Why would major "news" outfits, like ABC, CNN or FOX, invite Rudy Giuliani to come to their Sunday shows, yesterday, and answer questions about the Obama administration's decision to try five 9-11 conspirators in New York City?

What possible information, what opinions, could Giuliani hold in his freaky little head that might justify ABC, CNN and FOX's invite? Rudy holds no office, hasn't been mayor of New York for quite some time, and made a national embarassment out of himself with his "noun, verb and 9-11" presidential primary campaign in 2008….the campaign he strategized so brilliantly by running in only one state, Florida.

Giuliani's appearance as some kind of "expert opinionator" about 9-11, of course, is laughable. Rudy Giuliani, on 9-11, was shrewd enough to get himself in front of the cameras,…but that's the extent of his knowledge or expertise on terrorism.

Rudy's recommendation to George W. Bush of Bernard Kerik to be Homeland Security Director is all one needs to know about Rudy's judgment. Kerik was convicted of a felony just a few days ago and sentenced to prison.

But there he was….Mr. 9-11….on ABC, CNN and FOX yesterday…..the slumped-back freak, in all his freakish glory, criticizing President Obama's decision to hold trials of terrorists in New York City.

"It's an unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists," Giuliani said on CNN's State of the Union. "I don't know why you want to give terrorists advantages. And secondly, it's an unnecessary risk to the city of New York, which already has any number of risks."

The same guy who said that…also said this in 2006 about trying 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussauoi in federal court .

Several news show hosts called Giuliani out on some apparent hypocrisy — in 2006, he praised the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he was "in awe of our system" and that we "are a nation of law."

For federal court trials until he was against them.

But think about what Mr. Noun & Verb & 9-11 said yesterday on CNN. If we bring the five 9-11 conspirators to trial in New York City, we are giving the "terrorists" an "unnecessary advantage." Trying those five in New York City federal court is putting New York under "unnecessary risk."

Bringing international anarchist criminals to justice following the template of American law, is giving "unnecessary advantage" to Islamic radicals. In other words,….according to Giuliani…we must forsake our own laws and history of following those laws, because if we follow American law and order, we will give extremists the "advantage."

WTF?

Suicide bombers carry out violent acts which kill civilians in order to scare the host country's government into CHANGING the way they live and carry out their system of government.

Rudy Giuliani says the U.S. must not rely on the U.S. legal system to try the five conspirators, the same system Rudy praised in the trial of Moussauoi,…..because if we follow our own legal system and precedence…..we'll be giving the extremists, "unnecessary advantage."

Rudy is now too scared of the U.S. justice system to trust it. That's no small detail.

Not only has Giuliani given up on the U.S. justice system's ability to adjudicate crimes and lock away criminals…he's, apparently, given up on New York City's ability to protect it's citizens too. Trying suspects of a horrific crime in one of our cities is now putting that city's residents under "unnecessary risk."

I guess that means that from now on if a significantly horrible enough crime is committed inside the U.S….we can no longer trust our court system to deal with it. Rudy, by making these statements, is announcing his agreement with Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden has said America needs to change it's system of government and that Americans have become "soft." Rudy Giuliani agrees.

Giuliani, as I mentioned, is a freak. The question naturally arises….why would what Rudy has to say be significant to Americans? I can't answer that question. I keep coming up with, "it isn't." CNN, ABC and FOX believe otherwise. The Villagers, don't forget, are very, very Serious.

One last backhand……if we try criminals in federal courts, find them guilty and execute or imprison them…..then, according to Rudy, we're playing Aladdin to those who wage "Islamic war against us"……

"Since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of terrorists?"

You know what I'm thinking?…..I'm thinking that Rudy Giuliani is full of sh*t.

Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb on AG Eric Holder's announcement that five of the 9-11 plotters will be tried in New York federal court…..

Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

..[..]..

And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

House representative Jim Moran (D-Va)….has a different take….

"They (Republicans, neo-cons, wingnuts) see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

"Opportunity to demagogue? Yep…like this….

