On the Brink of 'Theocracy'

Reverend Carlton W. Veazey
Center for American Progress
May 5, 2005

Progressives who think warnings about "theocracy" are an exaggeration should take a closer look at "Justice Sunday: Filibustering People of Faith," the Christian Right telethon headlined by Senate Majority Leader William Frist. Envision the carefully designed image that the far-right Family Research Council, the main organizer of the April 24 event, beamed into conservative churches across the country: a political rally from a large, comfortable mega-church in Louisville, with a middle-class audience listening with rapt attention to political operatives who self-identify as religious leaders-and at the bottom of the screen, streaming video with the photos, names and phone numbers of targeted U.S. senators. The visual message was clear: the church is dominant over the state and senators should toe the line on eliminating the filibuster and confirming Bush judges or pay the price.

There is a right way and a wrong way to engage religious voices in the public square. I believe "Justice Sunday" reflects the latter and highlights several disturbing trends. I agree with the Rev. Dr. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, who called "Justice Sunday" sacrilegious and said, "The radical religious right turned a sanctuary into a political platform." As a Baptist minister for more than 40 years with a profound respect for religious freedom and pluralism, I fear it will get worse. In fact, I think we are teetering on the brink of theocracy and the Christian Right could conceivably use the battle over the judiciary and weakening support for reproductive rights to push us over the edge. Unfortunately, although Frist has been vigorously, and appropriately, criticized for his poor judgment and political opportunism in taking part in the telethon, the greater problem of sectarian religious manipulation of public policy debates has been minimized. President George W. Bush brushed off a question about the role of faith in politics at his April 28th press conference with the innocuous response that "people in political office should not say to somebody you're not equally American if you don't agree with my view of religion." Rather than give a high school civics lesson, he should have had the courage to disavow the religious arrogance and extremism of "Justice Sunday."

The Christian Right's posture in the showdown over the "nuclear option" has been a stark lesson in how religious language and imagery are inappropriately seeping into government and politics. First, of course, religion is defined as a particular religion and then defined further as a particular brand of that religion so as to exclude all other views and versions as irreligious, immoral, or wrong. Moreover, in this worldview, Christianity and Country are inseparable. One of the "Justice Sunday" speakers, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, put it in terms as chilling to religious liberty and diversity as any I've ever heard. Like other fundamentalists, Mohler believes there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible-his-and he equated the inerrancy of his interpretation of the Bible with the inerrancy of the Constitution, based on his biblical beliefs. In bringing the Bible and the Constitution together, fundamentalists like Mohler are moving toward mainstreaming their biblically based interpretation of the Constitution. Judges would be held to the standard of biblical teachings, as interpreted by fundamentalists. I don't doubt the sincerity of Mohler and other fundamentalist ministers who share this view that the Bible is literally true and they alone know what it means, but they are on dangerous ground when they then suggest that they alone also know what the Constitution means-and that anyone who thinks differently is anti-Christian. Christians have strong differences of opinion on the meaning of scriptures and most of us don't want to see a particular brand of Christianity held up as the only real Christianity. We certainly don't want a particular brand of Christianity enacted as the law of the land.

The theocracy envisioned by the Christian Right centers around their interpretation of "family" and "values," with the U.S. Supreme Court portrayed as the font of the anti-religious moral decay that is destroying America. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, another "Justice Sunday" speaker, railed against the Supreme Court as "arrogant and imperious and determined to redesign the culture according to their own biases and values," holding up the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision for special scorn. Roe v. Wade, abortion rights, and women's rights generally are among the favored code words for the America that the Christian Right loves to attack-an America of women and families where equality is possible. Reproductive justice is an issue on which they hope to divide and conquer progressives.

In my view, the intensifying battle over the courts has brought progressives face-to-face with the need to take a firm stand on the morality of reproductive rights. Not only must we overcome the polarization generated by the Christian Right, we also must find a way to come together in compassionate concern for women and families. Speaking as a minister, I believe that the realities of women's lives must be included in any vision of a moral society that honors individual dignity and worth. I believe that women, and men, cannot live in dignity and equality if they cannot render for themselves their most intimate family decisions. We must affirm that women's reproductive health and decisions about bearing children and forming a family are an integral part of a just society, related to and interdependent with health, legal, economic, racial, environmental, and peace commitments. We must acknowledge that poverty, physical and sexual violence, lack of education, poor health care, lack of affordable quality child care, and other economic and social injustices affect women's options and decisions about childbearing. Whether we are pro-choice or not on the issue of abortion, we must not ignore or further marginalize an aspect of life that is important to both women and men and essential to women's full participation in society. If we do so, we will cause irreparable harm to our own principles of justice and equality.

"Justice Sunday" gave progressives an opportunity to watch the Christian Right at work, stoking fears about change and inciting religious divisiveness. We have also seen, in the past few weeks, other religious and social justice leaders speak out about this divisiveness, including leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the National Council of Churches USA, Presbyterian Church (USA), African Methodist Episcopal Church, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and The Interfaith Alliance. Millions of mainstream, moderate people of faith, and people who profess no faith, are concerned about more than the filibuster and confirming a handful of judges-they are concerned about the direction of their country and the future of a vibrant, inclusive democracy. Decades of progress for minorities, women, religious freedom, the environment, workers' rights, and other issues and groups that had been relatively powerless cannot be lost. Let "Justice Sunday" be a wake-up call; unless we are unified on all of these issues, we are vulnerable.

Reverend Veazey, a minister in the National Baptist Convention USA, has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice since 1997. Founder of the Coalition's Black Church Initiative, he is a leader in progressive social justice causes.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=667491

Wanted: A Massive Movement to Drive the Bush Regime from Power

Revolution #1
May 1, 2005

Other countries have driven hated regimes from power—why not here? Is there any country whose direction has a more disproportionate impact on the future of the whole planet?

Too Radical?

Today, just six months since the November election and the "revolution" called for by Bush’s right- wing Christian supporters, we are witnessing the most radical assault on the separation of church and state that this country has ever experienced. In a word: this country sits on the verge of theocracy. Yesterday’s "lunatic fringe" now sits securely in the halls of power. When powerful senators threaten federal judges on the Schiavo case and then to go on to single out a Supreme Court justice for citing international law in a recent decision barring the execution of minors, you get a whiff not just of flagrant hypocrisy but the stench of crimes against humanity and where this agenda is headed.

These are not ordinary Christians or Conservatives but Christian Fascists and they are stalking not just the red states for the control of people’s minds. Under the now famous "moral values" exit polls of 2004 lurk traditional values that have uniquely American strains of puritanism, slavery, and genocide. These are theocrats who actually believe that God is speaking through the presidency of George Bush, and Bush has appointed them at every level of his administration. They intend to put their stamp on society and everyone in it—and they have already gone very far.

Whether they succeed or fail to get their "nuclear option" today, they are a monster demanding to be fed who will not stop until their agenda of theocracy is fulfilled.
Whether they get their way depends hugely on if people face what is unfolding and snap out of a denial that such a thing could happen here. History is far too haunted with the memories of people from Germany to Rwanda who never thought that neighbors living side by side and intermarried for generations could possibly be on opposite sides or taken off in the night.

Writing in The New York Times, cultural critic Frank Rich aptly put it this way, "the majority of American colonists didn’t believe in witches during the Salem trials either—any more than the Taliban reflected the views of a majority of Afghans. At a certain point, and we seem to be nearing that point, fear takes over, allowing a mob to bully the majority over the short term. (Of course if you think the end is near there is no long term.)"

This country now stands before the world and history with a president who condones torture. No wonder the subjects of the new empire in other countries feel they should have had a vote in this election. This is an utterly intolerable situation and one that growing numbers of people are ready to massively repudiate—including thousands if not millions of people who voted for George Bush and are waking up to the ugly reality of what they bought and what it’s wrought.

This regime has to be driven from power and it could happen! It is important to recall the millions who were present in the streets with people across the planet to oppose the Iraq war and that just six months ago millions engaged in a groundswell of hopeful political activity to drive Bush from office through voting. But no vision, no coherent alternative to Bush was ever on the electoral playing field.

The world can’t wait until 2008 to put a halt to this.

We don’t want to tell future generations "we were waiting for the pendulum to swing." We want to tell them we were the people who said NOT IN OUR NAME! What is needed is to launch the kind of massive resistance that can drive this regime out.

November 2, 2005, the anniversary of Bush and Cheney’s re-election. How will the first year of the Christian fundamentalist "revolution" look? Will the country continue to pitch more and more to the right, with opposition so ineffective that there will be no choice but to be swept along? Or will the whole world witness the opening rounds of an upsurge that can conjure up the specter of Spain and the Ukraine, the fall of the Berlin Wall, or Nixon? It can—if people conceive of themselves as politically at war in an all-out battle for the future.

Anything less is not commensurate with the challenge we face.

We in the RCP are approaching this as repolarizing society for revolution, and we are sincere about learning from and uniting with people from many different perspectives who also see the need to rid the world of the Bush regime. We can tell you from our personal experience, talking to people across the country as we passed out millions of the statement "The Battle of the Future Will be Fought from Here Forward," that people are waiting for the next wave of protest to be unleashed...but they want to know that it will really make a difference.

Very Radical!

Let’s talk about how to make it happen—contact us at drivethemout@yahoo.com

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolution Online http://revcom.us
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

Bill Moyers' speech to the National Conference for Media Reform

Bill Moyers
Excerpts from Bill Moyers' speech to the National Conference for Media Reform on May 15, 2005
From Free Press, May 16, 2005

…One reason I’m in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn’t play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news.

Jonathan Mermin writes about this in a recent essay in World Policy Journal. (You’ll also want to read his book Debating War and Peace, Media Coverage of US Intervention in the Post Vietnam Era.)

Mermin quotes David Ignatius of the Washington Post on why the deep interests of the American public are so poorly served by Beltway journalism. The “rules of our game,” says Ignatius, “make it hard for us to tee up an issue … without a news peg.” He offers a case in point: the debacle of America’s occupation of Iraq. “If Senator so and so hasn’t criticized postwar planning for Iraq,” says Ignatius, “then it’s hard for a reporter to write a story about that.”

Mermin also quotes public television’s Jim Lehrer acknowledging that unless an official says something is so, it isn’t news. Why were journalists not discussing the occupation of Iraq? Because, says Lehrer, “the word occupation … was never mentioned in the run-up to the war.” Washington talked about the invasion as “a war of liberation, not a war of occupation, so as a consequence, “those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.”

“In other words,” says Jonathan Mermin, “if the government isn’t talking about it, we don’t report it.” He concludes: “[Lehrer’s] somewhat jarring declaration, one of many recent admissions by journalists that their reporting failed to prepare the public for the calamitous occupation that has followed the ‘liberation’ of Iraq, reveals just how far the actual practice of American journalism has deviated from the First Amendment ideal of a press that is independent of the government.”

Take the example (also cited by Mermin) of Charles J. Hanley. Hanley is a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the Associated Press, whose fall 2003 story on the torture of Iraqis in American prisons — before a U.S. Army report and photographs documenting the abuse surfaced — was ignored by major American newspapers. Hanley attributes this lack of interest to the fact that “it was not an officially sanctioned story that begins with a handout from an official source.”

