Ideological Liberalism v The Electoral Politics of Shortsighted DEMs

· Sen. Barack Obama defended Sen. Hillary Clinton for describing the House of Representatives as a "plantation," saying he felt her choice of words referred to a "consolidation of power" in Washington that squeezes out the voters. Senator [Barrack Obama] told CNN's "American Morning" that he believed that Hillary Clinton was merely expressing concern that special interests play such a large role in writing legislation that "the ordinary voter and even members of Congress who aren't in the majority party don't have much input. There's been a consolidation of power by the Republican Congress and this White House in which, if you are the ordinary voter, you don't have access. That should be a source of concern for all of us."

· "Since [the Democrats] think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I'm actually willing to lead the slave rebellion." (Newt Gingrich circa 1994.)

· Sen. Barack Obama gently criticized two comments by civil rights activist Harry Belafonte in which he [Belafonte] called the Department of Homeland Security a "new Gestapo" and referred to President Bush as "the greatest terrorist in the world." "I never use Nazi analogies because I think that those were unique," Obama (D-IL) said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

------
I don't know what the hell Clinton meant by such a comment. Noone (Black, White, or Other) should feel comfortable making present-day analogies to the economic system that depended on the brutal and de-humanizing nature of the slave trade and Americanized slavery. When one does that, they exaggerate whatever difficulties they are experiencing, while simultaneously understating the vicious brutality inherent in slavery and the slave-related system of government (plantations, et al). There is noone alive today that can make the comparison b/w slavery and any kind of experienced (perceived) hardship. There should be even less tolerance for such comments to eminate from a privileged and wealthy woman (who may be one of the most powerful people in the world right now, and 1 election away from being the next U.S. President) to make such poor use of words. What's more problematic is that she did it on the MLK Holiday...in front of an all-Black (presumanly DEM-leaning) audience...and received no retribution for it because DEMs are too worried about re-election and removing REPUB control from the White House, Congress, the Judiciary, etc. ("Man, we can't condemn Hillary...because she's OUR only hope" goes the mantra). The public outcry was interestingly muted, if not totally silent. Some conservative outlets were saying that the DEMs were being hypocritical since they almost lost their minds in '94 when Newt Gingrich made a "plantation" reference...or when Clarence Thomas said his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings resembled a "high tech lynching." When you are a DEM, you [today] support DEMs even when they don't deserve that kind of respect. When you are a philosophical LIBERAL, then you attack hypocrisy, no matter what/who the originating source. There are too few LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES...and too many weak, spineless DEMs positioning for power. To become relevant and impactful, DEMs must maintain a liberal philosophical spirit, while NOT simultaneously selling their collective soul[s] in a lust for political change and power.

Progressively,
LeftAngst

Bush On "Roving" Domestic Wiretaps THEN...and Bush On "Roving" Domestic Wiretaps NOW

"So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means. Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution." (President George W. Bush on the importance to homeland security of information sharing and the Patriot Act that was part of "Conversation on the U.S.A. Patriot Act" in Kleinshans Music Hall in Buffalo, New York, on April 20, 2004.).

Congress has a dual role to: (1) "set" (ie establish, create, make) law, and (2) enforce federal law law. Federal compliance rules do NOT allow for incorrect interpretations of federal law to serve as valid support for a President's ability to abdicate adherence to the U.S. Constitution and/or federal law that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. There is no Presidential precident during wartime (when actual War was declared by Congress---- please note that Congress did NOT even declare war on Iraq, al-Quaeda, etc...which would have triggered some other very specific powers) that allows for the circumvention of federal law, or the ability to sidestep the check-and-balances of both the judiciary (FISA Court) or the legislative (Congress) bodies.

The idea that the post-9/11 resolution gave the Prez a "blank check" is disingenuous (at best) and dangerous (at worst). The resolution gave the Prez the ability to use absolute and full force, as commander-in-chief, to capture and bring-to-justice the perpetrators of 9/11 and RELATED terrorist acts. The President's commander-in-chief powers are limited to his position as commander-in-chief of the military (the resolution authorized him to utilize military forces to bring al-Quaeda perpetrators to justice). The resolution does NOT allow the President to circumvent the Constitution, or existing international/domestic law (both of which are engrossed in the Constitution at Article VI para 2 --- "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."). If W thought he got a blank check --- and everyone believed that he got a blank check --- then there would be NO ISSUE OR DEBATE RELATED TO (a) TORTURE, OR (b) CRUEL, INHUMAN[E], AND DEGRADING TREATMENT THAT FALLS BELOW THE TORTURE THRESHHOLD. The President would say "Hey, these are a part of my commander-in-chief powers (absolute force), and I am going to torture and maim in order to keep America secure from terrorism." But --- Nope! --- he can't use that because the U.N. Charter, U.S. War Powers Act (1973), U.N. Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Article II), U.N. Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, U.S. War Crimes Act (1945), U.N. Convention On The Rights Of Children, and FISA (anti-wiretapping law w/o FISA Court approval) all do NOT allow for Congress to grant the President with the autority to circumvent federal law, nor do they allow for the President to do so by Executive Fiat.

Progressively,

LeftAngst

Does the so-called "War On Terror" justify the circumventing of the Constitution by the U.S. President?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The President's commander-in-chief powers were NOT 'upped' --- in such a manner by the Congressional Resolution to "use all necessary force" in the so-called "War on Terror" or the UNRELATED attack on the sovereignty of Iraq --- to allow for the circumvention of constitutional, applicable, and appropriate federal laws. As is only being reiterated by alternative media and CPWs ("Certified Policy Wonks") like myself, the Prez and Sr. Administration officials have circumvented federal laws that include, but are NOT limited to, the following: FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), Article VI para 2 of the U.S. Constitution ("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."), U.N. Charter, U.S. War Powers Act (1973), U.N. Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Article II), U.N. Geneva Conventions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, U.S. War Crimes Act (1945), and the U.N. Convention On The Rights Of Children. There is a clear and present danger imposed by such a a willful sidestep of federal law (esp regarding FISA), and the fact that the Prez's public acknowledgment that such ILLEGAL conduct would continue to be claimed and justified by his [misapplied, misinterpreted] commander-in-chief powers. The Prez's commander-in-chief powers give him command of all related U.S. *military * forces (Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, National Reserve, militarized units of the Pentagon, covert units of the Pentagon such as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), etc) in the implementation of a forceful militarized strike against a U.S. enemy. The Prez's commander-in-chief powers do NOT extend to civilian government espionage agencies like the FBI, CIA, or NSA (domestic wiretapping and domestic "roving" wiretapping was conducted under the auspices of the NSA w/o FISA Court approval).
Arlen Specter, Republican head of the Judiciary Committee (and a lawyer) confirmed that the violation of such constitutional federal laws (FISA was the example utilized) would be an impeachable offense...for which criminal proceedings would [then] be triggered.

All liberals and progressives should be mad as hell. All conservatives and libertarians (I hope that there are some principled ones still remaining in the REPUB camp) should be afraid of how this kind of unbridled IMPERIAL power could be wielded against their interests under a DEM (or any non-REPUB) Prez Adm...say circa 2008.

Progressively,
LeftAngst