Facism in America

http://www.eclectablog.com/2011/12/emergency-manager-near-for-inkster-with.html

So, according to the Republican party, we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in order to "bring them freedom and democracy." So why is that here in the US , that same party is arguing that democracy must be removed in order to save working class and black Americans from themselves. In Michigan, Republican governor Rick Snyder has instituted an "emergency manager" law that allows him to replace all local elected officials with "emergency managers" who rule their cities as unchecked tyrants.

Detroit would be the 7th city to have its elected government replaced by a state-appointed dictator. And with it, over 50% of African Americans in Michigan would be stripped right to an elected local government. The fight for democracy is on - it's just closer to home than some of us expected.

The Wealthy are "Job Creators"? Please.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

To follow up on yesterday's "John Boehner says tax cuts for the middle class are chicken shit" post, here is GOP supercommittee member Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) admitting that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy didn't create jobs. Even as Senate Republicans filibustered a plan to extend the wildly popular (even among Republicans!) payroll tax cut this week, claiming that it "hasn't created jobs," they are doubling down on their narrative that the wealthy can't be taxed because it will "kill jobs."

When Rep. Upton was asked on Bloomberg News why more jobs were created in the higher tax Clinton years than the lower tax Bush years, he couldn't answer. Indeed, the years of greatest job growth in the US since 1950 have all had top marginal tax rates (i.e. taxes on all income made beyond the first $250,000) of 70 percent or higher. The idea that lower taxes on the wealthy means higher job growth is intellectually bankrupt, plain and simple.

Why Do Young Voters Love Ron Paul?

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/28/why_young_voters_love_ron_paul/singleton/

Why do young conservatives love Ron Paul? It's not. as many conservative intellectuals dismissively purport, because he supports Marijuana legalization or because college kids "naively" cling to his brand of conservatism. It's because they agree with Rep. Paul that our imperialist foreign policy is making America less safe.

It's a real shame that Paul's popular foreign policy positions "are either ignored or mocked by a political and media culture that is ideologically invested in marginalizing them."

Mitt Romney - Change We Can Believe In?

For your viewing pleasure, here's a slightly younger Mitt Romney doing retail campaigning and boasting about not being a "career politician." Romney's "outsider" label is still something he's trying to use to sell his candidacy. What's the problem with this narrative? This clip is from 1994.

Shock and Awe Comes to America

Shock doctrine 101:

Step 1: Put the economy into a "crisis" or "state of emergency" (George W. Bush, Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, etc.). It doesn't have to be a real crisis, you just have to claim there is one.

Step 2: Claim unprecedented executive powers "confront" the crisis YOU created/fabricated.

Step 3: Use those powers to privatize anything you can get your hands on. Massively deregulate corporations and cut their taxes. Bust unions and attack the public sector. This sets up the perfect conditions for another crisis.

Step 4: Repeat as needed until pesky middle class removed.

The "shock and awe" used to bring the free market to Afghanistan and Iraq has come to the USA. This is disaster capitalism at its worst. This is a war on people who have to work for a living, and it's about time we fought back.

The War on Women

Republicans want to simultaneously end all federal funding of contraception providers and criminalize abortion. Can't they just come out and say that they think bundles of cells are worth more than living, breathing women already? It's a war on women, nothing more, and nothing less.

For more information, see this story from TPMDC discussing the pro-choice fight against the Republican efforts. Also check this great post at Shakesville shellacking Republicans for their hypocrisy on the sanctity of human life.

Return to the Rule of Law?

Breaking News: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other men accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks will finally be put on trial in NYC. Unfortunately, it was also announced that 5 other men will face military commissions. Regardless, though this is specifically being politically framed as bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, it is a massive step in favor of law and order. President Obama is finally fulfilling President Bush's promise to bring the accused 9/11 conspirators to justice. This is a huge political risk for President Obama. If successful, the trials will make him a man of justice, and if plagued by complications from US-committed torture could be a major political albatross.

The GOP of course, is outraged. Surprise, surprise. Some pretty crazy things are being said by individuals such as Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. John McCain, but the crown jewel of crazy goes to former NYC Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox that "We think they're criminals! These are soldiers in a war against us; and the rules of war should apply." Apparently the new chapter in Republican revisionist history is that we have treated these men as "prisoners of war" and should continue to do so. If they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply. Are you and the Republican party willing to accept that Mr. Giuliani? The hypocrisy of these men is astounding, as they flood the media with the message that these accused terrorists are POWs and hence can't be tried in civilian court. A reminder to Mr. Giuliani, Sens. McCain and Sessions and their ilk: it was you who supported the declassification of these men as POWs and the creation of the "Geneva Convention-immune" classification of "enemy combatant". You cannot call them POWs again out of convenience after 8 years of illegal detention, torture and Geneva Convention violations. That is revisionist history and blatantly deceptive.

