THE NATIONAL REVIEW: CHAMPION OF TREASON

I have just realized why I ignore reading the National Review: Recent stories about all those lying Arabs, how Henry Hyde was just a wonderful man, how the NIE is obviously wrong because it does not agree with their already quite biased beliefs. You just can't read this Shit without getting a case of hives. This is not journalism or even legitimate commentary or opposition; The National Review has forsaken any intellectual honesty simply to commit treason against the United States of America and The Constitution of the United States of America.

Do you think that's harsh? Really? Then why doesn't The National Review, which had no problem with Bill Bennett calling the NY Times treasonous for writing about black sites outside the US a year after they found out about it not demand that Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Robert Novack be tried for treason?

Or perhaps they can explain how it's perfectly all right to demand Clinton's impeachment for getting a blow-job, but wouldn't think of calling for Bush's impeachment for lying us into a War which was illegal in the first place and trying to lie us into a second war without reason or provocation, their smoking gun nothing more than their fever dreams of imperialism? I especially like the accolades to Henry Hyde, a man who had to resign because he was getting his dick waxed outside of his marriage at the same time he was playing high hypocritical priest of morality about Clinton. Right the fuck up there with Newt Gingrich.

And let us not forget their warmongering in Lebanon. They were quite willing to pile on Baeuchamp when he supposedly made up stories; but their warblogger buddy in The Tank; he was just misinformed by those "lying Arabs."

It's quite clear that The National Review will say or do whatever it takes to get their position to be accepted as the only position to have. The National Review cares nothing about truth, facts, or reality. This is not a magazine which provides clear critical thought, whether right or left. It is one part of the propaganda arm of an organization trying to destroy The United States.

IS GOD CHRISTIAN?

Or Muslim; or Jewish; or Buddhist; or any other Religion for that matter? It's a fundamental (pardon the pun) question, which seems to have only one answer: of course, he is. He is all of the above. If you believe in God.

Let me just start out by saying, I'm an agnostic. I have my doubts about God, and he/she/it has his/her/its doubts about me. Be that as it may, I can still ask the above question and come up with a reasonable and reasoned answer. And there's the rub, because if you are a Devout Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever, it has nothing to do with a reasoned answer and everything to do with your faith being better than the other guy's faith. For instance, reason tells us that an omnipotent, omnipresent God created all things, which means he created all faiths and therefore God is part of all faiths. Simple, clear, concise. But bring that question and logic to a ture believer, and they care nothing for it, because what it all comes down to is an unwavering faith which does not believe in either logic or using one's brain for anything other than keeping space between your ears.

For instance, abstinence. The Catholic Church states in its doctrines that one must be abstinent, even in marriage, unless your purpose in having intercourse is procreation. How many Catholics follow this doctrine. Yet these same Catholics have no problem condemning contraception and sexual education. Their faith overrides their logic. It even goes to extremes, where an African Bshop recently stated that he knew for a fact that condoms from Europe were being deliberately infected with the AIDS virus, and the only protection against AIDS was abstinence. How much of a conspiracy nut do you have to be to believe that European condom manufacturers are trying to kill you? If you don't believe this story, here's the link.

Or we can discuss Bill Donahue of the Catholic League. Admittedly, an easy target; why anyone believes Donahue is a valid representatvie of the Catholic Faith is beyond me. Yet even when he makes outrageous claims about Hollywood being run by secular jews who like pederasty, you hear nary a peep from mainstream Catholicism. Why is that, I wonder? Not really. What I'm sure I would be told is that we must tolerate even the intolerable. Except, of course, if you're gay. No; the truth is is that Donahue serves a very useful purpose: He gives voice to positions the Church believes in but thinks would mar it's alraedy tarnished image. He can be the voice of intolerance which the Church so desperately needs, without the Church actually having to admit to its hate.

The same can be said of Evangelicals: they just don't worry about how they look in other people's eyes, because,let's face it, you don't believe like they do, you're going to Hell anyway. Intolerance of others seems to be the common overriding theme of most religions. That and the fact that you are damned. Which explains Muslim extremists who see nothing wrong with suicide bombing, or Evangelical extremists who see nothing wrong with murdering Doctors and Nurses who perform procedures they do not agree with. Or even pharmicists who believe that their moral judgement overrides your rights.

It would take excessive amounts of time to list all the extreme and horrendous acts which are perpetrated in the name of a specific Religion, and I just don't have time to do that. Others have been working long and hard in that area. Suffice it to say that Religious extremism continues unabted and, in fact, seems to be gaining momentum. When Shia kill Sunni, Sunni kill Shia, Evangelicals create videogames where the main focus is to convert or kill so-called non-believers, where The Church denies contraception and abortion yet does nothing to eliviate the very problems which occur becasue of their approbation, where Jews kill Palestinians in their belief that they are the chosen people; what more can one say. I wonder, does God ask himself, Is this what I created? Is this what I intended? Why? I wonder if he has an answer?

