Obama's surrender statement today on FISA lays bare the lie of "change", "hope" and moving the country forward.  Anybody who buys that load of crap now is just a willing sucker who refuses to see what is plain as day: Obama's election doesn't mean "change" it means more of the same.  More capitulation, more servicing of the wealthy and powerful, more war, more excuses for why we can't provide healthcare, a decent education, mass transit and clean environment for all our people just to name a few items on the people's agenda that never get taken care of because we have to spend more than all the other countries on earth on the military instead of our people. 

The cowardice of the Democratic Party including quite clearly Sen. Obama on the issue of retroactive telecom immunity is shameful and an utter humilitating disgrace to put it mildly.  No amount of dodging, no amount of sugarcoating and no amount of bullshit spin can hide the fact that DC Democrats had and have the power to stop this abomination and instead they are taking yet another dive to accomodate the most disreputable tyrant ever to occupy the oval office.  True they don't really like the tyrant but they are doing this unconscionable thing  primarily because their true masters: the corporate powers that be, demand once again that their interests be served and the national interest be damned!  When the master snaps it's fingers these DC Democrats respond in Pavlovian manner like the poltroonish whores they are. 

I am ashamed and sickened to be a Democrat today and tired of the spineless cowardice of our alleged "leaders."  I tried to believe in Obama, but how anyone can be fooled by the litany of excuses offered up and those that are to come is beyond me.  Millions of us are tired of the same old trick (a favorite of DC Dems now for years) of announcing one's opposition while doing nothing to prevent evil's advance, lieing to the public about how this compromise is some sort of "best" deal we can get knowing that is false and knowing damn well it is the wrong thing to do.  This is simply intolerable.  This is a dark, dark day for democracy, for the United States and especially for the common people's liberties and rights.  We no longer live in a republic friends.  We live in an authoritarian, corporate controlled state where the alleged party of the people is just a decoy that mouths soothing platitudes to the public, promises change but is on it's knees servicing corporate wealth and power 24/7.  There is nothing the Democrats won't do to please and service corporate greed, corruption and as in this case: criminality.

Obama's embarassing surrender statement today is a perfect example of Helen Keller's wise words from long, long ago.  She said:

"We the people are not free.  Our democracy is but a name. 

We vote?  What does that mean?  It means that we choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. 

We elect expensive master to do our work for us, and then blame them because they work for themselves and for their class.

She was right then as now. 

At the very moment America needed Obama to demonstrate he wasn't just lucky about Iraq, he was genuinely courageous enough to oppose evil when it presented itself he proved that no, indeed, he just lucked out that he made a public statement against the war. 
Given the ease with which he has bent over and spread em for this galling circumvention of our laws and our Constitution, it is crystal clear now that had he been in DC he certainly would have joined his cowardly Democratic brothers and sisters in the Senate who voted for the war because they believed it to be politically "smart" and the "safe" position.  There is nothing more cynical and nothing that our people hate more than that.

What a load of bullshit we're being asked to swallow by Obama on this issue!   Does he think we are that stupid?  It appears that way.  Could he possibly even believe this garbage.  I think not. 

As far as I'm concerned, Obama should start returning all the money he's collected from all those suckers who thought he really was different and not just another craven, cowardly, calculating DC Democrat more committed to himself than to the nation or the people he allegedly represents.

Obama's voice has been silent thus far on the FISA capitulation now being marketed by Steny Hoyer and other wimpocrats in Washington DC who seem eager to sell us all down the river on retroactive telecom immunity.  This is not a close call.  Any decent Democrat with any balls should forcefully oppose this bill.  In the past Obama has opposed retroactive immunity.  If that opposition was for real then he will forcefully oppose this utter and complete capitulation on the issue.  As the nominee of the party and very liley the next President of the United States, Obama could easily quash this legislation by publicly making it clear he does not want the leigislation to pass.  If he doesn't do this but instead hides behind casting a vote against while this sickening, anti-American piece of shit legislation passes it means that Obama has no intention of upsetting the apple cart in DC as he has claimed from day one in his campaign.

Again, this is NOT a close call.  All good Democrats must oppose this effort by a tyrant to avoid prosecution for crimes committed at his direction and to allow his criminal co-conspirators in the private sector to be allowed to escape the consequences of their criminal actions as well.  It is unacceptable for the man who is now our party's leader to allow this legislation to go through.  It will not be long before we find out just exactly what Obama is made of and this bill is the test folks.

I pray that Obama does the right thing.  I want to believe he will.

In today's edition of TPM there is a post about Jim Webb's views regarding the Civil War and how that might damage his chance to be the VP nominee.  First, I don't think Webb is a very good choice mostly because he will be a much better Senator and have far more power in the Senate than as VP.  We need his voice in the Senate cajoling and shaming other Democrats into acting like Democrats instead of cowardly, craven politicians as they are want to do.  But also, I don't want to see anyone taken from the Senate who we may not be able to replace with a Democrat.