Additionally, the Republicans seem to be arguing that the US courts are incapable of dealing with terrorism cases. As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, this is an absurd proposition. We've imprisoned Charles Manson, the "blind sheik", the "unabomber", the "shoe bomber" and even another 9/11 conspirator through the federal courts. This, as Maddow points out, is sheer cowardice.

I would go further than Maddow does though and outline the political implications of these proceedings for Republicans. I believe that the Republicans do have legitimate reasons to be afraid, though not for the safety of the American people. Rather, the Republicans are all too aware that these trials for the first time will allow the Guantanomo detainees to testify in a real American court about the torture they were subjected to at the hands of the US. No longer will the culpability of the Bush White House's torture program be shielded by a censor and thick glass, as Wizner described it as being in the Gitmo military tribunals. If the details of detainees gruesome torture at the hands of US operatives becomes public, Republicans could be forced to answer for the Bush administration's actions. I'd be panicking if I were them too.

For this blog, the timing of this decision couldn't be better. In my recent posts on Ben Wizner's talks, I quoted him as saying that "[state] secrecy is the source of rot". If AG Holder is serious about these prosecutions, and the accused 9/11 conspirators are only the first of many to face constitutional justice, our long national nightmare of secret torture may finally come to an end. That end is still a long way off, but today marks a historic first step. Friday night is when the most contentious policies are always announced (nobody listens to the news Friday night. Except me.), but this story will hopefully dominate the news for a long time.

Further Viewing:

On the decision to put the 5 men on trial and Republican outrage:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On the challenges facing the court and a possible referendum on the Bush torture policy:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Did The CIA Lie to Nancy Pelosi?

According to a report yesterday from The Hill, Nancy Pelosi's claim that she and other congressmen/women were mislead on multiple occasions by the CIA could be bolstered by an ongoing House Intelligence Committee investigation. The investigation was spurred by the new CIA Director Leon Panetta's admission that several CIA officials didn't notify congress about a program to assassinate al Qaeda leaders. Nancy Pelosi has been under constant assault from Republicans since she made the claim in May that: "We were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used... They [the CIA] misled us all the time".

Now, House Intelligence subcommittee Chairwoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is saying that the Panetta admission is just one of five instances of a critical breakdown in communications between the CIA and congress. Said Schakowsy:

There have been many instances where we’ve come to a committee hearing, after having read in the paper of something that should have been notified to us, where it’s followed up my mea culpas by the intelligence community... And examples where the committee actually has been lied to.

Apparently, the instances of omission, misleading and outright lying to congress are not limited to torture techniques. Of further interest is that Dick Cheney apparently ordered the CIA not to notify congress about the al Queda assassination program and potentially other programs.

Conspiracy to deceive congress is criminal. I hope that serious investigation into the CIA and Dick Cheney comes of this, though I'm not holding my breath. Expect more from this fascinating story as the House Intelligence subcommittee's investigation continues. In the meantime, enjoy this lovely clip of "Fox and Friends" getting the story on Nancy Pelosi's May assertion really, really wrong:



Got to love the torture apologia coming out of the guest's mouth. "We were all scared after 9/11" is the worst excuse out there. And then he defends Bush's torture record by asserting that Bush won in a "relative landslide" in 2004 (Reminder: these were the election results. Not impressive for an incumbent.). I suppose any electoral victory could be called a landslide in comparison to the 2000 election, but that's just intellectually dishonest. Then again, it's "Fox & Friends"

September Torture News Round-Up

1. Legal News: Spanish Court asking US DOJ for info on Bush-era Torture Practices: The Spanish Court, which announced its intent to investigate Bush administration officials on their role in the US torture program, is now officially requesting new information from the Holder DOJ.Though many cry foul at the Spanish investigating the US, the "Audiencia Nacional", or Spanish National Security Court maintains jurisdiction because Spanish citizens were some of the victims of the torture program. How the Holder DOJ responds is anybody's guess (mine is they won't), but this is the story to watch as an indicator of international legal momentum on the US torture program.

On a more frustrating domestic note, GOP senators have pulled out of the inquiry into the CIA torture plan. Apparently they are so outraged by Holder's decision to investigate the torture program that they refuse to take part in the Senate's effort to investigate the torture program. Huh?

2. Bagram News: The US has issued new guidelines granting significantly more rights to prisoners being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Each detainee is being assigned one military official who will gather witnesses and evidence. They still don't get Geneva rights, lawyers or habeus corpus, but it's a step in the right direction.