MITCH McCONNELL AND JOHN BOEHNER ARE ASSHOLES!

And it goes without saying that George W. Bush is an AssHole. But McConnell and Boehner proved the mettle of their assholity this very day when Boehner stated that the death of over 3 thousand US troops and the maiming of at least 30 thousand others was a "small price" to pay to keep us safe from an imaginary enemy who didn't attack us on 9-11. To say the least, that makes Boehner a major asshole. I wonder when he'll get around to apologizing to all the family members of the dead annd wounded. Or will this be just another case of IARIYAR?

Then you have Senator McConnell - a true Kentucky Gentleman (a term I use extremely loosely). On NPR today, on All Things Considered, Harry Reed was asked about General Petraus' report to Congress about Iraq. Reed spoke thoughtfully and without personal rancor about the situation in Iraq, about how it would be a bipartisan effort to change the situation, and how he hoped that both sides would find a middle ground.

It was then Mitch McConnell's turn. He was asked if there were any positions on which the Republicans could agree with the Democrats. Senator McConnel, being the Kentucky Gentleman he is, stated rather matter-of-factly that all he could see was that the Democrats were rushing to surrender as quickly as possible to the terrorists! I guess this is the high-minded civility the Republicans are always demanding that the Democrats practice! Just a lovely man!

But this is the Republican way, after all. All that's left for them is to politicize the War, to pretend that they are somehow manly men who will fight to the death, even though they are not the ones fighting. Nor are they the ones dying. It's fair to say that some of the Democrats may also in fact be politicizing the War, but the question becomes "Which is better - To politicize the War so that more US soldiers die, or to politicize the War so that more US soldiers come home alive?" I know which one I would choose. We know which one Mssrs. McConnell and Boehner have chosen.

BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

On numerous occassions lately, I have heard the Hardly Ever Right whine about how those who do not agree with them have Bush Derangement Syndrome. BDS they call it and declare that we (those who do not agree with them) must be somehow deranged and that this derangement is because of our hatred of George W. Bush. It is because of our hatred of Bush that we (those who do not agree with the Hardly Ever Right) decry the use of torture by our Government, the loss of our rights, the Republican obstructionism in Congress, the continuous scandals concerning these Republican lawmakers (and yes, there are Democratic lawmakers who also have committed crimes; its just that the Republicans seem to do it enmass and organized according to party) the War in Iraq, the continued ideological stupidity of the Hardly Ever Right when it comes to healthcare and nearly everything else;all of this is because of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now, is it just me, or might it not be more reasonable to say that the Bush Derangement Syndrome that The Hardly Ever Right seems to be believe in is actually a syndrome that the Hardly Ever Right appears to suffer from (though I use the word suffer here just to point out their ailment. They do not, in fact, suffer. They are quite content to be unbelieveable ignorant.

How incredibly stupid do you have to be to argue that there really are no reasons for the majority of the population of the United States to be upset with not only The Administration but Congress, the Main Stream Media, and the completely corrupt Republican Party? Honestly; is there an arguement here? The Administration does not believe in the rule of law, the Republicans seem to care less than The Administration, as they care much more about ridiculous ideology than they do about doing what is in the best interest of the Country, and the MSM carries water for whoever is in power. Yet the so-called intellectuls of the Hardly Ever Right who complain about BDS cannot for the life of them see anything wrong. Obviously, if you are a member of this improbable fraternity (and unfortunately there are quite a few members), you do not believe in using your brain for anything other than keeping space between your ears.

As an example: Recently, a member of The National Review wrote about BDS and Scalia-Thomas Derangement Syndrome. Now, I cannot, in fact, make much arguement about Scalia and Thomas, though both are rather incompetent in my opinion (but I'm not a Law Scholar), but this particular member then goes on to complain about an arguement put forth in the NYT about Cheney and how Cheney believes in a Unitary Executive and somehow has been pushing for it since he became VP. The arguement by this particular member is that the author of this arguement makes some specious claims concerning Cheney and Cheney becoming VP and then pushing for the Unitary Executive. Now, here's the thing: Cheney, while he worked in the Nixon White House, believed quite strongly in a Unitary Executive. Whether he had some over-arching master plan is not the question. But given that he was put in charge of the Search Committee for the VP, are we supposed to be naive enough to believe that when he saw an opportunity to actualy implement what he believes, he did not take it? How stupid are we if that is what we actually believe? How dishonest are you when you put forth just such a premise?