Furthermore, Iraqis recounting their own personal experience of Abu Ghraib simply did not have the credibility with Beltway journalists of American officials denying that such things happened. Judith Miller of the New York Times, among others, relied on the credibility of official but unnamed sources when she served essentially as the government stenographer for claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

These “rules of the game” permit Washington officials to set the agenda for journalism, leaving the press all too often simply to recount what officials say instead of subjecting their words and deeds to critical scrutiny. Instead of acting as filters for readers and viewers, sifting the truth from the propaganda, reporters and anchors attentively transcribe both sides of the spin invariably failing to provide context, background or any sense of which claims hold up and which are misleading.

I decided long ago that this wasn’t healthy for democracy. I came to see that “news is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.” In my documentaries – whether on the Watergate scandals 30 years ago or the Iran-Contra conspiracy 20 years ago or Bill Clinton’s fundraising scandals 10 years ago or, five years ago, the chemical industry’s long and despicable cover-up of its cynical and unspeakable withholding of critical data about its toxic products from its workers, I realized that investigative journalism could not be a collaboration between the journalist and the subject. Objectivity is not satisfied by two opposing people offering competing opinions, leaving the viewer to split the difference.

I came to believe that objective journalism means describing the object being reported on, including the little fibs and fantasies as well as the Big Lie of the people in power. In no way does this permit journalists to make accusations and allegations. It means, instead, making sure that your reporting and your conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence.

This is always hard to do, but it has never been harder than today. Without a trace of irony, the powers-that-be have appropriated the newspeak vernacular of George Orwell’s 1984. They give us a program vowing “No Child Left Behind,” while cutting funds for educating disadvantaged kids. They give us legislation cheerily calling for “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests” that give us neither. And that’s just for starters.

In Orwell’s 1984, the character Syme, one of the writers of that totalitarian society’s dictionary, explains to the protagonist Winston, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only on partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, to ask questions and be skeptical. That kind of orthodoxy can kill a democracy — or worse.

…Strange things began to happen. Friends in Washington called to say that they had heard of muttered threats that the PBS reauthorization would be held off “unless Moyers is dealt with.” The chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson, was said to be quite agitated. Apparently there was apoplexy in the right-wing aerie when I closed the broadcast one Friday night by putting an American flag in my lapel and said – well, here’s exactly what I said:

“I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven’t thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

“Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart’s affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother’s picture on my lapel to prove her son’s love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

“So what’s this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag’s been hijacked and turned into a logo — the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration’s patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao’s little red book on every official’s desk, omnipresent and unread.

“But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They’re in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

“So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don’t have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it’s not un-American to think that war — except in self-defense — is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.”

That did it. That — and our continuing reporting on overpricing at Haliburton, chicanery on K Street, and the heavy, if divinely guided hand, of Tom DeLay.

The God Racket, From DeMille to DeLay

FRANK RICH
New York Times
March 27, 2005

As Congress and the president scurried to play God in the lives of Terri Schiavo and her family last weekend, ABC kicked off Holy Week with its perennial ritual: a rebroadcast of the 1956 Hollywood blockbuster, "The Ten Commandments."

Cecil B. DeMille's epic is known for the parting of its Technicolor Red Sea, for the religiosity of its dialogue (Anne Baxter's Nefretiri to Charlton Heston's Moses: "You can worship any God you like as long as I can worship you.") and for a Golden Calf scene that DeMille himself described as "an orgy Sunday-school children can watch." But this year the lovable old war horse has a relevance that transcends camp. At a time when government, culture, science, medicine and the rule of law are all under threat from an emboldened religious minority out to remake America according to its dogma, the half-forgotten show business history of "The Ten Commandments" provides a telling back story.

As DeMille readied his costly Paramount production for release a half-century ago, he seized on an ingenious publicity scheme. In partnership with the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a nationwide association of civic-minded clubs founded by theater owners, he sponsored the construction of several thousand Ten Commandments monuments throughout the country to hype his product. The Pharaoh himself - that would be Yul Brynner - participated in the gala unveiling of the Milwaukee slab. Heston did the same in North Dakota. Bizarrely enough, all these years later, it is another of these DeMille-inspired granite monuments, on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin, that is a focus of the Ten Commandments case that the United States Supreme Court heard this month.

We must wait for the court's ruling on whether the relics of a Hollywood relic breach the separation of church and state. Either way, it's clear that one principle, so firmly upheld by DeMille, has remained inviolate no matter what the courts have to say: American moguls, snake-oil salesmen and politicians looking to score riches or power will stop at little if they feel it is in their interests to exploit God to achieve those ends. While sometimes God racketeers are guilty of the relatively minor sin of bad taste - witness the crucifixion-nail jewelry licensed by Mel Gibson - sometimes we get the demagoguery of Father Coughlin or the big-time cons of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker.

The religio-hucksterism surrounding the Schiavo case makes DeMille's Hollywood crusades look like amateur night. This circus is the latest and most egregious in a series of cultural shocks that have followed Election Day 2004, when a fateful exit poll question on "moral values" ignited a take-no-prisoners political grab by moral zealots. During the commercial interruptions on "The Ten Commandments" last weekend, viewers could surf over to the cable news networks and find a Bible-thumping show as only Washington could conceive it. Congress was floating such scenarios as staging a meeting in Ms. Schiavo's hospital room or, alternatively, subpoenaing her, her husband and her doctors to a hearing in Washington. All in the name of faith.

Like many Americans, I suspect, I tried to picture how I would have reacted if a bunch of smarmy, camera-seeking politicians came anywhere near a hospital room where my own relative was hooked up to life support. I imagined summoning the Clint Eastwood of "Dirty Harry," not "Million Dollar Baby." But before my fantasy could get very far, star politicians with the most to gain from playing the God card started hatching stunts whose extravagant shamelessness could upstage any humble reverie of my own.

Senator Bill Frist, the Harvard-educated heart surgeon with presidential aspirations, announced that watching videos of Ms. Schiavo had persuaded him that her doctors in Florida were mistaken about her vegetative state - a remarkable diagnosis given that he had not only failed to examine the patient ostensibly under his care but has no expertise in the medical specialty, neurology, relevant to her case. No less audacious was Tom DeLay, last seen on "60 Minutes" a few weeks ago deflecting Lesley Stahl's questions about his proximity to allegedly criminal fund-raising by saying he would talk only about children stranded by the tsunami. Those kids were quickly forgotten as he hitched his own political rehabilitation to a brain-damaged patient's feeding tube. Adopting a prayerful tone, the former exterminator from Sugar Land, Tex., took it upon himself to instruct "millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend" to "not be afraid."

The president was not about to be outpreached by these saps. The same Mr. Bush who couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation during the darkening summer of 2001, not even when he received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," flew from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign Congress's Schiavo bill into law. The bill could have been flown to him in Texas, but his ceremonial arrival and departure by helicopter on the White House lawn allowed him to showboat as if he had just landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Within hours he turned Ms. Schiavo into a slick applause line at a Social Security rally. "It is wise to always err on the side of life," he said, wisdom that apparently had not occurred to him in 1999, when he mocked the failed pleas for clemency of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again Texas death-row inmate, in a magazine interview with Tucker Carlson.

These theatrics were foretold. Culture is often a more reliable prophecy than religion of where the country is going, and our culture has been screaming its theocratic inclinations for months now. The anti-indecency campaign, already a roaring success, has just yielded a new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Kevin J. Martin, who had been endorsed by the Parents Television Council and other avatars of the religious right. The push for the sanctity of marriage (or all marriages except Terri and Michael Schiavo's) has led to the banishment of lesbian moms on public television. The Armageddon-fueled worldview of the "Left Behind" books extends its spell by the day, soon to surface in a new NBC prime-time mini-series, "Revelations," being sold with the slogan "The End is Near."

All this is happening while polls consistently show that at most a fifth of the country subscribes to the religious views of those in the Republican base whom even George Will, speaking last Sunday on ABC's "This Week," acknowledged may be considered "extremists." In that famous Election Day exit poll, "moral values" voters amounted to only 22 percent. Similarly, an ABC News survey last weekend found that only 27 percent of Americans thought it was "appropriate" for Congress to "get involved" in the Schiavo case and only 16 percent said it would want to be kept alive in her condition. But a majority of American colonists didn't believe in witches during the Salem trials either - any more than the Taliban reflected the views of a majority of Afghans. At a certain point - and we seem to be at that point - fear takes over, allowing a mob to bully the majority over the short term. (Of course, if you believe the end is near, there is no long term.)

That bullying, stoked by politicians in power, has become omnipresent, leading television stations to practice self-censorship and high school teachers to avoid mentioning "the E word," evolution, in their classrooms, lest they arouse fundamentalist rancor. The president is on record as saying that the jury is still out on evolution, so perhaps it's no surprise that The Los Angeles Times has uncovered a three-year-old "religious rights" unit in the Justice Department that investigated a biology professor at Texas Tech because he refused to write letters of recommendation for students who do not accept evolution as "the central, unifying principle of biology." Cornelia Dean of The New York Times broke the story last weekend that some Imax theaters, even those in science centers, are now refusing to show documentaries like "Galagos" or "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" because their references to Darwin and the Big Bang theory might antagonize some audiences. Soon such films will disappear along with biology textbooks that don't give equal time to creationism.

James Cameron, producer of "Volcanoes" (and, more famously, the director of "Titanic"), called this development "obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science." Faith-based science has in turn begat faith-based medicine that impedes stem-cell research, not to mention faith-based abstinence-only health policy that impedes the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and diseases like AIDS.

Faith-based news is not far behind. Ashley Smith, the 26-year-old woman who was held hostage by Brian Nichols, the accused Atlanta courthouse killer, has been canonized by virtually every American news organization as God's messenger because she inspired Mr. Nichols to surrender by talking about her faith and reading him a chapter from Rick Warren's best seller, "The Purpose-Driven Life." But if she's speaking for God, what does that make Dennis Rader, the church council president arrested in Wichita's B.T.K. serial killer case? Was God instructing Terry Ratzmann, the devoted member of the Living Church of God who this month murdered his pastor, an elderly man, two teenagers and two others before killing himself at a weekly church service in Wisconsin? The religious elements of these stories, including the role played by the end-of-times fatalism of Mr. Ratzmann's church, are left largely unexamined by the same news outlets that serve up Ashley Smith's tale as an inspirational parable for profit.

Next to what's happening now, official displays of DeMille's old Ten Commandments monuments seem an innocuous encroachment of religion into public life. It is a full-scale jihad that our government signed onto last weekend, and what's most scary about it is how little was heard from the political opposition. The Harvard Law School constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe pointed out this week that even Joe McCarthy did not go so far as this Congress and president did in conspiring to "try to undo the processes of a state court." But faced with McCarthyism in God's name, most Democratic leaders went into hiding and stayed silent. Prayers are no more likely to revive their spines than poor Terri Schiavo's brain.

Democrats Capitulate ... Again

This is a comment on the outcome of the "compromise" in the Senate over judicial nominations. C. Clark Kissinger is one of the initiators of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience who, along with Joan Bokaer (Founder of Theocracy Watch.org) and others, called for people to protest the threatened "nuclear option":

"After all the bluster and shadow boxing was over, President Bush got his way. Under the terms of a "compromise," three of Bush's worst nominees will be voted on and they will likely be confirmed. And what did the Democrats get in return? They got to keep the right to filibuster, provided they promise not to use it!