3. Gitmo News: Some huge news on the Gitmo front. Apparently the January deadline that Obama set for closing Gitmo in the beginning of his presidency is no longer hard. Obama says he's committed to closing the prison, but that more time will be needed to process all the cases. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the deadline was good politics but "it's going to be tough" to meet the January deadline. As much of a blow as this is to those of us who think that the time to close Guantanamo for Obama was when he took office, he's at least releasing 75 of the 223 prisoners still in Gitmo. Though the prisoners still are being denied their basic rights, it's a relief to see that steps are being taken towards their release.

Matthew Shepard Act Passes in House

The Matthew Shepard Act, which would extend federal protection to LGBT victims of violence under a hate-crimes passed in the House yesterday by a 249-175 vote. This is a landmark bill that hopefully will help make sure that perpetrators of hate crimes like the men who killed Matthew Shepard in 1998. It's times like these that I'm glad that there's a 78-seat Democratic party advantage in the House. Hopefully the more problematic (and undemocratic) will pull through and rally behind the Matthew Shepard act for what it is: the next major step in civil rights.

With a bill that does nothing but protect individuals from hate-crimes based on avictim’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, one might wonder what those 175 representatives objected to. The answer, according to a Fox News story is that social conservatives feel that the Matthew Shepard Act chills free speech. Really? Last time I checked, tying a 21 year old boy to fence, pistol whipping him, torturing him, crushing his brain stem and leaving him to die in rural Laramie isn't free speech. Hate-crimes bills aren't designed to quash dissenting ideas, they seek to protect individuals from violent offenses based on their identity. Shame on you House Republicans. This is beyond political, its inhuman.

The far-right position that protecting people like Matthew Shepard is a bad idead isn't even as crazy as the Republican response gets. We expect more out of the party of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, right? An article in the Huffington Post shares the delifghtful opinion of North Carolina congresswoman Virginia Foxx that Matthew Shepard's death was all a hoax. In her alternate reality, Matthew Shepard was merely the victim of a robbery, and his death as a victim of a hate-crime was invented to further the liberal agenda and impose "oppresive" bills that protect the innocent like the Matthw Shepard Act. Though Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax", Shepard's mother Judy wasn't exactly mollified saying: "It's apologizing for semantics, not her ignorance". Tell it like it is Judy!

In response to the passage of the Matthew Shepard Bill in the House, the always awesome Rachel Maddow had Judy Shepard on to discuss the new bill. The interview is absolutely brilliant and very moving. Check it out:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel Maddow's impassioned defense of hate-crimes legislation from the segment is also perhaps the best I've ever heard:

"MADDOW: The concept behind this kind of legislation is often misconstrued but here's the deal as I understand it. The idea is that the federal Justice Department can get involved in a case to help local authorities or even to take the lead on a case if need be, in prosecuting individual serious violet crimes and murders in which the victim was selected on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, disability - the idea that crimes like that are intended not only to hurt or murder an individual, but to terrorize an entire community, and so there is a national interest in ensuring that those crimes are solved and prosecuted, particularly if local law enforcement doesn't want to because they are blinkered by the same prejudice that led to the crime in the first place."

Hate-crimes bills aren't about political corectness: this is protecting real people's lives and real endangered commmunities.

Floods and Homophobia

I'd like to start by bringing your attention to the terrible floods currently threatening Fargo, ND and parts of Minnesota. Picture the Iowa floods except the rivers have ice floes the size of cars on them.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Now how does this relate to the gays you might ask. It would take someone of extraordinarily poor ethics and particularly lax journalistic standards to be able to relate the two wouldn't it? Enter Rush Limbaugh. Only Limbaugh could use the tragic Red River flooding in North Dakota to make some "dike" jokes. I kid you not. What's really frustrating is that Rush is taking such obvious advantage of a national tragedy to be a partisan hack. This is the epitome of heartless unpatriotic behavior. Shame on you Mr. Limbaugh.

DeMint and the Freedom Fighters

I don't know if these extremists could sound more like Big Brother if they tried. I mean what's next, loyalty oaths?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Video Courtesy of the "Rachel Maddow Show", 1-22-09.

You'd think that the far right reactionaries in the Republican party would attempt to remain relevant by toning down their rhetoric. Former President (!) GW Bush was only to happy to use the divisive us vs. them rhetoric that Sen. DeMint so classily wields in this video. Maybe he didn't get the memo, but that's not such a good way to become relevant in the Obama administration. As Obama himself reminded Senate Republicans: he won. There's a reason for that.

America is not crying out for more Reactionary faux-patriotic rhetoric: we voted that out of office. The man who championed and put in the spotlight the "freedom fighter" McCarthyist rhetoric left office three days ago with a 22% approval rating, the lowest ever excepting Nixon. Let the long slide into irrelevavence continue for Demint and his ilk. The reasonable Republicans will moderate themselves for the new administration and shifting public opinion. Demint and his fellow "freedom fighters" are in for a rude awakening.