As for Webb's views on the Civil War he's just wrong.  It appears that Webb clings to some of the standard exculpatory rationale that many others also share regarding what those who fought for the south believed in and so on.  I believe it is extremely important for Americans to understand quite clearly why the Civil War occured and what those who would have destroyed the United States were fighting for.   I further believe it dishonors all those who sacrificed and suffered so much as slaves and as wounded or killed US soldiers to allow the truth about the war to be blurred.  I think it important to remember that more US soldiers died in the Civil War than in all the other wars we have participated in combined!  Over and above the military deaths, millions of men, women and children were held under the cruelest conditions of slavery for centuries and their descendants still feel the negative after effects.  Thus, glossing over the cause of the Civil War and why some southern men chose to fight for the destruction of the Union is thus a great disservice even to our citizens today.

While a deep understanding of the Civil War naturally requires an appreciation of many of the details of life and thought in that time and so forth, the reason the war was fought is crystal clear and it was also crystal clear at the time: slavery.  And thus, all those who fought for the side of treason fought for slavery primarily and they knew that.  It is also true that many southern men fought because they were forced to do so by impressment gangs established by the illegitimate state regimes throughout the south, but that's a whole different issue.

By the way, the night before last, Stephen Colbert did a brilliant piece on this question during "The Word" segment.  I highly recommend it to all.  It was devastatingly witty, sharp, on point and hillarious!

But back to the question of whether sovereignty or slavery was the issue for which southerners fought.  It is clear to me after much study of the Civil War that the only part of that line of argument that is genuinely factual is that those who fought against the United States did so with a great deal of skill, courage, and gallantry.  It ends there. 

While one might be able to find evidence that a particular individual may have actually believed more in the absurd notion of the sovereignty of the states and was thus willing to destroy the Union over it, it is simply beyond question that in the larger sense, this alleged belief was never anything more than political cover designed to dress up the defense of slavery and the destruction of the union in order to maintain it. 

Tactically speaking, it seems to me not unlike how in today's political environment Bushco fell back on democratizing Iraq when it was clear all along that the WMD's didn't exist and securing the oil fields was the primary objective for the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Iraq.  Though Bush and his henchmen continue to deny this truth, their denials do not make the truth any less true.  The denials do, however, serve to obfuscate the truth and those who believe these lies fail to understand what has taken place.  So too, the claims of all those who have made the sort of argument Webb has made serve only to obfuscate the truth.  These sorts of claims versus the truth about why southern men fought against the United States often end up in a sort of he said/she said stalemate which is unfortunate and keeps people from understanding the reality behind the Civil War.

I don't believe that Webb or most of the people who sincerely believe these claims are deliberately lying about why soldiers fought and what they believed in.  I do believe it is much more comforting for them to believe that their own ancestors were not fighting solely for the evil of slavery and so they choose to emphasize what is now far more palatable than the real truth.  They cannot bear the idea that their ancestors were traitors--though traitors they were.  They can be forgiven for being in error on this, but such claims should never be treated as though they were/are equally valid with the real truth of the matter.

In short, it is beyond question that the south seceded solely for the defense and preservation of human slavery.  Period.  All other claims are false and serve only to obfuscate the truth about why the war was fought and why so many lost their lives.  Yes, it was a complicated time and many arguments were made by various people at various times, but the war would never even have been considered had the interests of the slave powers not been the issue.

I rely on many sources I have read over the years for this conclusion, but I believe the best single, succinct source is the nation's greatest military hero and a great President (all the propaganda about him notwithstanding) who has never been given his full due: Ulysses S. Grant. 

In his memoirs, among many, many other things, Grant elaborates about the conditions and circumstances leading up to the war, the reasons for the conflict, what motivated the participants and more.  Grant made clear also, what he thought about the reasons the war was fought when reflecting upon his acceptance of Lee's surrender at Appamatox.  With genuine respect to Senator Webb, Grant is a far more credible source than he or any of the other apologists for treason in my opinion. 

In the event others might be interested in Grant's writing on these matters without having to read the entirety of the book, I am posting below some excerpts from the Memoirs of US Grant to demonstrate how clearly and how long it has been known that the arguments Webb and others make are simply untrue and serve no other purpose than to justifiy the participation of southern soldiers in the treasonous attempt at secession in order to defend and preserve human slavery.  Given his involvement and when he wrote the memoirs, Grant certainly cannot be considered a revisionist academic who, of late, has decided for political reasons to try and recast the causes or motives for the Civil War.

I hope that some will find these rxcerpts of interest.  The headings are mine.

ON THE HONEST REASONS FOR THE WAR AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECESSION

"In the case of the war between the States it would have been the exact truth if the South had said,--"We do not want to live with you Northern people any longer; we

know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you are growing numerically stronger than we, it may at some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the North to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You have been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you did not intend to continue so, and we will remain in the Union no longer." Instead of this the seceding States cried lustily,--''Let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us." Newspapers and people at the North reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution

did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the

probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.