Of all the mindless memes that non-reality-based adherents blare out like zombie pod people…..this one about "American soil" is the most ignorant. That's saying something….because the extreme right TeaBagger-FOX-Beck-Rush Group LLC….says a whole bunch of ignorant stuff on an hourly basis.

Giuliani is a discredited authoritarian moron, so it's easy to dismiss his grandstanding gibberish. But Rudy represents the FOX-BeckerHead position…so it will be the most prominent, because whatever FOX-Beckerheads spout is to be taken very Seriously by the Village. And, as the 9-12'ers and Rupert Murdoch have made clear, all wingnut-media decisions are for the purpose of "destroying Obama."

Remember, the only Job One there is for Republicans, Teabaggers, Drug Addicts on the Radio and myriad Wingnut Zoo Animals….is to bring about, as South Carolina cracker-senator Jim DeMint said…."Obama's Waterloo."

Now the analysis.

Senator Jim Webb is mistaken when he compares Japanese pilots during WW2 with 9-11 hijackers. Japanese pilots were operating under the authority of the Japanese Emperor. Japanese pilots during WW2 represented a country, a nation of people who declared war against America with the Pearl Harbor attack. WW2 was a war of nations. The militaries of the Axis powers were ordered by their nation's leaders to wage war on Allied nations.

9-11 Islamic hijackers represented who, exactly? A tiny international band of stateless anarchist criminals. No state or country sponsored the 9-11 hijackers. 9-11 hijackers did not act on the orders of a state dictator, politician, leader, or representative. Bin Laden's al-Qaeda carried out acts of violence for THEMSELVES….no one else.

Islamic extremists are seeking to make a symbolic "political statement" with their acts of violence. The entire point of killing others while killing yourself is to shock others into believing they are not safe. Japanese pilots who dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor were not making a "political statement"……they were beginning a monumental war of one nation against another. Japanese pilots were seeking to defeat the U.S. military, and thus America, the nation. Japanese pilots were not just trying to shock U.S citizens…..there was nothing symbolic about Pearl Harbor.

The second bit of "demagogic" nonsense-hype by American wingnuts only seeking Obama's demise by foolishly arguing we can't try 9-11 masterminds on "American soil"….is the, "they're too dangerous" to be housed in New York prisons…nonsense. There's no question the 9-11 plot was sinister and evil, but the five radical Islamic masterminds to be tried in New York federal court ain't squat compared to the most vicious, brutal, bloodthirsty deviants we currently have safely locked away in federal prisons, including, by the way, over 100 Islamic "terrorists."

To take the position that these five are too dangerous to bring onto "American soil" is, at best, a wingnut admission that America is weak, vulnerable, unsure of it's power and that the Constitution and set of laws which guide us are, somehow, deficient.

The final point I want to make is over the stupid claim that if we try 9-11 conspirators in New York…then New York will automatically become the focus of new terrorist attacks. Besides being another admission that America is just too weak or vulnerable to protect itself….this ignorant meme, meant only to diminish Obama's leadership, ignores the fact that America currently occupies two Muslim countries with some 200,000 U.S. soldiers. Daily, we are killing Afghani citizens. Also ignored is the fact that the American military has killed, at the very minimum, some 128,000 Iraqi citizens in our war of imperialistic aggression. 4 million Iraqis were displaced.

What more incentive would a Muslim crazy need to "focus" their extremist bile on the U.S.?

Here are the facts. George W. Bush, though he did not act on it, stated clearly that he would like to see Guantanomo closed. But Bush was a Republican president with very low approval ratings. In comes a popular Democratic President Obama who agrees with Bush's view of closing Guantanomo. If Obama succeeds in closing Guantanomo…..well, you know the wingnut drill….then America "fails."

The ignorant and disingenuous blatherings about not trying 9-11 conspirators on "American soil" is for the sole purpose of seeing Obama "fail."

Not that complicated.

Yesterday, the House voted 258-163 to approve a non-binding recommendation prohibiting the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. for trial or imprisonment. 88 Democrats voted with the majority.

