Watch it:

Anyone have more examples of "CRAZY TIME"? Post 'em below in comments...

Granny Bee – Merry Solstice

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:41:33 -0500

Listen to your granny!

Granny Bee is now regularly featured on the
Jeff Alan Wolf Show on ZTLK.com and RadioPower.org

Granny Bee

MORE MORE MORE

11/20/06 – Merry Solstice (2:00) Real .mp3

Granny asks, "Why should we let anyone make this a divisive time of year, when for many, many thousands of years it has been a time of togetherness and understanding?"

Sources:
Solstice
History of the Christmas Tree

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

Guest Commentary: Killing Conservatism

Chip — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:08:16 -0500

Killing Conservatism
by Bob Burnett

With conservatives still reeling from their losses in the mid-term election, and President Bush's approval ratings heading for record lows, for the first time in six years liberals have something to cheer about. Rather than gloat about Bush's ineptness, or the failure of the GOP-controlled 109th Congress, liberals should focus on their opportunity to sink the conservative ideology that has dominated American politics for twenty-five years.

There are ten pillars of conservative political wisdom that liberals should attack:

1. Government is bad: Conservatives believe the Federal government is unnecessary, except for the military. They maintain that entitlements for the disadvantaged-the poor, elderly, and disabled-are counter-productive, as they foster dependency. Most Americans believe in the necessity for the Federal government and these entitlements. It's the role of liberals to provide a new justification for government, in general.

2. Competence is overrated: Because conservatives don't believe in government, they feel the only salient qualification for political office-such as President and Vice President-is ideological purity. As a result, the Bush White House has proved to be the most conservative and least competent Administration in modern political history. Liberals must insist that elected officials have a record of accomplishment; they should believe in working for the common good and know what they are doing.

3. Cutting taxes fixes everything: Beginning in 2001, the conservative Bush Administration reduced taxes, claiming this would reduce the size of the Federal government and a "rising tide would lift all boats." Instead, this ill-considered "panacea" created a record Federal debt and lifted only the yachts of the rich. Liberals need to roll back these tax cuts and take a stand for fiscal sanity.

4. The market will provide: Conservatives believe that, in the absence of Federal programs, the market will solve national problems. America's healthcare crisis demonstrates that this is naïve: the market doesn't care about problems that affect the average American. And, the market doesn't respond to disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. Liberals should argue that only government can solve certain national problems and resurrect the notion that government provides a "the safety net."

5. Our best foreign policy is a strong military: Even though the US has by far the largest Defense budget in the world, conservatives continue to lobby for billions of dollars for wasteful Pentagon projects. They argue that big is better, that America's best defense is a strong military. They ignore the fact that our armed forces didn't protect us on 9/11 and haven't won the war in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Conservatives also argue that the military is our best instrument of foreign policy. It's time for liberals to demand a complete review of our defense strategy and foreign policy.

6. The U.S. is at war: Since 9/11, conservatives have argued we're engaged in a "war on terror." But we're not. Terrorism isn't a military campaign waged by countries that don't like us; it's a social disease that requires America to use a variety of means to combat extremists. Liberals need to stop calling this a war and begin lobbying for a balanced campaign that includes diplomacy and use of police and intelligence resources.

7. Don't ask questions: President Bush has consistently argued that it's not necessary to understand why terrorists want to attack us, all that's required is knowing they "hate our freedom." However, most experts on terrorism argue that terrorists have readily understandable motives, and we can head off future attacks by understanding what these motives are: for example, they want us to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.

8. Trust the Commander-in-chief: Since 9/11, Bush and his conservative supporters have argued that the President, as commander-in-chief, has special responsibilities that obviate the necessity for the balance-of-powers logic in the Constitution: because the US is at "war" the President is above the law. Liberals need to attack this notion and roll back legislation that restricts our civil-rights.

9. America can go it alone: A cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the belief that our allies are stupid and, therefore, don't care if we act like bullies most of the time. The Bush Administration philosophy assumes that since the US has a bloated military, it doesn't matter whether or not we use diplomacy or participate in international organizations. Conservatives believe that because America is big and powerful we can do whatever we want in the world: go it alone. Liberals need to point out that the strategy hasn't proven successful, that it hasn't built the alliances required to solve problems such as terrorism, AIDS, and global warming.

10. Winning is everything: Finally, the operating philosophy of conservatives has been that it doesn't matter how you accomplish your objectives, just that you win: the ends justify the means. This has been the modus operandi of a conservative Bush Administration that lied to the American people. Liberals need to stand up for telling the truth, argue that Americans are governed by a morality that that values the common good, and places the public interest above personal ambition.

In short, liberals need to provide a resounding defense of democracy.

###

Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.

A half-billion dollars to secure a worthless legacy

BushFlash — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:16:16 -0500

Click for video

How to you smear lipstick on the worst presidency in our nation's history? Ask corporate donors and arab governments and businessmen to pony up half a billion dollars to build the largest presidential library in the country.

The most frightening aspect of this is that they're going to use part of the cash to set up a thinktank modelled after the Reagan Legacy Project, which will have as its primary goal, the re-writing of history, portraying Bush Jr. as a misunderstood genius who was only guilty of being a tad before his time.