 

This morning's report of negotiations with the Clinton camp and the Obama camp is certainly unpleasant news to this Democrat.  Neither was my first choice.  Both are corporate/centrist Democrats which is, to say the least, a tremendous disappointment particularly in light of the opportunity real Democrats/liberals/progressives had to support candidates who would actually make real changes in Washington.  But at this point there's no use crying over spilt milk.  Obama is going to be the nominee.  He won the race fair and square.

Given Clinton's behavior, statements and antogonistic posture the past few months it seems inconceivable to me that Obama would choose her as the number 2 on the ticket.  I would not trust her as far as I could throw her if I were him.  Her hunger for power is disconcerting at minimum and at times downright repulsive.  Her corrosive tactics, her sense of entitlement and her bitterness convince me she should not be allowed to be too close to too much power---ever.

There are many very good choices for Obama for Vice President.  But Hillary Clinton?  I don't think so.

The article currently running on TPM's front page about Carbon Dioxide levels being at their highest in 650,000 years is something that certainly grabs my attention and shouts: "EMERGENCY!" to me.  It is one of the more disturbing headlines I have seen lately and I've been seeing an increasing number of such headlines in recent months.  I've also been quite disturbed by just going outside and seeing what is going on with our environment and how obviously screwed up things are.  I don't understand why this subject isn't on the lips of every Democratic candidate for every office, every single day.  Nor do I undertstand why this is not on the front pages of the newspapers every single day or why it isn't the lead on every news broadcast every hour.  How can we, as a society be so nonchalant and apathetic about the destruction of the very thing that keeps us alive and that provided the circumstances for our emergence as a species? 

If we were all on a wooden boat handed down to us by our ancestors on a vast ocean planet with no land we wouldn't light it on fire for a profit would we?  Of course, not.  It is as though we are not human beings who comprehend the consequences of our actions but dumb animals who no more understand what is going on in the environment anymore than they understand quantum physics or sanskrit.

When I look out my window at the ongoing monsoon rains battering the midwest at the wrong time of year, when I see that strong winds and freak cold snaps are beginning the process of deforestation of what was once the most bountiful land on earth, where endless hardwood forests and abundant water created what my ancestors viewed almost as a new Eden, and when I see the increasingly violent storms, tornadoes and such devastating our communities and countryside, the sense of horror I feel about what we have wrought is quite real and growing.  I grew up during the Cold War fearing that nuclear cataclysm would unmake the world.  Now we face a less immediate threat, but one with no less devastating an outcome in the end and perhaps an even more devastating outcome.

Why we need any additional  headlines to motivate us to demand immediate and drastic action form our political leaders to halt and reverse the destruction of our atmosphere is beyond me.  No scientific studies are required.  All one need do is look outside and the evidence that something is clearly amiss in our environment is as plain as day---every day.

I cannot imagine a bigger sin or a more hideous crime against humanity than that which we all are currently participating in which is pushing our planet's atmosphere so out of balance that we may push it past the point of no return.  How could any moral people stand by doing nothing, allowing apathy denial to destroy the planet that is the source and security of all life as we know it?  How could any sentient being with a sense of self preservation stand by and doing nothing to prevent this very preventable disaster?

What alarms and disturbs me most is not the facts we know about global warming and it's effects.  By far the most alarming thing is that as a civilization we are doing so little about it when we already clearly understand that inaction equals disaster and potentially doom for humanity.  The situation is truly insane.

I know they have position papers on this but I simply don't hear our candidates for President discussing global warming/climate change with the sort of urgency it clearly demands.  With each passing day more reports are in the news indicating that the process of global ice melting is much more rapid than previously believed and the accumulation of carbon dioxide is accelerating even more than estimated which means we have less time than we thought before things go too far.  Perhaps things have already gone too far?  It is impossible to know and it is inexcusable to do nothing while any chance remains.  I could be wrong, yet I cannot help but to think that there is no action too drastic at this point that would be more of a risk than our continued inaction which threatens not our lives, but the lives of our children and of posterity which is literally all the children to come.  It is appalling to contemplate it.

I am unconvinced that any of our national leaders, except Al Gore, actually appreciate the enormity of what is taking place and how little time we have to begin the work of saving our home and thus the home of all those to come after us.  Have we completely lost our minds and our sense of obligation to the future? 

Perhaps I am the only one who thinks this way, but when I see the shocking changes in our weather I can think of nothing else but the effect this is going to have on my children and grandchildren and how there isn't any chance at all that it will be anything but bad.  I think to myself, "how can I look my son in the eye and tell him I'm sorry I was too busy to save your world."  We simply must make it our business to stop and reverse the destruction of this incredibly beautiful and valuable planet and we must do whatever it takes to do so.   As reports make clear on a daily basis there is simply no time to lose. 