"That's right. The Democrats got nothing. And what will happen when even more disgusting candidates are brought up as nominees for the Supreme Court? The Republicans will simply roll out the threat of the "nuclear option" once again, since nothing in the so-called "compromise" prohibits them from doing that.

"Once again this demonstrates the need for a mass popular movement of resistance. Without the kind of mass upsurge that we witnessed in the 1960s, there is nothing that will prevent the current threatening dynamic from continuing. This is why we called on people to go to Washington, and make their presence felt in the streets. The world can't wait any longer. We need to be about the business of driving the Bush regime from power."

C. Clark Kissinger


from the NION SOC Staff
nion@cloud9.net
http://www.nion.us

Responses to 5/24 Post on Clark Kissinger Comments On the Theocratic Power Grab

May 25, 2005


The analysis of Clark Kissinger is exactly right. The Democrats did another el foldo and tried to spin it as a victory. With victories like this, who needs losses? Result: 3 of the worst right-wing judges ever will go on the federal bench where they will chip away at all our rights for decades.

JS

*** *** *** *** ***

I'm relieved to hear this point of view. I've been puzzled about why all the big smiles from the Democrats - we go nothin!

LM

*** *** *** *** ***

Re: Protest in Washington
Dear NION Directors:

Your quote from C. Clark Kissinger on "the need for a mass popular movement of resistance" is one I couldn't agree more with. I have been trying to ask different organizations such as yours about the possibility of organizing such a march!!! My idea was to build a coalition of organizations and have ONE HUGE MARCH ON WASHINGTON.

Are you planning such a march and when? I already checked your website, but did not find any such information...perhaps I missed it. If it is not planned yet, I would be very happy to be in on such planning. I have wanted to do such an action since healthcare became a major issue years ago, when millions of Americans began to go without healthcare and this government refused to do anything about it...a situation that has gotten only worse. This is a national disgrace. Today, there are so many national disgraces it is hard to choose what to protest about. If a protest is organized, many Americans can just show up with their own signs and "air their own issue", so to speak. I am very angry and upset about all that is going on with this administration right now and since they stole the election in 2000 and again this past November and as we know, I am far from alone. The march could be done very cheaply by word-of-mouth and internet.

I would appreciate hearing from you about this or any information you might offer. Currently, I am trying to research websites to learn how to accomplish this, but it seems overwhelming, yet I am very determined. I work as a mental health advocate and have done some political work during the past election, so I have excellent skills at being resourceful. Thank you for any help you can offer.

Sincerely,

Ms. CS

*** *** *** *** ***

As an enthusiastic reader and activist for most of the Nion causes, I believe you are doing us a disservice by not uniting behind the 14 Senators who have brought about a compromise. Our country does not benefit from the polarization which between our political parties. The majority of us are moderates. And everyone needs to compromise at times. I believe this is an important instance which could be a precedent for learninghow to live together in our society.

Thanks for listening. VA

*** *** *** *** ***

You all are the only people, so far, who seem to see the real truth about the "compromise". Please speak to Boxer, Move On etc. and explain to them what they cannot see.

SKH

*** *** *** *** ***

My interpretation (GP):

The Republicans were prepared to run an entire election on the issue of the nomination of Priscilla Owens etc. I began to see prime time TV ads in Michigan. They had a large (huge) public relations campaign prepared, well financed and organized.

The democrats could not have won this. They'd likely have won the initial filibuster vote, but the Republicans were prepared for this to last as long as it took, attacking the republicans who voted with the democrats, attacking the democratic party on TV.

The public wasn't in this fight. However, the republicans wanted to have the fight now rather than later over a supreme court nomination, when the public will be involved (Naral, National Assn. of Women, etc.)

Thus the extra-party agreement, representing a break from the leadership by 7 republicans, is hugely significant. They knew what was happening. They sabotaged the plan.

The truth is, the conservatives/neo-conservatives/republicans have a huge national media advantage. The democrats have nothing similar.

The current stage is that the 7 rogue republicans have tremendous leverage and power, so long as they continue to stick together, in opposing the president. However, if they fragment the republican leadership will skewer them, including opposing them at the next elections. So now they may have to continue to hang together, which helps the democrats in the future.

In sum, Frist and the President had a huge loss. They tried to balkanize the Senate to be just like the house. They over-reached. They failed. The seven defectors prevented it.

*** *** *** *** ***

Re Mr Kessinger's statement- it's time to stop waiting for government officials- Washington is a wishes are not heard by the money boys, and the money boys are now represented by sadistic, lazy baby boomers with absolutely no track record of any humanity. We must get together with the help of the civilized world and topple these satanic snot noses- and oh what real joy we shall rediscover upon doing so. The celebration will be at my house...

*** *** *** *** ***

If the mass social protests of the 1960's "worked" then we wouldn't need to be out there again now. That they didn't work is evident in the fact that Bush and his buddies are able to do what they're doing. It seems the right didn't lose in the 60's, they simply changed their tactics. We can't continue to fight them with the same tactics. Please recognize that we wouldn't be here if the old methods really worked. Let's try a real alternative, both in terms of real ideas and leadership.
DD

*** *** *** *** ***

This is totally discouraging! Add to the world's total dictators the name of George Bush!

*** *** *** *** ***

thank you, i'm over the democratic party. no relevance.
they are not up to the job. ..they think they are virtuous in not fighting ...and 'negotiating'.
the streets is a good option...we'll see.
your service is appreciated.
ab

*** *** *** *** ***

The Emperor is NAKED

Thank you for the email Democrats Capitulate.

The new-speak crap about republicans defecting and a big win for democrats was making me sick. I was fixing to give up when I got an email from Barbara Boxer calling this a victory. Your email gives me the heart to call her office in the morning and ask her if she has lost her mind.

M

*** *** *** *** ***

You guys have it exactly right. This was not a compromise -- it was capitulation. MoveOn.org is scarcely more credible than the enfeebled Democratic Party. What the nation needs now is resistance on a massive scale.
KG

*** *** *** *** ***

Bravo!

I am in total disbelief and denial regarding the so named Democrats, who are really non democrats, allowing the Republican politicians to bully them once again. So much for a two party system. I am totally disgusted!

So where is Howard Dean? Is there any Democrat who will speak out and stand up for democratic ideals?

Regards, PT

*** *** *** *** ***

Mr. Kissinger: I sent an email to "not in our name" about one week ago forewarning them about this. The Democrats rolled over. What else did you expect? I suggested a stronger approach other than organizing and protesting. I could not agree with you more that it is time to oust the entire Bush administration. Sadly we will not have the help of the Democrats because they are in tow with the Republicans. If we need to resort to 1960s style protests, then by all means let's do it. If we need to employ more forceful means let's do it. The Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches have been hijacked by a corrupt group of conservative crooks who like to change the rules as they play the game. I agree, it is time for "dubya" and company to go. Keep in mind that the Republicans like to "hit below the belt" so maybe we should do it to them and see how they like it. So the question is, what is our game plan?

DB

*** *** *** *** ***

I am disgusted with the democrats and have been for a long time. I am registered as an independent but I keep getting mail from the Dem. party. I cannot understand why they keep giving in to what a friend calls 'the idiot' and his cronies. It is very disheartening to see to what degree our so called elected officials will be pushed to the right. What next, a Supreme Court that is completely right wing and a rubber stamp for this administration? Dubya should be impeached for starting this horrid war, the many assaults upon the environment and his forcing the agenda of the theocratic right wing neocons. What happened to our support of the constitution and the separation of church and state advised by our founding fathers?
MM

*** *** *** *** ***

Hi,
Oh boy!!! Do I ever agree with you. I am disgusted with the Democrats for laying down and rolling over again.
Thank you for fighting for us.
ME

*** *** *** *** ***

Mr. Kissinger is saying what I felt ever since I heard the news. I am in great despair, and I am disgusted with the democrats. We, and they, got nothing. We can't take to the streets if we have only a few people. Calling, writing senators, does that help? If all of us did that en masse? I do that daily, it seems, yet nothing changes. Anyway, enough kvetching. What can we do? Thanks, RS

*** *** *** *** ***

thanks so much for this message. I have been really disappointed in most supposedly liberal advocacy groups, which have written to me to explain how we just had a big victory. All I can see is that the republicans just got three of the most extreme judges ever to be considered, and there is no guarantee that the nuclear option is off the table. it's a sad, sad day for a lawyer like me who really cares what happens on the federal appellate court bench.
DP

*** *** *** *** ***

Right On. Finally the truth about this non-compromise.
BK

*** *** *** *** ***

Thank you. I feel the same way. Was wondering what is the victory. I don't see any. Bush always gets his way somehow. It's scary.
LC

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree with Clark Kissinger's statement and was so glad to read it. But what now?

KC

*** *** *** *** ***

Yes... I agree. It took the cold hard slap of reality... 11/2/04 to finally wake me up. I am trying to do something about it now. https://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&newsite=http://www.septembereleventh.org https://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&newsite=http://www.infowars.com
https://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&newsite=http://www.votecobb.org https://www.mail2web.com/cgi-bin/redir.asp?lid=0&newsite=http://www.gp.org
Sincerely,

JA

*** *** *** *** ***

Thank you. Finally, a group that knows the truth and tells it. I am proud to stand with you. The Democrats rolled over and accepted a deal that "saved the filibuster UNLESS they intend to use it." We don't have much to be proud of, which is the usual deal for Democrats. SP

"You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty." Jessica Mitford

*** *** *** *** ***

It's about time someone wrote something like your last message.
The reason, I believe, that none of us are giving money or time any more to "organizations" is that there's absolutely no fire or fury in what is being called for. It's not money that's needed -- it's outrage and showing up. to shut down this fascist machine.

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree completely. It is amazing how the spin on this compromise tries to make us think that we came out ahead. Ahead of what! The Democrats said they would shut down the government. Well boys and girls live up to your statements. Close it down.
MB

*** *** *** *** ***

No doubt you'll get a lot of flack for this 'Democrats Capitulate...Again' e-mail, but I, for one, heartily endorse your comments. It's about time one of the many liberal groups makes a move toward the real political left and calls it like it is.

BRAVO ! This is a breath of fresh air.

My thanks,
PFL

*** *** *** *** ***

Beautiful thoughtful message, especially in comparison to MoveOn's incredibly idiot message trying to congratulate itself for a "victory." My God--the levels of self-delusion are deep, aren't they.

I will be as supportive and active for you as I can.

thanks.

BK

*** *** *** *** ***

Exactly my thoughts!
RK

*** *** *** *** ***

Thank you for Kissinger's statement -- like the kid seeing a naked emperor, he says what everyone knows and dares not say, especially the democrats.

A favor, please, that would help more people see the naked truth: could someone prepare a concise catalogue of the non-stop crises, scandals, and outright felonies the Bush administration has perpetrated since day one? There have been so many, each one subsuming the one before, we just can't keep track!