WHEN THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT....

The gents and ladies at the National Review, those hardy he-men an women of the Hardly-Ever Right, tell me that I'm overly worried about The Constitutional Crisis presently taking place. That there really is no crisis, what with the President commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, admitting he did something wrong, but it wasn't worth 30 months in jail (though if I remember correctly, they were all quite willing to have Bill Clinton impeached and thrown out of office for lying about a blow job, an offense for which he was never even tried; they're just not quite as worried about someone who was convicted on 2 counts of perjury and 2 counts of obstructing justice who may be lying about the underlying crime of treason). Nor should I worry about the US Attorney scandal because I've been told by the Administration that they had nothing to do with it and that's why they are invoking Executive Privilege. Why, everyone can understand the logic there: We never spoke to these people; so you can't speak to them either. Or maybe it's that we did speak to them, but it had nothing to do with anything, so why would you want to,or....never mind.

On the barely legal side of the equation, we have the Fourth Circuit(?) Court of Appeals saying that you can't use the courts to find out if the Administration broke the Law against you; you have to know they broke the Law against you before you can bring any kind of criminal complaint against them. While I understand the Court's reasoning, I wonder how anyone is supposed to find out if the Administration broke the Law agaisnt them when the group charged with finding that out is the group that broke the Law in the first place (See FBI and Illegal Wiretapping and Justice Department)?

We have as well the Supreme Court saying that if you have loads and loads of money, you can pretty much say whatever you want in a political campaign, but if you're a high school student, don't make any bad jokes because we'll slap you down (if you're Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the ilk, you can call all your demands for the Deaths of other people bad jokes and the Hardly Ever Right will defend you forever against supposed censorship). And as to Clarence Thomas' concurrent opinion which argues that schools in fact have the obligation to instill a set of common values, it may behoove the individuals arguing that position, including Clarence Thomas, to remember that one of the common values we're supposed to instil is the First Amendment. A sign saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" is considerably less inflammatory than what "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" said about John Kerry during the last campaign, particularly since all of their allegations were outright lies.

But let us return to The National Review's arguement that The Cosntitution is not in fact in crisis; that this is just hyperbole. What we have is a Congress which just doesn't understand its place, they argue. Interesting assessment, but completely wrong. Congress comes first in The Constitution, not the President. The basic reason for the presidency is that it is easier to deal in foreign affairs with one individual than with 435. That is why the President can propose treaties, but those treaties need to be ratified by Congress (a position, I'm sure, The National Review and the Hardly-Ever Right find irksome). There is no, nor has there ever been, a Unitary President as the Hardly-Ever Right presently argues there is. What's more, their position is so shortsighted that were they to but look down the road a bit, they wouldn't want what they are demanding.

The Hardly-Ever Right's call for a strong, unitary executive is so myopic that it defies logic. Imagine if you will what happens when you have such a figure. The Hardly-Ever Right assumes that were a Democrat to be elected President, they would act with a greater sense of decorum and therefore there would be no problem as the Hardly-Ever Right would simply be the Bully they are and shout him or her down. The Hardly-Ever Right believes in ponies. But back to the topic at hand; if we imagine a smaller government limited only to military and policing and a Unitary President, what remains for that President to do? You need only look at what George W. Bush has done to see what you can expect more of, because let's face it, the next guy (or gal) just can't be as incompetent as this one.

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!

Yesterday was the Fourth of July: Independence Day! And for I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, it was a great day. For the rest of us, not so much.

If you happen to value your independence and freedom, this week may have seen the strongest statement by this Administration and its enablers that your freedom and independence are not considered worth one wit. George Bush, George the Third (an honorific which I gave him when I thought it was just a joke), made it plain that he really doesn't care much about the Law or The Constitution. It's quite simple really: The Law found Libby guilty, a jury of his peers. The judge sentenced Libby according to the guidelines set down by the Justice Department. And George the Third looked at the sentence, agreed the Law had indeed been broken, and said that that didn't matter, because he, George the Third, thought the sentence too harsh. So he gave Libby a free pass. George W. Bush basically said that the Law is what he says it is! That he is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal. George Bush has declared himself King. Or more accurately, Dictator.

Others have written far more eloquently about this than I have. Read Glenn Greenwald, read Atrios, read Digby, read anyone but the idiotic hypocrites over on the Right. Not only are they hypocrites, arguing that Libby did nothing wrong except what Bill Clinton did (except Bill Clinton was never brought to trial nor convicted), they do not realize just how effectively they have damaged the rule of Law. Because, let's be honest here, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a treason case. If Libby would have come clean, the people Fitzgerald would have prosecuted would have been prosecuted for acts of treason against the US Government and the American people. The Administration and its enablers have commited treason, and they don't even realize the door they have opened!