Some might poo-poo this sort of reaction to the reports that we've done far more damage than previously believed.  But what is the downside of over-reacting compared to the downside of not doing enough?  The only downside to over-reacting to this greatest crisis ever to face humanity is a cleaner and healthier planet for generations to come.   So I think it's time to get moving on this problem and not to be moderate in our approach.   And what if those who counsel a take it slow, moderate approach to address this crisis are wrong?  What is the downside of not acting as quickly and forcefully as necessary?  If we err on the side of moderation, move too slowly, protect the wealthy and their profits too much and end up killing off humanity, it seems like a pretty bad trade off to me. 

All other issues are academic if we screw this one up folks.  We must act now.  We cannot wait.  Individual actions are nice, but an organized, collective, international, government led effort will be required.  If we don't demand that our leaders take such action immediately, I'm convinced it will not happen.  So demand action now, before it is too late.

It has been fairly apparent for weeks (for those of us who weren't blinded by our candidate loyalties) that Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the nomincation are slim to none.  Now, her chances have completely disappeared.  During this time her campaign has been waging a poison pill strategy against Obama by throwing every damaging or potentially damaging thing they could at him in order to wound him so badly that they could make their electability argument. 

But why?  What has the point been given that the chances of succeeding were so dismal at the outset?

It hasn't taken a rocket scientist to figure out she can't win enough delegates and last night's results have, for all intents and purposes, put an end to her campaign.  She may lim along for a bit now, but she has failed in her bid to take out Obama.  The nomination is now within easy reach for him.  Even the tv pundits were finally openly saying she's been jousting with windmills for weeks, but that until last night one could make a plausible, if unlikely, case that she still had a realistic shot.

As I see it, the upshot of her attempted take down of Obama over these past couple of months is essentially that she has damaged both herself and Obama as candidates now and in the future.  I read a newspaper column about a week ago suggesting "the Clinton's" real purpose now was to essentially ruin Obama's chances in the fall so she could run again in four years before she gets too old.  I don't want to believe that's the truth, but one has to wonder why the Clinton campaign adopted the advice of Mark Penn by waging a virtual scorched earth campaign against Obama attempting to poison white working class voters against him.

Now, I'm not one of the Obama "movement" people who thinks he represent a paradigm shift or any of the rest of that wooly hero worship some of his followers have succumbed to.  I think he, like Hillary, is just another centrist/corporate Democrat in a new package and that if elected, it's unlikely he will bring about any substantive changes in policies and programs of the Federal government and certainly the politics of Washington will not be changed.  Nonetheless, unless something totally unforseen by everyone occurs, Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President.  The fight with the Republicans is not going to be pretty and he will need everyone's assistance to limp across the finish line ahead of McCain.  We simply cannot afford another term of Republican corruption, endless unsuccessful imperial wars, and obscene military spending and waste.  So what on earth could the rationale of the Clinton campaign be for the battle they have waged since Super Tuesday?

Hillary finds herself now having blown millions on her unsuccessful bid for the Presidency while also having completely and forever disgraced herself, in the eyes of many of us, in terms of the tactics and appalling hypocrisy she has stooped to.  The Big Dog's reputation has also suffered as a result of the Republican style campaign conducted by Hillary's organization since Super Tuesday.  What possible rationale could have justified the course she took?  What could she have been thinking by choosing to do what she has done both to herself and to Obama?  I don't know if we'll ever really know, but I doubt any good will come of it.

I'm not one of those Obama people who bristles at every criticism of him by any means (he's way too centrist and pro-corporate for my taste), but I must say this non-convtroversey over Obama's remarks is not only absurd, but yet another crystal clear example of how childish and idiotic our public discourse has become under the leadership of the corporate media and the dunderheaded morons who are given endless airtime on our tv stations, and limitless space in print and on the net to distort the truth and misdirect the attention of our citizenry. 

Obama's allegedly controversial comments were exactly right and offensive to no one who understands the English language.  His were comments clearly sympathetic to the plight of the common American and explained well how it has come about that common folks now regularly vote against their own economic interest: becuase they know nobody in Washington in either party if watching out for them or will do anything to serve their economic interests.  How is that in any way controversial?  It isn't.  What is controversial is the fantasy the media and the Clinton camp have concocted about what Obama said.  It's shameful and does the nation a great disservice.

In the midst of this nonevent we have Hillary Clinton, whose chance of winning the nomination at this point are no better than mine, making a fool of herself by acting as though doing a few shots at the corner bar is something she ever does in real life and making public statements about the Holy Spirit as though she were daily consulting her Bible and meditating on her personal relationship with the Almighty.  Now, it's one thing to make a fool of yourself, but to do so in a cynical, mean-spirited way, out of desperation and denial, so that the only causualty is the eventual Democratic nominee's chances (and thus the only hope of the American people for a return to sanity anytime soon), is quite another matter.