Thank you again -- CVS

*** *** *** *** ***

I couldn't agree with Mr. Kissinger more. Those were my exact thoughts when I heard about the "compromise". Bottom line: the Democrats and all who believe in fairness and balance got hosed....again. In peace. DdS

*** *** *** *** ***

Hello NION;

I agree completely.....this issue should have been important enough for the Democrats in the Senate to stand firm & not compromise!!! I'm going to say the same thing to all the Democratic groups & organizations I support!!!
Keep up the good fight!!!
Sincerely,
Professor, UCLA Music Department

*** *** *** *** ***

you are right.
keep doing good.
MY

*** *** *** *** ***

Why don't we establish in Yahoo Groups a "Priscilla Owen Watch", along with the other Bush judges who are confirmed, and invite people from across the country to participate? The citizens can then monitor the decisions of these judges which may invite further public action.

GD

*** *** *** *** ***

The guys at the Alamo reached a "Comprimise" and General Custer and the 7th Cavalry did also at the Little Big Horn.So it's Historic and The Democratic Party Should start a Campaign to raise funds for Spinal transplants for thier members.Nut job Stephoney Miller on Air America Radio this a.m. was hailing the Democratic Victory over the GOP by "winning" the Filibuster fight however she failed to elaborate on the Nazi Nominees and I thought only the Right engaged in Spin she says she's a Democrat so I guess we can't lose with genious like hers!

*** *** *** *** ***

about going to Washington
please remember, there are many, many of us who have to work, who are very concerned about this country and need to have actions we can take from home.

not everyone has the financial base to go to washington. (personally, i believe there's a reason. . . .)

please remember the rest of us when calling for action.
thank you.

TMH

May 24, 2005 More Responses

More responses May 25, 2005

I put on the brakes at 65 mph. What did that say? The sign was crudely made, but provocative: Eagle Eggs, $1.00.

I postponed my plans and headed down the dirt road in the direction of the helpfully pointing arrow. I had to meet the person who scaled the dizzying heights to plunder eagle aeries. And then sold the eggs for a buck a piece.

So ... I was a little surprised by the appearance of the man who greeted me. He didn't look like he was built for high adventure. He looked like a chicken farmer.

"Excuse me, sir," said I. "I'm here about the eagle eggs. Are you ... the person to ask about that?"

"The one and only!" grinned the farmer. "Come right this way."

He led me toward what, from a distance, looked like a chicken yard.

"Oh, and you can just call me Eagle Master," he added modestly.

As we neared the thing that looked like a chicken yard from a distance, I found that it also looked like a chicken yard from close up. With one exception. The birds that were waddling around the yard, scratching and pecking for food, were not chickens. They were eagles. On seeing me, a couple of the birds took fright and fluttered clumsily to the greater safety of their chicken .... their eagle coops.

I was stunned, and must have looked it. Eagle Master smiled with amusement.

"Don't sweat it," he said. "Everyone's a little surprised at first."

"Uh, how ...? What ...? When ...? Uh, how can this be?" I sputtered at last.

"Just a simple matter of political compromise," chuckled Eagle Master.

"Political ..." I was still sputtering incoherently.

"Sure. The eagles wanted to fly free, and I wanted to pen them up and sell their eggs. Get it?"

"Not a bit of it," I replied honestly.

"So ...," he prompted, "what happens when you have two sides with differing goals?"

"I have no idea," I mumbled.

"You compromise, that's what!" he said triumphantly, as if all had been explained.

"I'm sorry," I said. "I don't get it. Why would eagles have to compromise with you?"

"Because you've got to compromise," he argued reasonably. "It's the democratic way! Besides, I threatened to break their wings, if they didn't."

"And you could do that?" I asked skeptically.

"Mm-a-a-aybe," he replied coyly. "They didn't know if I could for sure or not, and neither did I, so we compromised."

"Excuse me," I said. "I still don't get this. If they wanted to be free, and you wanted to enslave them, ... well, they look pretty enslaved to me. How is that a compromise?"

"Oh, they get to keep their wings," said the Eagle Master. "Didn't I mention that?"

"So they could fly away at any moment."
"No, of course not," said the Eagle Master. "They get to keep their wings as long as they don't use them."
"What kind of deal is that?" I asked.

"A good one," said the Eagle Master. "For me."

"But if they still have their wings," I suggested, "they can fly away at any time."

"That lot?" asked the Eagle Master with a smirk. "The birds that agreed to this deal in the first place?"

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree completely - this was ghastly on the part of the democrats....weak and with no guarantees that Frist will not do the same thing again. Worse, it has widened the definition of what is within the moderate by allowing these three radical judges to be elected. Awful.

JB

*** *** *** *** ***

It is no surprise to me the dems came up dry. They haven't been doing their job for years now. Why do they keep playing defence?

In 2000 we knew our votes didn't count. Dems had four years to do something about that but didn't. When it was too late to make changes is when they started making noise.

Do you really think the people will support the dem. party when they see how repubs. role over them time after time?

Why aren't all of you demanding accountability from the Bush administration? It's not like you don't have plenty of info to do so.Bush started a war on lies. Most everyone knows this and we have to sit and watch Bush award people that failed at their jobs. How many people have to die before you do something ? Maybe that's how the repubs. will win in 2008. They will say they have done everything they could to help the Iraqi people and now it's time for them to help themselves. I can hear it now, "we could have won the war if the dems had given us any kind of help. They were more concerned about politics instead of working for the good of all americans." (And the dems and media will say nothing.)

Why do you keep giving Bush money for his war? That's the tax payers money. Most of the country is against the war now, and we are sick of innocent people dieing.

Bush ran for re-election as the war president. He now calls himself the peace president!!! Ask Bush to explain what he has done with all the money he said he needed for the war.

Why are our loved ones dieing because they don't have the equipment they need? What's going on with all the investigations we were told would take place?

There is so much more I could say but what's the point? I now know why so many people don't vote. What's the point when we know our vote doesn't matter and the government doesn't care about " we the people."

It's a sad day when a person is glad they don't have grandchildren.

I use to really admire John MaCain. I thought he was a man of principle. Watching him campaign with Bush made me sick to my stomach. When you sell your soul to the devil, there's no way to get it back.

We no longer have, "freedom of speech." Having to protest form a free speech zone is not what free speech means. Being called a traitor for not agreeing with Bush means I don't live in a democracy anymore.

What is the dem. party doing to increase jobs, improve health care, put some of the burden on the rich and less on the poor, just to name a few things.

Homeland security is a joke. If the dem party doesn't get a backbone and start pulling together we will lose in 2006 and 2008. I should say it's the people that will loose and business will go on as usual in DC.

Sincerely,

Just your average citizen

** *** *** *** *** *

Yes it's true! The technique of the "Big Lie" seems to be still working as Dems claim a victory from a shameful and abject defeat. As a Desperate Dem myself, I have not experienced a true victory in recent recall.

My great fear is that the Dems will "compromise" again on the false, utterly false, Social Security Crisis.

I would like to join another party but I do not see a progressive party devoted to peace. The Greens have too narrow a view. Where is the emerging liberal conscience being effectively embodied?

Any ideas??

DM

*** *** *** *** ***

Right on! And the first thing we MUST DEMAND is that all defective computers (those without a voter verifiable paper trail for use in recounts) be retrofitted or scrapped and that the cost be borne either by the idiots in the SOE offices who bought defective computers or the manufacturers who deliberately produced defective (and therefore riggable) machines. We have gone through three FRAUDULENT elections in a row in which deliberately defective and therefore unconstitutional computers were involved. It is one thing for an idiot like Glenda Hood, Fl Secretary of State to illegally tell SOE's that they don’t have to do a recount if the result is just the computer outputting the same (and possibly manipulated) data. The state CONSTITUTION requires a recount of votes in certain circumstances. If a recount cannot be done, redo the election with paper ballots.
JB

*** *** *** *** ***

Dear C. Clark Kissinger et al: Thank you for your comment regarding the "compromise" in the Senate of judicial nominations. I, too, was outraged at this so-called "compromise." In fact, it was the topic of my twice-weekly Internet radio show, The Burt Rosen Show, yesterday, May 24, 2005. That show is now available for download if you'd like to listen at www.burtrosenshow.com (just clock on "Podcasts" to take you to our download section). Additional topics on yesterday's show included covering Congressman John Conyers' letter to White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (regarding Newsweek and the Bush administration's wag-the-dog antics) and my demand for an immediate pull-out of all American troops from Iraq.

In the event you are unfamiliar with the show, I would recommend you visit my website at www.burtrosenshow.com, or my previous website at www.nobodyaskedme.com, for more information. I have also included a press release below which explains all the details of the show.

As we are all on the same, very important page, I would very much like to work with you in the future helping spread the word of freedom and democracy in these troubling times. In any event, I would be honored if you would browse through my website and take a moment to download and listen to yesterday's show. In addition, we will be broadcasting a new live show tomorrow, Thursday, May 25, 2005, at 10:00 AM PST.

Thanks again for your e-mail and thanks for your time.

Best regards,
Burt Rosen
The Burt Rosen Show

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree with thoughts on defeat. Unfortunately (and sadly) the call for action is too late. Bush will leave office, the GOP will continue to control Congress, the damage is done (will be done) and the so-called democratic party is diminished, ineffective, impotent and gutless. Why go to Washington. To put on a show for whom. Certainly not for the boys & girls in leadership(???) positions in Congress & the DNC. First, please.....somebody define some "principles" for an opposition party, tie them to some defined platform of issues and chart a REAL path to achieving the goals. Oh! On second thought! Maybe we should just grovel!!! P. Hickey

*** *** *** *** ***

History repeats itself. The Social Democrats made compromise after compromise with Hitler's Nazi Party in hopes that they could keep their power in the last days of the Weimer Republic of Germany. The SDs were cowards and incredibly stupid. We know what happened to them - expelled from the government and many were sent to concentration camps! (Information gathered from: "The Third Reich: A New History" by Michael Burleigh)
The Democrats face a similar fate should they "go the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire." (MACBETH, by William Shakespeare, ll, iii, 18-19)
Can We the People of the United States continue to support a political party that continues to betray us? Are not the Democratic and Republican Parties in our federal government guilty of treason?
JAH

*** *** *** *** ***

hi anybody who expects to do anything with the democrats is pursuing a faulty strategic avenue. they are a corrupt, corporate entity driven by their own inner conflicting groups. better to look at s. america and see how progressive people are forming community and committee groups to engage in political action.

my commitment to A THIRD PARTY AND ALTERNATE political action dates at least to the Wallace campaign in '48.

stop ruing the misdemeanors of the dems. organize.

vg

*** *** *** *** ***

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The dependency on politicians fighting our battles never did work and never will. I for one am ready for street action!

*** *** *** *** ***

Please view www.erols.com/suttonbear and see the book REBIRTH OF A REALIST. by David Truskoff. What we need is a REAL THIRD PARTY. Something for people to be for not just against Goopya Dopya. I found the book on Amazon under the authors name. M

*** *** *** *** ***


That's my reading of it too. What's to stop the GOP from threatening it again and going through with it if the Dems don't knuckle under to every other awful candidate the GOP scrounges up from the depths?
D

*** *** *** *** ***

RE: "You have accepted things you would not have accepted..."

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . . between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . .

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.

You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined." :

From Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)

*** *** *** *** ***

I am in total agreement with this comment by C. Clark Kissinger. I was baffled by some of the early remarks and e-mails I received by some organizations like MoveOn.org and AMERICAN PROGRESS ACTION FUND proclaiming a major defeat for Bill Fritz and the radical right. I was searching to see if I could find the same observation in listening to Fritz and the other bobo's but no luck. Now that I read what you have to say... it's more like what I thought.

