More of the Devil......

On my September 24 post, I talked about Rush Limbaugh calling Tom Daschle "The Devil" as I was talking about right-wing outrage of Hugo Chavez's "El Diablo" remark in front of the United Nations.

Well, in a reportedly "tongue-in-cheek" remark at the recent "Value Voters Summit" (which could have very well been named the "Summit for people who love the baby Jesus and vote according to what extreme evangelical bullies tell them"), everyone's favorite Christian - Jerry Falwell - made the following statement:

"I hope she's the candidate," Falwell said, "because nothing will energize my constituency like Hillary Clinton. If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

So these loving, caring, love-your-neighbor-unless-she-happens-to-be-Hillary-Clinton Christians would rally around the defeat of Hillary Clinton before rallying around the defeat of Lucifer?!?!

But when you combine Hugo Chavez's U.N. remarks and the 2004 evangelical vote, I guess they already did.

More info:
ABC provided no Clinton response to Falwell's "Lucifer" comparison and no rebuttal to Perkins's smear of Dems

When is the media going to stop giving George Allen a pass?

Senator George Allen (R-VA) is in the headlines again.

From the Associated Press (AP): "Dr. Ken Shelton, now a radiologist in Hendersonville, N.C., also alleges that Allen, a former University of Virginia quarterback, once stuffed the severed head of a deer into a black household's oversized mail box."

Allen "vehemently denied the allegations" in an AP interview.

Dr. Shelton's allegations were printed in an article published yesterday on Salon.com, which said that Allen frequently used racial slurs when referring to black people, and in one instance, stuffed the deer head into a black household's mailbox. Shelton claimed that this occurred soon after the movie "The Godfather" came out, which had a severed horse head in a bed.

The problem is that Allen has recently been in the news for using the term "macaca" to refer to one of his opponent's campaign workers (who is of Indian descent).

AP refers to the "macaca" incident, saying, "The word denotes a genus of monkeys and, in some cultures, is considered an ethnic slur, but the senator insists he did not know that and had simply made the word up."

"...made the word up."???

Media Matters For America noted that the word "macaca" has North African origins in its use as a racial slur, and that Allen's mother was born and raised in Tunisia, a part of North Africa.

Is it really that inconceivable that Allen had heard that word before? Or did he really just magically make up a word that is a racial slur? And when is the mainstream media going to quit giving him a pass by letting him repeat the fact that he made the word up?

more info:
Sen. Allen denies using racial slur
Media Matters For America article

Rush Limbaugh a hypocrite? No.......

If you haven't heard, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to our President, George W. Bush, as 'the devil' in front of the United Nations last week. And Rush Limbaugh (among others) was so angry. Mad, I tell you, pissed off. He would never stoop so low....oh wait, yes he would.

Besides stooping to the level of referring to Chelsea Clinton as "the Clinton's dog" (when she was 13 years old - what a heartless bastard!) he referred to Democratic leader Tom Daschle as, you guessed it, "El Diablo" while playing "Devil in a Blue Dress" theme music.

Here's Limbaugh in July 2001: "Just yesterday, as Bush winged his way to Europe on a crucial mission to lead our allies into the 21st century...up pops 'El Diablo,' Tom Daschle, and his devilish deviltry, claiming that George Bush is incompetent."

So, if you haven't figured it out by now, Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritical bastard. But this isn't the first time. Remember when a prosecutor wanted to dig through his medical records and he claimed a 'right to privacy' after talking on his radio show about how the US Constitution does not guarantee a 'right to privacy'?

Seems to be the Limbaugh M.O.

more info:
What's Wrong With Calling Bush A Devil?

McCain's on the campaign trail

This morning on NBC's Today show, Senator John McCain was asked by Matt Lauer about the agreement reached between the White House and Sens. McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham.

The White House has been wanting to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions, and by "clarify," they mean to "define it the way we [the Bush administration] want it defined." Keep in mind that no other country has sought to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions, specifically common article 3, which deals with prisoners of war and how they must be treated.

"Clarification" to the Bush administration seeks to define common article 3 in such a way as to allow certain "interrogation techniques" which most people have defined as "torture" or even "torture light."

McCain, Warner and Graham were the three Republican senators who actually stood up to the Bush administration against this, stating that redefining the Geneva Conventions to suit our whim would make it seem appropriate for other countries to redefine them for their own purposes - and that puts American troops in more danger. How could we speak out against a country who is not treating our POW's by the Geneva Conventions if we had redefined them for our own purposes?

Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell wrote a letter to McCain, in which he said, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

As McCain was being interviewed by Matt Lauer this morning, he was saying that both he and the White House had won because of the compromise they reached, adding that the only people who did not get their way were people "like the ACLU" who doesn't want us to be able to interrogate prisoners at all.

That shows that McCain is already on the '08 campaign trail and has already resorted to lying. I have found no sources where the ACLU has ever said we should not interrogate prisoners or suspected terrorists. They have spoken out against torture and secret evidence issues regarding terror suspects, but they have never said, "You can't interrogate them."

Unfortunately, McCain has started his campaign out with false accusations and lies. You would think that as a former soldier and POW who was tortured in Vietnam, he would have morals to not only stand up against torture, but also against lying.

I guess not.

more info:
GOP split as Senate panel bucks Bush on terror tribunals

The Pope's gonna have to beef up his security now

So we now see images of protests, riots, fires and more as the result of outrage against the Pope for recent statements. Pope Benedict XVI read a statement from a 14th Century Byzantine emperor (Manuel II Paleologus for all you history buffs) which said, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

"...His command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." So in the 14th Century, the Byzantine emperor was accusing Muslims of spreading their faith through violence, and when those words were read aloud by Pope Benedict XVI in the 21st Century, the Muslim world shows just how wrong those statements were (the part about spreading faith by the sword, which is rather 'violent') by fire-bombing churches in the West Bank, rioting, setting shit on fire and other acts of _____________? (Hint: "violence").

Today's lesson: The best way to show that your religion is not violent is to not set shit on fire when you get offended. (This lesson also applies to people who assassinate abortion doctors, so any non-Muslim extremists should also learn this lesson.)

more info:
Pope upset that Muslims offended

Just one more reason why you should love Keith Olbermann

The following is by Keith Olbermann, published on September 11, 2006, five years after the infamous attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The original link where this is found is at the bottom.

"This hole in the ground"
by Keith Olbermann.

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Original link at MSNBC: Click Here.

Warrantless=Unconstitutional - at the Capital City Free Press

This is delayed as I have been away for awhile, and if you are in Cozumel, Mexico, find "Casa Denis" and order the 'Cochinita Pibil.' It's a great dish, as eaten by Johnny Depp in the movie "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" (although in the movie, it is called 'Puerco Pibil.')

Anyway...my September column for the Capital City Free Press is now online (and has been for a few days now). It has to do with Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling on the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

Excerpt:

"Many argue that in a time of war, the president's first priority is to protect Americans, and that he can do anything needed in order to do that, however he is supposed to do everything "in his power" to protect Americans. Breaking the law and dismissing the Constitution is not a "power" given to him by the Constitution."

Read the entire article here.