Hillary has shown herself capable of being unfathomably irresponsible these past few days.  It's almost embarassing to witness.  She needs to stop now and preserve whatever dignity she might have remaining.  Her irresponsibility ought to disqualify her for any office beyond the one she now holds in my humble opinion.

The only rival Hillary has in terms of irresponsibility is, of course, Grandpa John McCain who today is calling for elimination of the Federal tax on gas between Memorial Day and Labor Day. 

Other than the usual irresponsible GOP howling for more income tax cuts for the rich to be paid for later by working Americans, this has to take the cake!  Will anyone in the media ask how he proposes to deal with the shortfall in gas taxes which will cause the contraction of federal highway construction and maintenance projects nationwide?  Of course not.  It won't even cross their minds.  It's simply outrageous pandering that not only doesn't do anyone any good, but it panders particularly to the most wasteful and polluting among us as well as encouraging exactly the opposite kind of behavior that the country needs right now.  He proposes to make it easier to burn more gas and thus keep "fueling" (pardon the pun) the worsening global warming problem by lowering gas prices so as to make it more economical for Americans to avoid altering, in any way, their gashog lifestyles.

Truly amazing stuff folks!  And you can bet there will not be one word of inteligent criticism of either Hillary or McCain regarding the irresponsible, even idiotic things they are saying and doing right now.  Instead, one of Obama's most prescient and accurate statements of the campaign will continue to be twisted, and distorted beyond recognition by the overpaid morons in the media who daily do active disservice to the national interest on every subject imaginable. 

I tremble for my country...

It is becomingly increasingly clear that the two remaining Democratic candidates for President are very weak and either of them will have difficulty winning the general election.  It isn't simply because of the ongoing contest either.  Both of them are poor nationwide candidates.  Look at this news running on TPM this morning:

"A new Rasmussen poll of New Jersey shows that this Northeastern state could be a toss-up this cycle, with John McCain edging both Democrats within the margin of error:

McCain (R) 46%, Obama (D) 45%
McCain (R) 45%, Clinton (D) 42%

It's interesting to note that Hillary Clinton has a home-region advantage here, but is actually performing behind Barack Obama against McCain — potentially putting a dent in the Clinton camp's argument about being more electable in Democratic base states."

I know that choosing a different candidate is unlikely for many reasons.  But at least when things go sour I can point out that someone saw the gathering storm and tried to warn others.  The fact is, it is becoming more and more obvious that we need a different candidate for the fall election. 

I hope all the "irrational exhuberance" of the past few months about making history and acting as though victory in November were a given is now wearing off enough for people to begin seeing Democrats are really in trouble as far as the White House is concerned and it's trouble of our own making (as usual).  It is far less about the sniping and bickering between Obama and Clinton than it is about their fundamental weaknesses as national candidates.  These weaknesses have been apparent all along but any sober discussion of such things has not been something anyone was interested in considering.  Most may remain uninterested in facing the reality that our two choices have massive vulnerabilities as candidates in November and that it is just as likely they will lose as it is that they will win if not more so.

If neither of these two can beat McCain in matchups in a place like New Jersey in March, what on earth makes anyone think either of them can beat him in November?  It defies reason why the entire nation should be held hostage by another Republican administration for four additional years simply because of the weirdness of our system of picking a nominee--a system that was even weirder this year given the idiotic scramble to vote early by so many states. 

Nothing prevents the party from turning to another candidate who can actually win the general election.  I'm tired of all the claims of both camps to some right to the nomination.  The only person who has a right to the nomination is the one who is chosen at the convention.  Most of the chatter in the media and in the blogosphere is about the two candidates, but in the end it really isn't and shouldn't be about them.  It's supposed to be about the welfare of the nation and the good of all our people.  It is not in the best interest of this country for the Democrats to lose the White House once again in a year they ought to win big given the current economic and political environment.

It appears that neither Obama nor Clinton have the ability to win the nomination outright as a result of primary and caucus voters' support as long as the nomination remains contested.  Each has the ability to prevent the other from obtaining the magic number.  Yes, Obama is the leader, but he hasn't won enough delegates to claim the nomination on his own.  He's just the survivor who is ahead but who hasn't clinched the nomination.  As I understand it, neither of them wins the nomination without the help of the Superdelegates.

I like Obama as a candidate for President better than Hillary and I don't like Hillary at all for President, but I doubt that either of these two middle of the road, corporate Democrats can win in November.  They have glaring weaknesses that become very apparent when you look at matchups in must win states like New Jersey.  If we have to fight to hold on to New Jersey we're in  big, big trouble folks.  At this stage of the game the Democrat ought to be comfortably ahead of the Republican choice in the Garden State. 

I really do hope I'm wrong about all this of course, but when I see numbers like this I cannot simply ignore them and be like Scarlett O'Hara and "think about that tomorrow."  How can anyone conclude that we enter the fall race in a good position when neither of our potential nominees at this point can do more than eek out a slight victory after 8 years of the most incompetent and corrupt administration in history?