Thank You for the email and your more accurate observation. At least, that's what I think is the case.
JJB
Austin, TX

*** *** *** *** ***

The fillibuster compromise is a sham. SHAME on the Dems for tossing gays to the right-wing wolves once more! If you had ANY "conscience", you'd NOT erase that important sell-out that ONLY will lead to a full blown holocaust against ALL sexual minorities. See:

Senate deal permits vote for anti-gay judge http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2005/05/24/1

Don't forget: it was a DEMOCRAT prez who signed DOMA...the most horrid law ever passed by a sitting president, against gay people. (And if you DON'T know what DOMA is, shame on you "liberal" hets! That's like not knowing about the Emancipation Proclamation. Such ignorance is INEXCUSEABLE by those "progressive" and "left wing" heteros who CLAIM to be gay-friendly; but it's only hot air.

I suggest that all you "liberal" heteros start to REALLY give a damn about gay folks. Dems don't DESERVE any compromises in their favor, as long as they CONTINUE to invite gay bashing as part of their platform.

If you have ANY conscience left at ALL, you'd FORWARD this msg. to all your list members. After all...if you're NOT homophobic, what would be the problem? Angering Democrat constituents?

Sin Queerly,

EJK
(Jehovah's Queer Witness and former lifelong Democrat, now non-partisan)

--
Lavender-Velvet Revolution http://www.gay-bible.org

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree wholeheartedly with C. Clark Kissinger's opinion on the senate "compromise." What in the world were Byrd, et al thinking?! Things are worse than we thought!
AL

*** *** *** *** ***

Dear C Clark,

Thank you so much for your message outlining how the 'compromise' was all Democrat give-in & Republican get-in'. Other messages such as from Move-On & the Friends e-mail alert (FCNL) seem to want to see some kind of 'win'!

We think that the Democrats shouldn't have made this compromise & should have continued with the slow down! These 3 judicial judges are BAD NEWS!

I'm glad one group is willing to face the truth.

LK and family

*** *** *** *** ***

It just continues to show the need for a second party in this country. The Demopublicans continue to advance mushy proposals that can mean anything anybody wants.
CT

*** *** *** *** ***

Don't you understand the reason why the Democrats accepted the compromise? Its because they didn't have the votes...plain and simple. Do you honestly believe they would've accepted the up or down votes on Janice Rogers if they had the votes? I'm not happy with the compromise either, but we shouldn't bust the balls of the good Democrats that worked their asses off like Boxer.

The problem is with the Republicans...they will goose step with the administration no matter what's at stake.

T

*** *** *** *** ***

I couldn't agree more!!
JR

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree with Clark Kissinger. The idea that there was a compromise is spin just as much as any right wing sping. Three terrible judicial appointments will be passed, setting these terrible people up for the Supreme Court. It's self-deceptive to think this was anything except capitulation.

MK
Seal Beach, California

*** *** *** *** ***

The Democrates are Fools
You are so right. The democrats, as usual, posture and bluster, but when it when it comes down to it, they always turn tail and run! This is why, after being a democrat for over 30 years, I gave up on them after the Gore mess. I don't regret it. I just wish we could find some people who have some backbones. The democrats just don't get
ET

*** *** *** *** ***

Could not agree more, BUT.....
Not only does the Bush power machine need to be run out of office, The Republicans and the now so spineless Democrats. There really needs to be a complete make over of this so-called two party system bullshit.

Total uprising is needed.

TI

*** *** *** *** ***

Note that 4 of the nominees will not make it! I think its extremely important that we stop trying to make ourselves feel good and start focusing on how to communicate effectively with the broader middle and middle right. Instead of anything, anyone other than what and who Bush supports, we need to be able to offer meaningful alternatives.

one of the issues I'm personally most concerned about is how to begin to take God back from the far right and to do so in ways which will not further antagonize the middle right.

DEAN, I HAPPEN TO THINK, IS THE VERY WORST PERSON TO HAVE OUT FRONT REPRESENTING THE DEMOCRATS. HE IS ALL 'FEEL GOOD' AND OFFERS NOTHING TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF ATTRACTING THE BROAD MIDDLE BACK INTO THE PARTY. If you have any ideas how to accomplish the winning back of the broad middle, I'd love to hear them but this we lost, they win, gotcha bit has been overdone and is counterproductive.
G

*** *** *** *** ***

Couldn’t be any more pathetic could they?
BR

*** *** *** *** ***

You are absolutely correct in your evaluation of this so-called "compromise"! The sad news is that the Democrats in Congress don't seem to have the will, belief, energy, or motivation to stand up in unison against the Republican onslaught! A third party is not likely to be strong enough to emerge to replace the Democrats -- at least not in our lifetime, while we are engaged in all sorts of foreign wars and intrigues and basically want and must "support the troops"!
GW

*** *** *** *** ***

couldn't agree more. Now the Republican can threaten the nuclear option the next time they want to bulldoze through anything to have their way.
JC

*** *** *** *** ***

You are so right. MoveOn, PFAW, the DSCC, etc., are wrong. I am disgusted with all of them. JO

*** *** *** *** ***

Put me on your list; I'm all for peaceful protest.
JLC

*** *** *** *** ***

Damn right . . . pass it on
RC

*** *** *** *** ***

YEAH!
Well said, well said (the statement by Kissinger).
With you in the struggle,
DW, M.D.
Denver, CO

*** *** *** *** ***

we need actions to put "financial" pressure on the GOP with boycotts and pressure flooding GOP offices with relentless phone calls and staging demonstrations in GOP's personal neighborhoods- the media is ignoring protests in Wash in big cities- but the families and neighbors of GOP cant ignore our protests at their own front doors!!!
TJ

*** *** *** *** ***

Dear Mr. Kissinger,

I agree with your assessment of the so-called "compromise" on the nuclear option. Here is my reply directly to Nancy Pelosi, after receiving the dccc tripe about a great victory:

Honorable Representative Pelosi,

I do not see the "compromise" on the filibuster as a victory or even a compromise. It was a complete Republican victory.

Three atrocious judicial nominees will immediately be granted "up or down" votes. Then with 55 Republican Senators (and likely a few defecting Democrats) they are all virtually assured of approval. Beyond that, Majority Leader Frist said that the "nuclear option" was still on the table. According to the "compromise," a filibuster would be used only in extraordinary circumstances. But under what circumstances would Republicans agree that the nominee was "extraordinary?" Answer: none!

As a result, the Democrats lost traction on the first three extraordinarily bad nominees, and gained nothing in the future on others.

The problem is that Democrats have no power whatsoever in congress. Republicans can and will run roughshod over Democrats on anything and everything. The "compromise" actually strengthens the Republicans by making it appear to the public that the Democrats actually are a viable "opposition party," when in fact, they are irrelevant and easily shoved aside. The moment a filibuster is invoked (against, Perhaps, Mr. Myers, a horrible selection if ever there was one) the Republicans will express outrage, and invoke the nuclear option, which will be passed by a disciplined Republican Party.

The solution to the Democrats ineptness is for Democrats to start speaking out as if they had a voice and had a spine, much like Member of Parliament, Mr. George Galloway, did when he trounced the Republicans by speaking the truth forthrightly. Democrats seem incapable of such straightforward honesty. Democrats will not take advantage of the stem cell controversy or the Terri Schiavo case to highlight to the American people how this president and the Republican leadership has been completely taken over by the far right and their misbegotten moral values. Democrats will still fail to call the Iraq war a mass of lies and deceptions, from the false link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, to the false cry of WMDs, to the false charges of an imminent threat from Iraq, to the cover-up of highest level culpability in the Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and Guantanamo prison abuses, to the violations of international law via the final administrative "justification" of that war: regime change!

Democrats will still fail to present to the nation its own philosophy, as Newt Gingrich did in 1994 with his "Contract with America," that led to the Republican take-over of congress and continued wider margins of seats subsequently in both houses of congress. Democrats will still cede all rhetoric to the Republicans, allowing Republican spin to dominate the way the news is discussed (EXAMPLE: Bush won a near unanimous vote for another $82 billion down the toilet in Iraq by couching the money as a "Support our Troops" expenditure, whereas little of that money goes to our troops, but a lot goes to Halliburton and other robbers, and the money has been useless because we are in a continuing quagmire and a losing effort, while turning the rest of the world against us). Democrats will cower away from pointing out how the Republicans are controlling all aspects of the news, to the point of ramming pro-right wing programs onto PBS by Kenneth Tomlinson as a balance against "biased reporting," when in fact, any criticism of either Republicans or President Bush is claimed to be "biased." (Criticism of President Clinton was criticism; criticism of President Bush is bias!) Democrats will still continue to say "thank you" to Republicans when they (Democrats) get kicked in the shins, because it's better than getting kicked in the crotch, which is happening daily. Democrats have turned into wimps...silent wimps. It's pitiful.

I can do a better job telling the truth than Democrats have done, and I'd be happy to make suggestions at any time. But of course the Democratic leadership and its advisors think you know better...and you'll continue to lose seats in congress because of that smug attitude, and failure to stand up to the Republicans and fight, even when the opportunities arose, as they have every day.

BB
Granite Falls, WA 98252

Now the question is: how do we get people to protest, to revolt, to take the country back? We've sunk into such a morass of Orwellian proportions that today down is up, wrong is right, fantasy and spin is news, etc.
I have an email list of about 175 people to whom I send out political "activist letters," picking out specific issues and asking them to write letters to the editor, write to their congressmen, and send the letters on to others to do the same. I have no idea how many people follow up, but I know there is some active participation. I'm trying to do my part, but the goddam wimpy Democrats aren't helping in the least.

What can be done in an environment of malaise and public capitulation that places the US in much the same political position today as pre-WWII Germany?

*** *** *** *** ***

Thanks. Almost no one but NION has called this one correctly. Another sad day for democracy, I'm afraid.

SC
Redding, CT

*** *** *** *** ***

I couldn't agree more. At this point, and for a number of years, the Democrats haven't been worth the sweat on my... well you get the idea. In a way, I am angrier at the so-called Democratic Party than I am at the Republicans, because I feel completely betrayed by the party that was supposed to be for at least some of my cherished values. I guess I need to remember that Bill Clinton's sanctions in Iraq, to say nothing of the use of depleted uranium in Kosovo, are actually even bigger crimes against humanity than those of Dubbya. Hard to believe, but yet it seems true.

We need a new party and the long range thinking and courage to bring it to power. I no longer have a microgram of faith left in the Democrats.

Thanks for the wonderful work that you do.

Best regards,
J B
Willow Bend

*** *** *** *** ***

Thanks. I just added your website to my favorites list and made a contribution.

AL
Woodland Hills, CA

*** *** *** *** ***

"That's right. The Democrats got nothing."
This is exactly the right analysis, and I don't hear it from anywhere else. League of Conservation Voters emailed me that this is a triumph! MoveOn bills it as a compromise. Yours is the clear analysis.
-JM

*** *** *** *** ***

Thank you.
Dear nion,
I felt so terrible today when I heard the "compromise" news and everyone congratulating themselves.

For what? Giving in without a vote on the floor to the demands of the far right. This is clearly not a win as Barbara Boxer's e-mail announces.

Thank you for being here in these important times. I feel like I'm not alone.

Best regards,
LT
Columbus, OH

*** *** *** *** ***

right on!!!!