Here's the typical defense for continuing, indefinitely, American offshore gulags…..

"There is no reason these terrorists, who pose a serious and documented threat to our nation, cannot be brought to justice right where they are in Cuba," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "I certainly think that is where the American people stand on this issue —they don't want these terrorists in their hometowns."

Because these detainees have not had their day in court to hear charges against them and to defend themselves against those charges…there is no substantiation for the claim that they are all "terrorists." None. If it has not been proven (and it hasn't) that all of these detainees are "terrorists", then it is also not clear that they "pose a serious and documented threat to our nation."

Yes, SOME of the detainees being held in America's first torture gulag are guilty of planning or perpetrating crimes against the U.S. Khalid Sheik Mohammed proudly spouted off about being the mastermind of 9-11, for example. But with the other 240-some detainees…..guilt is not so clearcut. If the detainees have not been proven by the rule of law to be "terrorists" yet….then it follows that it also hasn't been proven that these detainees "pose a serious and documented threat to our nation."

258 House members, however, knowing full well that the guilt of these detainees has still not been determined, are willing to go on record in support of this unsupportable statement…."they (American people) don't want these terrorists in their hometowns."

The presumption by, in this case, a Kentucky Republican demagogueing dimwit, is that if detainees are taken from Guantanamo and brought to the U.S….they will simply be dropped off in the center of every major U.S. city to do as they will. That concept, naturally, is ridiculous…..but we live in very ridiculous times.

I've said it many times before…..American prisons, on American soil, CURRENTLY hold numerous convicted terrorists. Is there a threat to "hometowns" everywhere because convicted terrorists are being held, right now, in prisons located on American soil? Will it become necessary for America to send ALL violent, or potentially violent offenders to offshore secret prisons so those same prisoners won't threaten the stability of "hometowns?"

How ridiculous would that be? Or would it be ridiculous?

It's crystal clear what Republicans in the House are doing. Proven to not have any interest or competency in the job of governing when they were in the majority, the only interest GOP'ers have now is to destroy the current Democratic majority and be reinstalled (god forbid) as D.C's power group. Obama promised to close Gitmo in a year, and by god, Republicans will do everything to make sure Obama, as the RNC Chief Rush said, "fails."

It has also become clear what the spineless Democrats are doing….at least 88 of them in this case. Many Democrats, as in the ACORN defunding embarassment, are p*ssies (in the "weakling" sense of the word). Even though the "keep prisoners off U.S. soil" resolution is knee-jerk, guilty-before-proving-your-innocence, nonsense…..some Democrats are timidly fearful that mean, mean Republicans will accuse them of not being manly enough to defend their constituents should they vote to close down America's first Soviet-style gulag.

As much as I detest the current Republican nuts in Congress, I have only contempt for Democrats who instantly cave in to cartoon characterizations by dishonest GOP brokers.

The House "Operation Scaredy-Cat" resolution is even worse than what I've already described….

The vote also put House members on record as backing the Obama administration's refusal to release new photos showing U.S. personnel abusing detainees held overseas.

President Barack Obama has already said he would use every available means to block release of additional detainee abuse photos because they could whip up anti-American sentiment overseas and endanger U.S. troops. His powers include issuing an order to classify the photos, thus blocking their release.

This Obama-led nonsense is just as indefensible and stupid as the "we can't close Gitmo because we'll all die" p*ssy chorus. Does anyone believe that Muslims worldwide don't already know that the U.S. has violently and inexcusably tortured detainees? Anyone?

To comprehend how absolutely off-the-wall crazy Obama's, and now the House's, releasing "photos could whip-up anti-American sentiment overseas" statement is…..ask yourself this question: Isn't it true that for weeks, if not months now, every media outlet in the U.S., and virtually every federal government representative, have been talking openly about increasing U.S. troop numbers inside Afghanistan? Isn't that true?

Does anyone who believes that the release of torture photos (according to U.S. law) "could whip-up anti-American sentiment"…..not believe that open discussion of sending thousands more troops into Afghanistan might also "whip-up" the same "sentiment?" Anyone?