It's time for a new candidate: one who can win in November.  I really have no one in mind, but we need to find someone else or we can look forward to another four years of tyranny, war, economic, political and social disaster.  Is sticking with either one of the current choices and losing the election worth that?  I don't think so.

Today's disgraceful display at the Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment is yet another in a long string of nods by right wing extremists to the form of government American natives have become accustomed to whilst simultaneously dismantling it before their very eyes.  There is nothing subtle about the intentions of the second rate legal minds the Republicans (with the help of cowardly Democrats) have installed at the once respected Supreme Court of the United States as it relates to their plans for perverting the Second Amendment.  The telegrphed very well what they plan on doing.

Today, the wingnut justices signaled that they will concoct another of their absurd and tortured legal theories for the purpose of deliberately twisting the meaning and intention of the second amendment in order to hand the gun lobby an unwarranted victory and to satiate the unending desire of authoritarian lizard brains all over America to have any and every kind of handgun available to them so as to easily kill friends, neighbors, family members, strangers, or even local officials and policemen at a moments notice. 

It is, after all, our clear and unfettered right to own guns is it not?  Without being held back or even slowed down by the real purpose and meaning of the amendment, the language clearly reads as the wingnuts witsh it to read precisely because they wish it to be so.  Why, under this view of the "right" to bear arms which is an abbreviation after all of  the word armaments, their really is no logical end to the breadth of this right is there.  The "right" the wingnuts are creating out of thin air is absolute and has no real limits based upon their arguments and thus no armamanent is too dangerous to be kept out of the possession of private citizens with enough money to buy one.  Is an AK-47 not covered by the Second Amendment since it clearly qualifies as "arms"?  What about a bazooka?  Are fully autocmatic  machine guns not also arms?  One would think that we must also not infringe upon the right of every paranoid nutcase to own hand grenades then or flamethrowers, cluster bombs, land mines and all other arms which it is their right to bear eh?

Ultimately then, are not nuclear weapons arms that a milita might use to protect and defend a free state and if not, why not?  I see no language whatsoever limiting this right if the wingnut interpretation of the Second Amendment becomes law.  If the right to armaments is as they say then how can we keep anyone at all from owning any type or quantity of arms they wish to possess? Sure, it's insane thinking, but that is exactly the thinking of the NRA, the gun nuts and their right wing enablers on the courts and in the Congress. 
It sickens me and most civilized Americans that this idiotic farce is taking place, but this is what you get IMHO when you don't hit the streets and demand free and fair elections when  you know damn well a Presidential election has been stolen.  This is what you get when you don't do something radical to object to clearly illegal and immoral invasions of other sovereign nations.  This is the result you get when you elect cowardly corporate whores with the label "Democrat" to the US Senate who routinely approve cracpot extremists to lifetime appointments on the federal bench.  And this is what happens when you are more interested in creature comforts than in maintaining your natural right to liberty, democracy and a free and open society. 

The reason this is the sort of thing you get is because those foisting this ruination of our once great country understand full well that no one is really going to do anything effective to stop them from doing as they please.  This is the the most perceptive part of the fascist mindset and it is why they have run roughshod over the Constitution and our laws now for the past seven years.  Remember the occupation of the Rhineland?  Hitler said that had the allies stood up to him at that point he would have had no choice but to back down and would have withdeawn his troops back within the borders of Germany according to treaty obligations.  The same principle has been in play here in our country now since 2000.  The equivalent for Americans today came when the illegitimate regime came to the legitimate Congress and asked them to authorize a war, the rationale for which, was built on nothing but lies.  Had the Democrats refused to let Bush cross tht line, we would not be seeing this sort of brazen trampling of our most treasured Bill of Rights.  The complete and deliberate misinterpratation of the second amendment is just one such power grab they are executing simply because they can.

In order not to belabor the point for too long by going over the sophistry of the right wing nutcases on the high court today I will offer as refutation the right wing claptrap arguments a passage from a book called "The Bill of Rights, It's Origin and Meaning" which was nominated for a National Book Award in 1966.  The author is a man named Irving Brant, a renowned biographer of Madison. 

So, this bit of wisdom written decades ago in the 1960's speaks volumes to us today in just a short excerpt and provides enough rationale for the courts to have thrown out the challenge to the DC handgun law long ago.  What Brant wrote then is completely relevant to the case before the court today and succinctly reveals how utterly false and absurd are the arguments of the right wing regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Brant writes on page 478 of the paperback version:

"The Second Amendment, popularly misread, comes to life chiefly on the parade floats of rifle associations and in the propaganda of mail-order houses selling pistols to teenage gangsters: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'  As the wording reveals, this article relates entirely to the militia--a fact that was made even clearer by a clause dropped from Madison's original wording: 'but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms should be compelled to render military service in person.'  It was made clearest of all in the congressional debate on the amendment.  Why was a militia necessary to 'the security of a free state'?  Elbridge Gerry asked and answered that question: 'What, sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to preven the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.'  Thus the purpose of the Second Amendment was to forbid Congress  to prohibit the maintenance of a state militia.  By its nature, that amendment cannot be transformed into a personal right to bear arms, enforceable by federal compulsion upon the states."