Get rid of Bush - we're with you all the way!!!

NS, Ph.D., ASCAP
femcomposer@naomimusic.com
www.naomimusic.com
Ojai, CA

*** *** *** *** ***

The Democrats have no message for the people, except to be republican lites...I hope there are some mavericks who will force the issue. Let the extreme right take the responsibility for ruling.
DJG
monona, wi

*** *** *** *** ***

dang straight
dk

*** *** *** *** ***

I completely agree. This was a pathetic excuse for a "bipartisan agreement" I think they wanted to stop all the protests and civil unrest that was in the works. Now, according to their "agreement", they can bring out the nuclear option without warning and without time for us to object. I think the situation is worse now than before. I don't want them to override the constitution, but if that's what's going to happen, we must object BEFORE it is a fate accompli! We should protest the agreement! Thanks for all your work... AO

*** *** *** *** ***

The Dems got "nothing"? Are you crazy? We WON! The traditions of the Senate were saved! If you wanted something different, then take me off your list!

LL

*** *** *** *** ***

Dear C. Clark Kissinger,
Thank you so much for stating plainly that we need to get out in the streets and protest. I don't think it's enough to "drive the Bush regime from power," however. It's time to get rid of both political parties and start anew; beginning with a constitutional convention.
Sincerely,
RJ

*** *** *** *** ***

Ah yep, methinks you see the light!
ES

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree fully. Here, pasted in, and as an attachment, is the comment that I in my capacity as a Contributing Editor for it, I published today at http://planetmove.blogspot.com/. I have also attached copies of my political bio. and an earlier "Short Shot" that you might find top be of interest.

With every good wish, Dr. Steven Jonas

Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Short Shot No. 63: Munich and the Nuclear Option

On September 30, 1938, the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain arrived back in Great Britain following the conclusion of the Munich Agreement with the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. Waving his copy of the document as he stepped out of his airplane, he announced that the agreement had achieved “Peace in Our Time.” That agreement permitted Hitler to march his army into Western Czechoslovakia and incorporate into the German Reich significant sections of it that happened to have significant numbers of German speakers in them --- an area known in German as the Sudetenland.

In doing this, the British, and their French allies, declined to honor treaty obligations they had to defend Czechoslovakia, ignored the open offer that Stalin had made to make the Soviet Army available for action against the Germans, and prevented the strong and well-equipped Czech army from fighting the Germans in defense of their own country. In return for these non-actions, Chamberlain received a promise from Hitler that this would be his “last territorial claim in Europe.” In March 1939, Hitler marched into Prague, took over the balance of the Czech part of the original country and set up Slovakia as an “independent” country under a pro-Nazi, but native, dictator.

In resolving the “Nuclear Option” crisis in the US Senate, the Democrats agreed to confirmation by the full Senate on the Bush nominations of Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen, for seats on various Circuit Courts of Appeal. Among other things, Brown is a judge who, like Scalia and Thomas of the US Supreme Court, believes that there is some “Natural Law” standing above the US Constitution. Since that Natural Law is unwritten, in practice that means that it is whatever she says it is, thus replacing the Constitution as the highest law of the land. Pryor believes that church and state should be one. Owen believes that judges who have previously taken money from corporations should represent their views on the bench.

In return for this agreement, the Democrats have received a promise from the Republicans that, with one exception, they will never invoke the “Nuclear Option” to destroy the power of the minority in the Senate to employ the “filibuster” to prevent a vote on judicial nominations. The filibuster is a debating device currently part of the Senate rules that requires a super majority to cause the matter being debated to come to the floor for a vote. (According to current Senate rules any change in them requires a two-thirds majority. Under the Nuclear Option, the Republicans would violate this rule with a ruling from the Chair by the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, about which the Democrats could do nothing but scream bloody murder.) Oh yes, it just so happens that in the deal the Republicans could employ the “Nuclear Option” in the future anyway, if they thought that its use were really indicated.

Sort of like when Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia after promising that he would go no further than the Sudetenland, wouldn’t you say? Well I would.

Note: "Dr. J." is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Contributing Editor for The Planetary Movement, a weekly Contributing Author for the webmagazine The Political Junkies: for the Preservation and Promotion of Constitutional Democracy, (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), and a Contributing Columnist for the Project for the Old American Century (http://www.oldamericancentury.org/). He is the author of The New Americanism: How the Democratic Party Can Win the Presidency, available from www.amazon.com (go to "Books;" enter the title) and www.barnesandnoble.com (same). He is also the author of The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022, originally published in 1996, under the pseudonym “Jonathan Westminster.” It was republished with a New Introduction in 2004, under the same author's name. The 2004 edition is available at www.barnesandnoble.com and www.xlibris.com. Both versions are available at www.amazon.com.

May 24, 2005 Responses to Not In Our Name State of Conscience emails

May 24, 2005


We still should have a People's Filibuster to shut down the govt. over the war.
D

*** *** *** *** ***

Dear folks at NION,

I sent the below e-mail from MOVE-ON and my response to numerous friends. I want you, at NION, to know that there are people like myself who are looking for leadership which has the courage to face the enemy with open eyes and head held high. We want to fight against the American fascist movement.

Who will lead us?

-AL

*** *** *** *** ***

I am so very disgusted with what happened earlier this evening (5-23-05)......after all the work and the phoning and e-mailing and petition signing...and the supposedly "standing firm"by Sen. Harry Reid of the Dems in the Senate, the Democrats "whimped-out" again!!!!! I can't believe that Sen. Reid can actually claim victory.....the three most radical judicial nominees Owen, Brown and Pryor will be confirmed!!!! This is an insane let down!! I am glad the "nuclear option"has been averted....but it really just turned out to a hollow threat indeed. Thanks for allowing me to vent my disgust....I

*** *** *** *** ***

You are so right!! I hope MoveOne does go forward with it's filibuster.....they probably will.......MoveOn is not a group that "whimps-out" so easily like my beloved Democrat party......... The Democrats have effectively destroyed the filibuster without a "nuclear option" even in play!! Now sadly...I must say that truly the Democrats don't pay any attention to opinion polls......I think they have completely gone insane, just what the heck are they thinking!!!! This is so bizarre......The Democrats, who prior to this deal have been winning, lately something they could not in recent elections, "The hearts and minds" of the American people, now they not only "whimped-out" but they have betrayed the trust of the millions who wanted them to press on with their fight, to hold on to the will of the people!! After all the Democrats I thought were the People's Party.......... This happening definitely is an "extraordinary circumstance".....First the Dems "whimp-out on the Iraq resolution vote, now this? what's next?!!!!!! I

*** *** *** *** ***

....and reflect on the need to form a true 'opposition party.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3688434

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3708092

We must realize that the "Democratic Party" is a big part of the problem. And, we must realize that current 'third party' efforts are inadequate because they are too narrowly focused.

The focus must be on the reality that "America" has ceased. We need to restore, rebuild.

I suggest you, NION, launch the "Restore America Party," and I suggest you contact leaders like Congressman John Conyers and Senator Barbara Boxer and ask them to lead RAP. I readily see the two of them being at the top of the 2008 RAP president/vp ticket.

It is time to step up a level and 'see': we may be able to do what needs to be done, peacefully and legally, but only if we move quickly and comprehensively.

Thank you for your time,
Research Professor

*** *** *** *** ***

This is a book "Know Your Fundamentalists." 185 pages. Quoting from the book: "For those of you who want to know what is truly happening in this country, the thing that has been building for a long, long time, a holy war, a covert Christian jihad for control of America and the entire world. Millions of Americans are under the spell of an extraordinarily dangerous, mass psychosis."

It may appear that the events that Matthew (http://www.matthewbooks.com/) speaks about in this morning's message may make all of this moot. I certainly pray and want to believe that it does.

This is part of becoming informed; not in fear, but to be read with detachment.

A Canadian friend sent this to me this morning.

*** *** *** *** ***

Dear cyber activist:
As you may know, former governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean became DNC Chair on February 12th of this year, a day many of us think should be designated Direct Democracy Day, in recognition of the importance his grassroots campaign. Dean's election signals the possibility of a change in the status quo of the Democratic Party, and, perhaps in the American political process, as well. A DNC that is responsive to its constituents? We can always hope.

The danger is this: many former supporters may interpret his election as a sell-out to the consultant-dominated, corrupt Democratic Party, commonly recognized as the left wing of the American Corporate Party. Instead of seeing this as an opportunity to reform the party, they see it as just another dead end and are choosing to leave the party in favor of being "Independent" or Green. As you well know, the powers that be on the right are more than willing to exploit this disillusionment for political advantage.

But apart from Dean or the DNC, the grassroots is now a coordinated strategic factor in American politics, and it needs to make its influence felt by the leadership of both political parties in order for the Democrats to remain a viable party in the eyes of many Americans.
All of us want to see a reinvigorated American political process, but the Democratic Party needs to wake up; it will be reformed or replaced.

With this in mind, please consider signing and/or sharing the following petition. It is intended as a pre-emptive strike in defense of the fledgling Democratic grassroots against the barrage of anti-democratic, anti-Dean propaganda we all know is coming. We need to present a united front against the Neo-Con juggernaut, and we need to do it ASAP.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/minute76/petition.html

Thank you, and follow the energy!

AD

*** *** *** *** ***

Well--at least! But then there's George promising to veto any possible bill to allow stem cell research. We just have to keep on; we cannot give up!
TH

*** *** *** *** ***

Face it! Talk about any issue you desire indefinitely and it will lead to more Republican-Fascist Crap. Our form of government sucks--just like our Country. Throw the Rascals out--both Republican and Republican Light Democrats. I have been a loyal almost fanactical Democrat from Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair deal and a worker for JFK and Ted Kennedy. Now I want out. Get it through your thick skulls that the Republicans in reality are Corporate Fascists and will never again compromise. The American nitwits if they even care to retain a portion of "The Bill of Rights" must drive these Fascist bastards from office by any means possible--if you get my drift. As you know I have to choose my words carefully due to Herr John Ashcroft's so-called Nazified Patriot Act--again--if you know what I mean. With the exception of the "Horrors of the Holocaust", George W. Bush the moronic giggling killer, is worse than Adolph Hitler. Even General Fransisco Franco, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo are angelic compared to this White House moron. By the way do we still have "Freedom of Speech" or has the First Ammendment been eradicated by the present Corporate Fasicst administration.

Incidentally, since they are all Corporate owned and controlled and Free Speech is a thing of the past, is there any point to addressing our Media Whores?

JI

*** *** *** *** ***

If The fall of the Alamo in the 1800's was a "Comprimise" than the Filibuster and Corporate NAZI Judges [appointees] is in the same vain, I wonder if Custer and the 7th Calvarys at little big horn last thought was Ah! we've reached a "Comprimise" as they were being wiped out!!! Why is Caving in called a " Comprimise"????????????????????

HS



I appreciate your email, but what difference does it make now that a compromise has been made and the three most objectionable judges are assured to pass. I would appreciate a reply.

JP

*** *** *** *** ***

I agree with you. In fact about an hour ago I wrote Moveon and told them this is not a victory! I said that the Demos will only filibuster on the worst cases. Who could be worse than Owen and Brown????