Obama refuses to follow the rule of law on the photos issue, just as George W. Bush did before him. Obama has decided to unlawfully deny the release of the photos to further protect George and Dick from any messy investigations or (gasp) prosecutions. You see, that would be looking "backwards."

In reality, Obama, by violating Freedom of Information laws and using idefensibly ignorant excuses to do so, is not only concealing damning evidence, but has also now become complicit in the war crimes of the Bush Gang. Republicans and p*ssy Democrats, on the other hand, have incestuously joined together in a resolution of raving imbecility….defending the permanency of Soviet-style gulags while jettisoning the rule of law altogether.

What's particularly galling about all this?…..These are the same folks who repeatedly spout off about how "exceptional" the United States is.

I read a good one from the associate editor of NewsBusters. NewsBusters is a creatively conservative online site usually chock full of fact-free, wingnut postings.

First, a quick review…

You have probably seen a video clip by now of a sting on multiple ACORN offices by Hannah Giles (playing the prostitute) and James O'Keefe (playing the pimp). When the two sting actors finally got an ACORN person to bite on their "we want to buy a house, use it as a brothel for underage El Salvadoran girls, what should we do" nonsense, the video byte was quickly circulated by the right wing propaganda machine as "proof" that ACORN was a criminal enterprise.

No ACORN person has been charged with any crimes, NOTHING has been proven in a court of law….yet, Congress, the knee-jerk spineless assh*les that they are, quickly passed a bill to defund anything ACORN.

We now know that the acting duo tried out their vaudeville sting act in many ACORN offices around the country. So, we know it was a fishing expedition with only one purpose in mind…..get something damaging or potentially damaging to use against ACORN, thus, hurting the voter registration non-profit who primarily registers minority voters, who just so happen to vote overwhelmingly Democratic….AND….damage Obama in the process because he once had dealings back in Chicago with the community organizing group, ACORN.

The objective of the hooker-and-pimp show is clear.

Here's where the wingnut fun begins. Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe didn't find sound byte success in many cities' ACORN offices. ACORN employees called police on the sting duo at a couple of locations where a "gotcha" could not be obtained for Fox's Beck to later get a hard-on on camera about.

In Baltimore, where the young wingnut sting actors were trying, unsuccessfully, to entrap ACORN officials for wingnut-media purposes, a question has come up over whether the duo's taping the sting without permission was illegal.

That question of the illegality of secret videotaping in Maryland, just the question, has tweaked the tinfoil of NewsBusters' bloggers.

Associate editor of NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard…..I'm sure without any sense of irony, had this to say about the potential for Baltimore officials pressing charges against the hooker-and-pimp actors.

"..we now not only have a media unwilling to report the misdeeds of ACORNers, but we also have authorities going after those that dare to uncover such acts.

Honestly — what country is this?"

Though not intended….. that's some funny stuff.

Wingnuts, naturally, wanted every cable and network "news" outlet to run a 24/7 loop of the hooker-and-pimp sting on ACORN. Wingnut media representatives taunted any media outlet who didn't comply with their wingnut wishes to feature the phony sting story.

Wingnuts, like Sheppard and his boss, the goofball Brent Bozell, are the movers of the modern conservative movement, and minorities, while accepted by wingnuts, are rarely part of that movement. Wingnuts believe the work of a primarily black non-profit voter registration and inner-city housing group only benefits the Democratic Party….and it's the fulltime job of wingnuts to diminish any power Democrats have. ACORN, by it's very existence, is a threat to conservative wingnuts.

But back to Noel Sheppard's quote….."we have authorities going after those that dare to uncover such acts."

NewsBusters, when it came to the exposing of the unlawful acts of Bush/Cheney in spying on Americans without warrants, judicial warrants as the Constitution requires, didn't care so much about, you know, journalists uncovering and exposing such acts. In fact, NewsBusters wanted "authorities" to go after those who did the "exposing."

NewsBusters' Sheppard Jan.29, 2005…

If only the Times would follow its own advice and stop betraying the public's trust by continually convicting people in its publication before they’ve been charged with a crime.