It's just incredible what a bit of factual knoweldge can do to refute the twisted fantasies of right wing authoritarians isn't it?

Please allow me to interrupt the caterwalling betwixt the Clinton and Obama loyalists for a brief public service announcement:

We need a different candidate for President and one that isn't Hillary or Barack.

Both of our candidates are weak and clearly have the potential to lose to McCain in November because of their glaring vulnerabilities and weaknesses.  Yes, both could win, but given the close outcomes when the two are matched against McCain at this point it appears just as likely that either of them could lose in November.  It never fails that the Democrats lead at the start of the November race and that margin shrinks the closer we get to election day.  In most cases in modern memory the lead disappears and the enemy wins the White House.  Can we really afford to allow this to happen simply because we've gotten stuck with these two?  I think not.  I hope not.  It's time to look for an alternative that produces a better result from voters that isn't purely about the ego of the candidates themselves and of their loyalists.

Now, given the fact that since 2001 we have been ruled by the most illegitimate, incompetent, and corrupt adminsitration in our history, it seems to me 2008 oughtta be one helluva Democratic year.  The top of the ticket should smash that Republicans big time and lead the party from top to bottom to huge gains across the board in every state and city.  But with either of these two centrist/corporate Democratic choices the best we can hope for is to survive November by barely meeting an ancient and addled right wing nut.  Neither bests McCain convincingly.  I wouldn't call that a very desirable position for us to be in right now compared to the position we should be in.

The time has come for people to wake up and smell the centrism and look for another choice for President! 

We should have a candidate who can unite all Democrats of all races, genders, economic classes and one who is not beholden to corporate interests and who understands that we must actually address the major issues confronting the nation once elected.  This new candidate needs to be someone who also understands the only way to actually get anything done on things like the economy, the war, global warming/climate change, national health care, expanding educational opportunities and addressing the needs of the poor is to win big in November in an historic landslide victory.  That means they would have to take the gloves off and go toe to toe not just with the GOP candidate, but with the corporate media and with all those who continue to advocate the policies of weakness and capitulation DC Democrats apparently love.

Neither Clinton nor Obama, at this point, appears to be in a position to win enough elected delegates to actually secure the nomination.  It would seem to me entirely reasonable given this important fact, and the divisions that have been growing in the party, to be looking right now for a third candidate who will be stronger than either of them against McCain.

Anyone who can fit this bill is okay by me.  I don't have a preferred new candidate.  But the first step that needs to be taken is to acknowledge that neither Clinton nor Obama are strong candidates in the fall and that their weaknesses in November threaten Democratic victory and thus Democratic policy aims across the board.

Scott Horton at Harper's has been covering the political crucifixion of former Alabama Governor Don Siegleman for some time.  In a brief comment at Harpers he has this to say about the situation concerning the once up and coming Governor Spitzer of New York.  I think Horton's points are incredibly important and I recommend this post to all.  The original can be found at:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002589

By Scott Horton

It looks like the Bush Justice Department just bagged themselves another Democratic Governor. Here’s the New York Times on the story:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.

The wiretap captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.

Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat, today made a brief public appearance during which he apologized for his behavior, and described it as a “private matter.” He did not address his political future. “I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family and violates my or any sense of right or wrong,” said Mr. Spitzer, who appeared with his wife Silda at his Manhattan office. “I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public to whom I promised better.”

On the other hand, ABC News this evening offers a starkly different account of how the investigation got launched. According to ABC, the whole investigation of the prostitution ring itself was triggered by an investigation of Spitzer.

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials. It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn’t hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club. …

The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought in the FBI’s Public Corruption Squad. “We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it,” said one Justice Department official.

Fox News reported earlier in the day that Spitzer would resign at his press conference. He did not. In any event, however, Spitzer—who was previously viewed as a rising star in the Democratic Party—is now damaged goods. Many had expected him to consolidate power in Albany, inching the Democrats towards control of the State Senate, and to rule as a powerful governor. He may or may not survive the initial shock waves of the scandal, but certainly no one now expects him to be a powerful force in the statehouse.

The Times notes in its story that Spitzer once prosecuted a prostitution ring:

In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island. “This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. “It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.”

These facts are likely to dominate the punditry’s discussion of the issue. Spitzer will be labeled a hypocrite (a charge he can hardly refute).