BN

*** *** *** *** ***

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOU SUPPORT. We have cancelled our actions, since the senate reached a compromise. Please let folks know.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

CH
Kansas City, MO

*** *** *** *** ***

uh, guys? they made a deal.....
GC

*** *** *** *** ***

Without a massive peoples movement, $$$$$ will continue to bury us all. Why are we not creating a global peoples' culture/movement based clearly on life enhancing principles and values????? Bruce Shearer. America is mostly cancerous.
NG

*** *** *** *** ***

As an outsider, an English woman living in Brussels, I want to say how much in my heart I share in your struggle for peace. All these deaths, all this incalculable suffering, whether in Irak, Israel-Palestine, among American families...! Let us hope that one day we human beings will ban war as we banned slavery, at least in theory. It's already something.
Wishing you well,
Bible translator

*** *** *** *** ***

Notice came tonight that a compromise cleared the nuclear option... at least for now... if the signers are honorable.... It is a sellout deal but it preserves the filibuster... so they say.......

*** *** *** *** ***

Thank god they came to a bi-partisan agreement.. and.. preserved the right to fillibuster!!!!
Are the protests still happening?

LT

Responses from various organizations to the “Filibuster Compromise"

May 24, 2005

From Planned Parenthood:

Last night a bipartisan group of 14 senators struck a compromise on the "nuclear option."

This deal will allow filibusters to be used only under "extraordinary" circumstances in the future, and will not allow filibusters for three of the seven extremist nominees currently under discussion. The confirmation of these three appeals court nominees — Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla R. Owen, and William Pryor — will be voted on, as soon as today or tomorrow, by the full Senate.

This last-second compromise is bittersweet for those of us who were counting on our senators to make sure that moderate, reasonable judges head up our federal courts. On the same day that the current U.S. Supreme Court accepted a case that will revisit restrictions on legal access to abortion, the Senate has compromised an important protection against confirmation of extremist judges. The bottom line is this — U.S. senators have agreed to allow extremist judges one step closer to the federal courts.

Today the Senate will vote to continue debate on the nomination of extremist Priscilla Owen and move to a final vote on her nomination. Our voices — your voice — needs to be heard on this issue during the next 24 hours!!

As I write this note, the Senate is gearing up for an all-night debate on Owen's nomination. You can fight against Owen's possible confirmation by reaching out to the 14 senators who brokered this compromise. We have set up a special form here that you can use to quickly and easily reach these key senators.

Yours for Choice,
Karen Pearl

*** *** *** *** ***

From The Feminist Majority: The Fight to Protect the Courts Is Not Over!

Dear Feminist Activist,

As you may have already heard, 14 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have struck a deal that puts the so-called “nuclear option” off the table, at least for now. The deal allows filibusters to be used against judicial nominees in “extraordinary circumstances.” Unfortunately, the deal also allows a simple majority vote on three of the most anti-women’s and civil rights judicial nominees to the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor.

Will saving women’s lives, women’s rights, and civil rights be considered such an extraordinary circumstance? If the records of the three anti-women’s rights, anti-civil rights nominees who will not be filibustered under the deal are to be the standard, then these rights are in grave peril.

But at least we have a chance. Without any possibility of a filibuster, we would have a very slim chance under the present circumstances of blocking an extreme anti-women’s rights and civil rights Supreme Court nominee.

We must remain tough and vigilant. Please send a message to your Senators today urging them to vote against Rogers Brown, Owen, and Pryor.

The first vote is scheduled for tomorrow on Priscilla Owen’s nomination. Votes on Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor are expected in the next two weeks.

Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, has voted against a woman’s right to choose in every abortion-related opinion. Her dissenting opinion in a case involving a minor who wished to obtain a judicial bypass for an abortion was called “an unconscionable act of judicial activism” by none other than President Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Owen is a Big Business nominee who consistently rules against consumers and tried to weaken discrimination protections in employment.

Rogers Brown, a justice on California’s Supreme Court, has denounced the New Deal as the “triumph of our own socialist revolution.” That puts in jeopardy Social Security, Fair Labor Standards, the minimum wage, and the list goes on. She has received a partial “not qualified” rating from the American Bar Association. In her public speeches, she has criticized the legal theory that underlies the right to privacy, abortion, and access to birth control, and she voted to protect racist speech in the workplace under the First Amendment.
Pryor has called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." He has repeatedly argued in favor of a state's right to be exempt from federal laws banning discrimination. Commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn laws banning consensual sodomy, Pryor said, “… a constitutional right that protects ‘the choice of one’s partner’ . . . must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing’).”

Please, take action today – urge your Senators to vote against these extreme right-wing judicial nominees.

*** *** *** *** ***

NOW Asks: Senate Nuclear Option Deal—Victimized or Compromised?

May 24, 2005

Fourteen senators reached a bipartisan compromise last night, pulling the Senate back from the brink and avoiding the nuclear option for now, but giving a pass to three extremist judges who fully deserved to be filibustered.

"The entire 'nuclear option' maneuver was an exercise in scorched-earth politics. In pushing it, what Bill Frist and the Republican leadership really compromised was their integrity," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "Our democracy was compromised by the machinations of a power-hungry administration and their lackeys in the Senate who put their allegiance to George W. Bush above their oath of office."

A compromise by some middle-roaders in both parties preserved the filibuster for another day, another fight, but perhaps at too high a cost. In the so-called compromise, seven Republican senators agreed not to vote for the "nuclear option" to ban the filibuster, and seven Democratic senators agreed not to use the filibuster against three of the Bush's most extreme nominees, and henceforth only in extraordinary cases. Here's the rub: the filibuster was only being used in extraordinary cases anyway — only 10 of more than 200 nominees so far.

"The Senate 'compromise' was more like a mugging," said Gandy, "where the thug says 'if you give me what I want, I won't shoot you . . . at least not right now.' Indeed, the victim may feel relieved for the moment, but has been victimized nonetheless. And may yet be shot."

Priscilla Owen, who will likely be voted on this week, was publicly criticized at least a dozen times by Bush's own Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, when they were both on the Texas Supreme Court. In one case, when Owen tried to re-write Texas' abortion laws to suit her own ideology, Gonzales referred to her attempt as "unconscionable judicial activism."

Janice Rogers Brown is a staunch opponent of women's rights and civil rights. Her views lie so far outside the mainstream that she was the lone dissenter on the California Supreme Court in decision after decision. Just this week the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, affirmed that court in a case in which Brown had vociferously dissented — and even commented negatively on Brown's dissent. Not even Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas came to the defense of her shoddy reasoning and outrageous conclusions.

William Pryor, a former Alabama attorney general, used his office to oppose the traditional separation between church and state. He has consistently argued against a woman's right to choose abortion, calling Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination in the history of Constitutional law." Pryor also filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act interfered with "state's rights," and was therefore unconstitutional.

"Who heard a peep from the Senators who now profess such a deep conviction that every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote, when 60 of Bill Clinton's nominees (including some for these same vacancies) were denied a floor vote?" asked Gandy.

"Their crocodile tears for these extremist nominees don't cover up the fact that they are willing to abuse their power and sacrifice the integrity and trust of the many for the greed of the few. For the future of our country and our courts, we must not let them. We must defeat Owen, Brown, Pryor, and every extremist nomination that comes to the Senate."

People's Filibusters Cancelled But ...

Dear Friends of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience:

We checked the Moveon.org site this morning and the filibusters scheduled to begin today have been cancelled: "Our members fought hard to preserve the filibuster, which will now live to see another day. The only way the 'nuclear option' comes back is if the Republicans break their agreement. Because we've stopped this power grab by the radical right, Tuesday's Citizen Filibusters have been cancelled."

From the NY Times analysis on the "compromise": A Modest Victory for Bush, but Challenging Tests Lie Ahead. "...The split-the-baby outcome, moreover, did little to resolve a rolling series of challenges to Mr. Bush that in coming days and weeks could do much to set the tone for his second four years in office."

From the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience (NION SOC):

"The Bush government seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political form of Christian fundamentalism as government policy. No longer on the margins of power, this extremist movement aims to strip women of their reproductive rights, to stoke hatred of gays and lesbians, and to drive a wedge between spiritual experience and scientific truth. We will not surrender to extremists our right to think. ...

"Millions of us worked, talked, marched, poll watched, contributed, voted, and did everything we could to defeat the Bush regime in the last election. ... It would be a terrible mistake to let our failure to stop Bush in these ways lead to despair and inaction. On the contrary, this broad mobilization of people committed to a fairer, freer, more peaceful world must move forward. We cannot, we will not, wait until 2008. The fight against the second Bush regime has to start now. ...

"The movement against the war in Vietnam never won a presidential election. But it blocked troop trains, closed induction centers, marched, spoke to people door to door -- and it helped to stop a war. ... "We must change the political reality of this country by mobilizing the tens of millions who know in their heads and hearts that the Bush regime's 'reality' is nothing but a nightmare for humanity."

Our statement needs to be publishsed widely to become a part of the debate in society of what this "compromise" really means.

E-mail the NION SOC, post it to bulletin boards and blogs, distribute it at events, raise money to get it published in your area (call the NION SOC national office to assist in your efforts, 212-941-8086/nion@cloud9.net).
NION SOC for statement and downloadable files: http://www.nion.us
Donate at http://www.refuseandresist.org/nion/index.html

While the NION SOC does not endorse actions, we notify people of significant events that are relevant to the statement's contents.

From the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience Staff
nion@cloud9.net

NION SOC Alert Stop the Theocratic Power Grab & other Developments

Dear Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience Friends:

Some exciting new developments:

1) MoveOn members have taken up the call to filibuster and are holding more than one hundred 24-hour Citizen Filibusters to Stop the Right-Wing Power Grab starting Tuesday, May 24th at 12 Noon. There's one near you. The Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience (NION SOC) urges you to be part of these Peoples' Filibusters. It is crucial that people join in these actions. <http://www.moveonpac.org/event/citizenfilibusters/?id=5557-1733345-VT7Nj97w1nLE9hcmvhVA7Q&t=1=

There needs to be both visible protest to this "nuclear option" as well as outreach to those who are not recognizing the severe far-reaching consequences of this power grab. The NION statement speaks to this urgent need.

To do:
-- Distribute the NION SOC. http://www.nion.us/NSOC/download.htm
-- Take posters with the slogans: "Stop the Theocratic Power Grab! No Nuclear Option!"
-- Read the NION statment at your Peoples' Filibuster http://www.nion.us/NSOC/NION2wsigninfo.htm
-- Read Tony Hileman's speech from NION SOC's 5/18 DC People's Filibuster (he's the Executive Director of the American Humanist Association). http://filibusteragainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/
-- Let us know what you see, hear, and read about the filibuster and the protests at nion@cloud9.net. While the (NION SOC) does not endorse actions, we notify people of significant events that are relevant to the statement's contents.

2) The NION SOC was published in the Columbia University Daily Spectator graduation issue on May 18th, 2005.

3) Check out the new look of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience (NION SOC) web site http://www.nion.us/ and add your comments about the Peoples' Filibuster to our new Filibuster blog spot http://filibusteragainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/.
New sections of the web site will be coming soon. Your ideas, suggestions and participation on this web site are appreciated. Write us at nion@cloud9.net.

From the NION SOC Staff

People's Filibusters Nation-Wide Starting Tuesday at Noon

Across the country, starting at
noon on Tuesday, May 24th
and going 24 hours
join up with the People's Filibusters!