Umm…..Amen, Noel.

Sheppard again, June 26, 2006…

[I]t is high time the U.S. government took a stand against the reporting of classified intelligence information by America’s press. Irrespective of the self-serving opinions of Bill Keller and his associates, the public’s interest in safety and national defense is much greater than its desire to know the intricate details of how the government achieves such vital goals.

…..

With that in mind, the Justice Department, led by attorney general Alberto Gonzales, must investigate and decide whether or not to prosecute the Times for its possibly treasonous acts.

I say to NewsBusters' Sheppard, "Honestly, Noel,…what country is this?"

Is ours a country where authorities are encouraged to go after those that dare to uncover such dastardly acts?
_______________

Bonus video: NewsBusters could take a lesson from this video. This is how intended irony is done……

Perhaps you've seen this story…..

Pfizer pays $2.3 billion

Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug maker, will pay a record $2.3 billion civil and criminal penalty over unlawful prescription drug promotions, the Justice Department announced Wednesday.
……
The department said the $2.3 billion settlement included a $1.2 billion criminal fine, the largest criminal fine in U.S. history. The agreement also included a criminal forfeiture of $105 million.
……
The government said the company promoted four prescription drugs, including the pain killer Bextra, as treatments for medical conditions different than those the drugs had been approved for by federal regulators.
…….
Authorities said Pfizer's salesmen and women created phony doctor requests for medical information in order to send unsolicited information to doctors about unapproved uses and dosages.
…….
When Pfizer originally disclosed the settlement figure, it also announced plans to acquire rival Wyeth for $68 billion. That deal, which would bolster Pfizer's position as the world's top drug maker by revenue, is expected to close before year's end.

Pfizer's 4th quarter, 2008, earnings report….the quarter in which they wrote off the $2.3 billion government penalty…..was a period where Pfizer's revenues were $12.3 billion.

Pfizer spokesman Chris Loder confirmed Wednesday that the $2.3 billion charge to the company's earnings had been taken in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Obviously, what Pfizer did was a crime. A $2.3 billion fine, $1.2 billion of it a "criminal fine", whatever the hell that is……but no arrests, no jail time…..just some check writing using shareholders' money, that's all.

That is what is now acceptable in America, the status quo. Powerful and connected multinational pharmaceutical corporations, bastions of that free capitalistic market, perpetrate dangerous fraud against the American people….and other than the check writing…..no one is held responsible.

Corporations want to be recognized as being equal to a "person" when they're bribing political officials. But when that "person" is caught in a fraud scheme, then, not so much. Then they should be treated in some exceptional manner. Regular, you know, people who committed extraordinary fraud, like Pfizer did, would spend many years behind bars.

That's the state of America's free market giants today. Just like with our political officials, pharamceutical free marketers are immune from legal accountability for their actions.

I want to drill down on this for a minute…..

Authorities said Pfizer's salesmen and women created phony doctor requests for medical information in order to send unsolicited information to doctors about unapproved uses and dosages.

Every time I take my 84 year old mother for her quarterly doctor's appointment, I see them. Every time. Not one time have I taken my mother for her appointment when I have not seen them. The pharmaceutical salespeople. And not just one or two. Many times I count 4-5 drug representatives in a span of 30 minutes. The salepeople consist of both men and women, usually young and attractive, well dressed, shoes shined…..and always bearing gifts…..donuts, pizza, lunch for everyone in the office…..it's remarkable, and that's why I'm remarking on it.

Those are the same type of people who were defrauding doctors, and their patients by "creating phony doctor requests" in order to then "send unsolicited information to doctors about unapproved uses and dosages" of one of Pfizer's drugs. It was a full blown conspiracy to defraud doctors, clinics and patients…….and not one person goes to jail for it.

Health care considerations are being argued in America today. Conservatives insist that we can trust the free market, they say that the private market is the most efficient vehicle to address the needs of the many. Government, conservatives say, can't be trusted with health care coverage….if government, for example, allows Americans to choose a public insurance option, or negotiates with Big Pharma for lower drug prices…..conservatives tell me that we will turn into Cuba within a year, or something.