It is self-evident that George Bush believes he is above the Law. It is self-evident that Dick Cheney believes that he is above the Law. It is self-evident that the enablers of this Administration, the MSM, the Republican Leadership, the Religious Right Leaders believe that they are above the Law. Are we, the American People, ready for the slippery slope that this president has placed us upon? If we do not act to curtail this power-grab, what will we do when the next president decides that he can more flagrantly ignore the Law? Are we ready to abdicate our rights to the government? The reason we have the government we do is so that no one group or person could become a tyrant. The Repiublican Leadership and its enablers chose to install a tyrant. Are they ready for when that tyrant turns on them?

We have but few means of recourse. Congress must do its duty. Impeach him! Impeach Cheney! Throw the whole criminal cabal in jail before it's too late! Do it now while we still can.

YOU CANNOT SPEAK UNLESS YOU HAVE THE MONEY

The Supreme Court recently ruled that if you are a corporation or union, you may pay to have political commercials put on which, while not directly calling for you to vote for a candidate, can indirectly influence your vote just before the election. They deemed this to be a Free Speech issue, protected by the First Amendment, the arguement coming down simply to money equals speech. Bench Memos at The National Review applauded this decision as a victory for Free Speech.

The Court also found that a high school student could indeed be punished for holding up a rather nonsensical sign at a high school function because he violated school rules and his speech was not in fact protected under the First Amendment. Bench Memos applauded this ruling as well, arguing that those damn high school kids just don't have the same rights as Corporations. Bench Memos, it seems, has no problem with Corporate Free Speech. It's just individual Free Speech they don't like.

I found one particular defense of the ruling in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case completely nonsensical. The following is a quote from Clarence Thomas to defend his concurrent opinion in the case:

"I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in schools except when they don’t—a standard continuously developed through litigation against local schools and their administrators. In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."

Now, I'm no legal scholar. Nor did I read the entire opinion by Justice Thomas, but on its face, this is ridiculous. I did read the beginning of Justice Thomas' opinion, and even he concedes that the public school system did not exist until the 1800s, so saying that the Constitution did not originally afford students a right to free speech in public schools is absurd as there were no public schools at the time!

But beyond that, if we follow Justice Thomas' logic, he should not be handing down opinions as The Constitution as originally understood does not afford Justice Thomas any rights as a citizen. Nor does it afford women any rights as citizens. In point of fact, as originally understood, The Constitution disenfranchises a significant portion of the population. Now, while the good folks at Bench Memos may believe that that would be a good thing, I would beg to differ. Justice Thomas, as well as the four who concurred with him and Bench Memos, is wrong; plain and simple. Their position in this case is against individual liberty and for Corporatism. Even were we to read The Constitution as Charles Beard interpreted it, it is evident that The Bill of Rights was meant as a protection of Individual Liberty, not corporate liberty. It does not take a legal scholar to point out that the Tenth Amendment provides that all rights not enumerated within The Constitution to the national government revert to the people. That includes the right to put up nonsensical signs, even at a school function.

But the more important point is that Bench Memos feels this is a win for conservatives, if by conservatives we mean people who put Corporate interests before those of individual interests. This is in fact the position of the modern conservative movement - we should not protect individual rights, we should protect corporate ones. Look at the present immigration debate. Those damn dirty illegal immigrants are coming to the US to take jobs from American citizens, according to The National Review and others. But not once has The National Review stated that corporate sponsorship of illegal immigration is one of its root causes. They do not call for punishment of the corporation which employs illegal immigrants; they blame the immigrants for wanting to create a better life for themselves and their families. Something which all of our forefathers wanted to do in this country.

Or we can look to the present administration in regards to the concept of protecting the corporation over the individual. The Administration believes that it's dealings are sacrosanct and must be kept secret at all costs, while individuals' right to privacy (another issue the conservative movement does not believe in - just look at how they would like to be able to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own bedroom as a consenting adult) are simply swept out of the way as The Administration sees fit, and the Conservative Movement goes into paroxyms of ecstasy at the manliness of these cowards. You need only look at nearly every major institution of our Government under this administration to see that the underlying position taken by the Modern Conservative Movement is to protect and strengthen Corporate control while weakening individual freedoms. The Modern Conservative Movement does not believe in individual freedom. They do not believe that we can, in fact, make our own decisions. Unfortunately, they seem to be correct about at least 35% of the population. Most importantly, they are doing everything in their power to deny us what freedoms we have and to allow the entities that they believe to be the only ones with any rights to further manipulate us. The Modern Conservative Movement hates individual liberty.