However, there is a second tier of questions that needs to be examined with respect to the Spitzer case. They go to prosecutorial motivation and direction. Note that this prosecution was managed with staffers from the Public Integrity Section at the Department of Justice. This section is now at the center of a major scandal concerning politically directed prosecutions. During the Bush Administration, his Justice Department has opened 5.6 cases against Democrats for every one involving a Republican. Beyond this, a number of the cases seem to have been tied closely to election cycles. Indeed, a study of the cases out of Alabama shows clearly that even cases opened against Republicans are in fact only part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats. So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:

(1) The prosecutors handling the case came from the Public Integrity Section.

(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. You read that correctly. The statute itself is highly disreputable, and most of the high-profile cases brought under it were politically motivated and grossly abusive. Here are a few:

• 
  

  Heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson was the first man prosecuted under the act — for having an affair with Lucille Cameron, whom he later married. The prosecution was manifestly an effort “to get” Johnson, who at the time was the most famous African-American. (All of this is developed well in Ken Burns’s film “Unforgiveable Blackness”).

  
  
• 
  

  University of Chicago sociologist William I. Thomas was prosecuted for having an affair with an officer’s wife in France. Thomas was targeted because of his Bohemian social and his radical political views.

  
  
• 
  

  In 1944 Charles Chaplin was prosecuted for having an affair with actress Joan Barry. The prosecution again provided cover for a politically motivated effort to drive Chaplin out of the country.

  
  
• 
  

  Canadian author Elizabeth Smart was arrested and charged in 1940 while crossing the border with the British poet George Barker.

(3) The resources dedicated to the case in terms of prosecutors and investigators are extraordinary.

(4) How the investigation got started. The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer’s payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn’t have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.

All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.

The answer of the Justice Department to all this is likely to be: Trust us. But in the current environment, the reservoir of trust is tapped. The Justice Department needs to submit to some questions about how this probe got launched, who launched it, and to what extent political appointees were involved in its direction. This has nothing to do with Spitzer’s guilt or innocence. But it has everything to do with the fading integrity of the Public Integrity Section.

Here is a commentary I think ought to be of interest to TPM visitors written by Glen Ford who is Ex. Editor at a blog called: Blackagendareport.com.  His is a perspective little seen or heard at the more heavily visited white blogs in Left Blogistan and it is a perspective never heard in the corporate media at all.  I highly recommend it to my fellow TPMers and I also recommend the sight.  There is a great deal of interest to be found there.

The address for the original as it appears at blackagendareport.com appears at the end of the commentary.

Obama: What Blacks and Progressives Have Bought Into 

Black Agenda Report has long held that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are identical, politically. Both are associated with the Democratic Leadership Council, the corporate rightwing of the Democratic Party. Clinton proudly upholds the DLC banner, while Obama claims to not be a member, but behaves exactly as if he were one.

Both Obama and Clinton have repeatedly told us, if we were really listening, that they plan to defend America's so-called "interests" in the world - however the U.S. defines those interests. In real-world language - as opposed to American double-speak, code-speak, and warlike nationalism-speak - both are imperialists who call for huge increases in military manpower, that will inevitably lead to more wars of aggression. Hopefully, neither is as crazy as John McCain, who is busy trying to convince Republican voters that he's itching for a fight with anybody, anywhere, for any reason. But these are only cosmetic differences among imperialists - differences in tone, not substance.

Our primary concern is the effect this electoral season has had on masses of Blacks and those non-Blacks that consider themselves progressive. We have witnessed a capitulation to the DLC-inspired Obama campaign on the part of white so-called progressives. African Americans are now near-universally in the Obama camp. Both groups imagine they are witnessing a "movement" in the making, when in fact there is no such thing as a movement being born in a hundreds-of-millions of dollars electoral campaign. Rather, progressives of all races have abandoned movement politics, thus ensuring that Obama remains unchallenged by the Left, free to move further to the Right as a general election campaigner and in the White House.

This wholesale surrender to Clintonism with a Black face and winning smile cannot be justified on any substantive political basis. Therefore, progressives find themselves with no choice but to "hope" that progressive "change" will somehow occur, despite the fact that Obama has laid out positions that are anti-progressive by any measure. Especially among African Americans, there is a virtual refusal to allow issues to intrude on Obama's parade.

There was only a remnant of a movement left in the United States, before Barack Obama's phenomenal rise. Black and white progressives claim they are prepared to resume agitation after Obama's election - that they will rev up the movement once again if they discover the new president turns out to be what he has repeatedly promised to be: a corporate Democrat committed to imperial policies abroad, who shuns any analysis or demand that does not conform to his own "race neutral" - in practice, "race blind" - domestic policies. If progressives truly believe they can turn mass, grassroots politics on and off, like a switch, they are delusional. Large groups of human beings don't act that way. Barack Obama's honeymoon will surely last for years, no matter what crises he mishandles or provokes.

Blacks and progressives have neutered themselves. They have dropped out of struggle, and made themselves irrelevant by refusing to make Obama accountable for his own policy positions and statements. It will be a very, very long journey back home. For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford.

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=1