Yet, time after time, huge insurance and pharmaceutical free marketers have proven that they can't be trusted to do the right thing, like with Pfizer.

There's a commonly used phrase in today's conservative circles….it goes something like this…."when has the government ever run anything correctly, efficiently or responsibly."

I think a more apt phrase for today's environment would be something like this…."when have the free marketer big guys ever run anything that wasn't basically criminal in nature."

Is this Pfizer crime story proof that we can trust the free marketers with our health care? Or is the Pfizer story simply more evidence that the free market CAN'T be trusted with America's health care….and government intervention has become essential?

My blog buddy King last week….

What our media hasn't bothered to tell you is that the early interrogation and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT's) used against terrorist monsters like al-Nashiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Abu Zubaydah worked, just like former VP Dick Cheney said they did. Cheney was ridiculed endlessly for saying that, but the CIA IG report leaves no doubt.

Defenders of America's use of cruel and illegal torture tactics cling to the thread of their own devisings that "torture worked". Led by The Dick, many conservatives have desperately sought justifications for the obvious illegalities of torture. It could be that conservative watchers of "24" have been convinced by Kiefer that torture is good and just…or it could be that conservatives don't want to admit that their Super-Patriotic Heroes committed war crimes, because then, THEY, would be shown to be mistaken.

Whatever the motivation might be, these torture defenders are anxious, even frenzied at times, to find something, anything, to defend their indefensible gibberish……they'll grasp for virtually anything that even remotely, on first glance, can be construed to support their position.

That's what King from All Da King's Men does in the above block quote. Look at his words. Torture, or the name given to torture by the easily-queasied, "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", according to King's reading of the recent CIA report on interrogations, "worked." Here's King in his own words….

The EIT's worked, whether we like them or not.

It's odd that King is so cock-sure that the CIA's interrogation report leaves "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save American lives. Why? Because even Fran Townsend, George W. Bush's Terrorism Advisor said of the CIA's report….."the report doesn't say that."

The truth in 32 seconds….

Transcript of Fran Townsend's comment…

It’s very difficult to draw a cause and effect, because it’s not clear when techniques were applied vs. when that information was received. It’s implicit. It seems, when you read the report, that we got the — the — the most critical information after techniques had been applied. But the report doesn’t say that.

How it is that King sees words in the CIA report leaving "no doubt" that torture "worked" to save U.S lives….when the Bushie insider Townsend doesn't……will have to be taken up with King.

I realize that many conservative supporters of torture could give a sh*t whether torture "worked" or whether the CIA report leaves "no doubt" about the wonder-working salvation power of acting like savages……it just doesn't matter, according to some conservatives. Their defense of institutionalized American savagery is simply….'if America is doing it, it is the right, just, necessary and proper thing to do, because America, of all world countries, is singularly exceptional.'

So, there's that.

However, in King's case, I'm beginning to think a reading and comprehension dysfunction is at work. I can't be 100% sure, you understand…but it kinda, sorta, looks that way…..

Now, don't forget…..King said of the CIA report that there is "no doubt" that torture "worked."

From King's Fox News link included in All Da King's Men's August 25th posting….

It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.

With respect to A-Nashiri, [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant….Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information.

King has "no doubt" that the CIA report proves that torture "worked." The report from which King quoted, however, actually says, "…it's not possible to say definitively…", and, "….it is difficult to identify exactly…."

So…is it a reading and comprehension problem? Is it a wishful thinking problem? What is it that motivates some conservatives and libertarians to not be able to read and comprehend relatively clear language?

This CIA report reading and comprehension discussion can serve as a case study for the larger information wars that have blanketed America for a number of years.

It also helps in understanding how it was that America could so easily be talked into attacking Iraq, a non-threatening country that had done absolutely nothing to warrant being attacked and occupied by U.S forces for going on 7 years now.