Stop the theocratic power-grab!
Hook up with, or organize, a filibuster near you!

Remarks by Tony Hileman, at the People's Filibuster in DC

Not In Our Name!

Remarks by Tony Hileman, executive director of the American Humanist Association, at therally to Stop the Theocratic Power Grab! on the National Mall, May 18, 2005

I am here today representing Humanism and the American Humanist Association, and I’m here in defense of the core principles of our constitutional democracy, which are in grave danger from the threat of a theocratic power grab.

For those of you not acquainted with us, Humanism is compassionate, ethical naturalism: A progressive lifestance or philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

Humanists join with others in working to preserve an open, secular society and consider it our civic duty to actively participate in the democratic process—a process that is in grave danger from the threat of a theocratic power grab. And that’s why we’re here today!

You can learn more about Humanism and the American Humanist Association at AmericanHumanist.org, where you will read of our Humanist dedication to many of the same principles and values espoused by, but not practiced by, those who seek to forcibly impose their ideology on the rest of us through a “nuclear option.” Nuclear warfare of any kind is intended to destroy, and in this case American democracy and the rights of the disenfranchised are its targets and would be its victims.

But not in our name!

Theists and Humanists alike should decry the insatiable lust for power of those who employ a crass political chicanery that has no place in a constitutional democracy where none is considered better than another and each deserves and expects equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal respect.

I am here to protest in the strongest way possible the exercise of the uncaring tyranny of the majority over the considerations of a loyal, patriotic minority who stand in opposition to this ham-handed power grab that threatens the America we love and are here to defend.

Can I be more clear?

The narrowly-focused neo-conservatives have, through a distorted message of fear, taken over both houses of congress. They occupy the White House. And now they’re attempting to pack the judiciary that gave it to them!

The president, the highest elected official of our secular government, has called for an un-constitutional religious litmus test for judges, saying he believes, and here I quote, "…we need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God.” He went on to pledge that “Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

A president’s duty is to administer our government on behalf of all Americans. Bush’s practice of using his office to minister only to those who share his personal religious convictions is an offense to the American principle of the separation of religion and government.

That’s theocracy! What greater affront to our constitution that to blatantly disregard one of its central elements? What greater insult than to do so in the name of religious ideology? These are things that people of charity and respect abhor and will not tolerate!

And so we gather here today to stand against the quest for absolute power and to defend our nation against those who consider themselves agents of god—who value beliefs above country, above liberty, above human rights, and above human life. When that happens, when ideology is placed above humanity, when religious and political dogmas are allowed to trump reason and democracy, the just and equal application of the law becomes part of the past, cooperation and respect are left in the dust, and our national integrity in the dirt.

This scorched-earth, no-compromise approach of an arrogant majority has already tarnished our national reputation and squandered international goodwill built up over centuries. We simply will not accept the sanctimonious value system that uses a sham set of seemingly just ends to rationalize unjust means. Nor should we! It’s anathema to the time-honored American way that demands just ends be achieved by equally just means. Otherwise, the sincerity of the ends themselves can be legitimately called into question, and I do.

These are people who, in accord with their sectarian ideology, justify their means by an end based not on lofty principle but on tactless expediency, without consideration for the impact on that which they are sworn to uphold—the constitution of the United States of America.

This isn’t the religiously motivated humanitarian action we all applaud. This is politically motivated religious activism that we all abhor and rise up against! God and government do not mix and the two should not be blended in our name—not in our name!

If this parliamentary slight-of-hand succeeds, no rule is safe—including the rule of law. We reject a religiously-based, authoritarian society in favor of one of cooperation and respect. Cooperation often takes compromise. And the unbending, intolerant view of the fundamentalist allows for no compromise. And that’s why we’re here today. To inject a loud but reasoned voice into what has become a clamorous cacophony of partisan platitudes masquerading as public debate—a shrill rhetoric of misinformation, misrepresentation, and mal intent.

It is our duty to be heard, for America has never been more challenged, and our progressive voice has never been more needed. Clearly, this is a time that calls for great leadership, greater ideas, and the greatest of ideals.

Encouraged by each other and comforted by the advancements and successes of the past let us move into the future/ with the humble confidence of our American heritage, to ensure that the humanitarian values we cherish, this amazing nation we love, and the remarkable democratic traditions we are devoted to, are safeguarded and preserved for generations to come.

Not just for us, not just for the citizens of America, but for the citizens of an expectant world whose eyes are on us in angst to see if we can withstand the test or our own creation—the secular democracy of a compassionate and generous people.

We have to stop settling our difference by hitting each other. The authoritarian confrontation of the nuclear option must be abandoned.

The crude, brute-force tactics of the insensitive will fail.

We will prevail.

And that’s something we can proudly aspire to—in our name!


Tony Hileman, Executive Director
American Humanist Association
1777 T Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009-7125
202-238-9088 Fax 238-9003 Toll free 1-800-837-3792
www.americanhumanist.org

Peoples’ Filibuster! Thurs., 5/19, in Washington, DC!

Peoples’ Filibuster! Thurs., 5/19, in Washington, DC!

Join NOW (National Organization for Women), signers of Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience, and others. Spread the word: email friends, organizations, and media!

Stop the Theocratic Power Grab! No Nuclear Option!
12 pm to 6 pm, at the National Mall, reflecting pool
3rd St. SW and Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC
For more information call 212-941-8086. For ongoing info, go to http://filibusteragainsttheocracy.blogspot.com/

Day Two of a peoples’ filibuster is on! This is urgent. Compromising with a right-wing theocratic agenda and judges that could enforce it is not in our interests. Day one of the people’s filibuster (Wed., 5/18,) shows the potential for people to come together quickly and reach the media. And that we must do! Already ABC TV news, the San Francisco Examiner, and the Christian Broadcasting Network came to the opening round. Speaking out were:

Tony Hileman of American Humanists (http://www.americanhumanist.org/),

Karen Bradley from http://www.democracycellproject.net/,

Alliance for Justice (http://www.afj.org/) representatives dressed as “checks and balances,”

C. Clark Kissinger, a signer and initiator of Not in Our Name Statement of Conscience (http://www.nion.us/) and contributing writer to Revolution newspaper (http://www.revcom.us/).

This filibuster was inspired by Princeton University students (http://www.filibusterfrist.com/) who continue to mobilize campus filibusters across the country, and was initiated by Joan Bokaer, Director of http://www.theocracywatch.org/ and individual signers of Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience.

A commentary by Robert S. Rivkin, Pacific News Service (PNS), May 18, 2005 speaks well to what some of the stakes are: “Once the religious right's theocratic agenda has been fulfilled, it will not be reversible or derailed during the lifetime of Bush's judges. Even if the religious right's current agenda were to be overwhelmingly rejected by the voters for the next 30 or 40 years, it would be locked in -- by "activist judges" of the radical right. PNS contributor Robert S. Rivkin is a San Francisco lawyer who has trained foreign judges and prosecutors on human rights and rule of law issues”

Stop the Theocratic Power Grab! No Nuclear Option!
Wednesday May 18th, Washington DC
People's Filibuster
Continuing Thursday from 2 - 6 pm
On the Mall at 3rd Street SW & Maryland Ave. SW(@ the Capitol Reflecting Pool)
This call was issued by a group of signers of the Not In Our Name statements including C. Clark Kissinger, and also Joan Bokaer, Founder of Theocracy Watch.org
We are on the threshold of a radically altered society. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's intention to use the "Nuclear Option" outlawing any filibuster against the judicial candidates of the religious right is more than discarding "policy procedures of the Senate" and a disagreement over selection of judges.
It's an attempt, instigated by a hard core of rightwing Christian fundamentalists, to consolidate power under a regime with leaders the likes of George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and Antonin Scalia.
These people actually oppose the current form of secular government. They envision a religiously-based authoritarian society, with a Biblical mandate to interpret God's will for the United States and the world. Their "cure" for a suffering world is a war-imposed global U.S. hegemony that paves the way for "Christianizing the world" while feeding the imperial economy.
This issue is coming to a head starting this week in Washington. What happens with these current court nominees will then set the stage for control of the Supreme Court. Many organizations are asking you to contact Senators. This week, starting Wednesday May 18th, we call for a "peoples' filibuster" on the Mall where people of conscience, well known and not, speak out against this dismantling of the separation of powers. Inspired by the example of celebrities who came in waves to the South African Embassy to protest apartheid, we envision growing this protest as the debate builds.
We ask you to stop what you are doing and come to Washington. Be visible in the streets, in the halls of power, in the media, and in the churches and schools to say NO! Not in our name! Those who can't be in Washington can heed the call of the students at Princeton University who held a similar "Filibuster Frist" for 16 days, and are spreading this action to college campuses across the country this week.
As we said in the second Not In Our Name statement, "The Bush government seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political form of Christian fundamentalism as government policy. No longer on the margins of power, this extremist movement aims to strip women of their reproductive rights, to stoke hatred of gays and lesbians, and to drive a wedge between spiritual experience and scientific truth."
It is not too late to stop this. Let us not be recorded as the generation that sat waiting for the pendulum to swing back. Act now. Be part of saying "Not in our Name!"
*TheocracyWatch.org explores the narrow theological agenda that the theocratic right is imposing on secular society
**Why and how Princeton University students are spreading "FilibusterFrist" across the country.
***Thorough background on conservative judges at the center of this battle
****The Not in Our Name Statement of Conscience inspiring our action
Thursday, May 19th, Washington DC. 2:00 - 6:00 pm on the Mall at 3rd Street SW & Maryland Ave. SW(@ the Capitol Reflecting Pool) Volunteer on the scene and to help spread the story info@nion.us.
http://www.nion.us/

Responses

5/17/05
Can't be there but am cheering everyone on. RG

5/17/05
The gloves are off. Bush and Company must be stopped. I called my senators. This is my little contribution: www.hehasnomandate.org JD Madison, Wisconsin

5/17/05
NUCLEAR OPTION
It is vital that the Senate retain the filibuster, esp. in reference to> questionable judicial nominees. RH, Jr.

5/17/05
We're With You In Spirit!

Re: Repub power grab
Unfortunately I can't come to Washington from Seattle but I'm cyber traveling and ringing their phones off the hooks from here. Kick ass! John

5/17/05
The filibuster is important not only to protect the minority in the U. S. Senate but also to recognize that the 55 Republican senators actually represent a minority of the population. The senate is not based on population, rather each state, regardless of population, receives two senators. Therefore the filibuster is to protect the majority of our people. An example to show the undemocratic structure of the senate could be that in California the quarter of a million votes received by the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for U. S. Senate is more votes than at least 16 setting senators.

5/17/05
I am doing all I can in the internet ARP Forum I promote a March onCongress telling them to get moving and impeach Bush for treason" The rest is a waste of time they have every thing wrapped up--see how fast they deny and spin any news they don't like... see Newsweek being forced to withdraw a story common sense would tell you it is very probable they di it. With people like Billy Graham' son saying Islam is a evil religion along with other Evangelist and Bush himself constant diatribe---what can we expect a soldier to do other than do what he things his superior want---? ES

5/17/05
Dear Friends,
I am sorry not to be able to be in Washington on next Wednesday to say with you once more "NO". Thank you for your action With my warmest messages of solidarity with the students of Princeton University where I occasionally give papers. CC