It's all about deception……self-imposed because of comprehension in reading problems and wishful thinking, partisan blindness…..or gullibility. I'll leave it to others to determine which form of deception applies here.

Postscript: I just remembered another oddity. Ms. Condi Rice told the 9-11 Commission that Junior Leader didn't want to "swat at flies" in the months leading up to 9-11. Now we know why. The deviants of the Bush administration preferred catching anything that could be characterized as a "fly", and as many youthful deviants would prefer, torturing those flies by tearing wings and legs off one at a time. So there's that.

And there's also this….

Cheney thinks it was a sterling success when it came to national security and counter-terrorism. Perhaps there's something to this. After all, except for the catastrophic events of 9/11, and the anthrax attacks against Americans, and terrorist attacks against U.S. allies, and the terrorist attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Bush's inability to capture those responsible for 9/11, and waging an unnecessary war that inspired more terrorists, and the success terrorists had in exploiting Bush's international unpopularity, the Bush/Cheney record on counter-terrorism was awesome.

It seems that the Lake Local School district is being challenged by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Lake Local Schools, a public school system just south of my old stomping grounds, has this sentence in their "mission statement"……….

We Value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, belief in God and religious freedom, our community, our partnerships, and every person as a unique individual with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.

Here's what the Freedom From Religion Foundation thought of that sentence….

Annie Laurie Gaylor, Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president, called the statement “shocking” and “one of the most egregious” violations she has seen of the Constitution’s language separating church and state.

Ohio.com picked up the AP story and has a lively comment section going.

If you recall, I wrote a couple days ago about the Texas Theo-cons and their Magic Book.

So now Ohio has it's own Theo-con outbreak over a non-religious group challenging a very obvious violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment in Lake Local School's official mission statement. Lake Local School officials framed the values they held, and those values include "belief in god." Those officials intend to educate all of the district's public school children with those "values" as the basis. Otherwise, why explain the values in the first place?

I can't tell you how long I've been opposing the crusades of the Theocons. Evangelical Christians, who make up a large portion of the American Theo-cons, insist that bringing god into public schools will make our children better, families more secure, communities all like Ward and June's in Leave It To Beaver.

The truth is that the divorce rates and pre-marital sex rates of all those evangelicals, who live only to serve their lord, are the same as the masses of American heathens. The reason these Theo-cons, whether trying to Christianize Lake Schools or over in Green where evangelical anti-abortionists drove out a legal abortion provider……the lesson is the same…..Evangelical Christians have nothing to offer a modern world. Evangelical Christians only have myths and superstition to offer…..their message is powerless….their credibility fading…and so in desperation, they seek to co-opt the power of the government to help them bail out a sinking ship.

Others don't see it like I do. Like, for example, these two Canton Repository online commenters….

ddpleasant

People who point out that the first ammend restricts the expression of religioin by the govenment quote the first part 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' The however neglect the second part 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

Lake Township Schools is not promoting any one religion, they are expressing a belief in freedom of religion. This is an act the is specifically protect by the second part. Lake Township Schools is not congress, and it did not make a law. When the courts have ruled that against this kind of speach, in my humble opinion, I feel they have over reached.

Is it willfull blindness, or what?

This is what the mission statement says….

We Value: Responsibility, honesty, respect, integrity, commitment, belief in God and religious freedom, our community, our partnerships, and every person as a unique individual with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge.

It's like the "belief in god" part doesn't exist.

GregRoth….

Lake Township Schools is not promoting any one religion, they are expressing a belief in freedom of religion. This is an act the is specifically protect by the second part. Lake Township Schools is not congress, and it did not make a law. When the courts have ruled that against this kind of speach, in my humble opinion, I feel they have over reached.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is an organization of atheists and agnostics who desire to impose their will on others by using the legal system to force compliance to their BELIEFS. They call themselves free thinkers but discount anyone who disagrees with their philosophy. They are antagonistic to anyone of faith in a supreme being in any religion. They call themselves free thinkers and only acknowledge those who agree with them. They use their organization to demean anyone who is of faith that that does not include their faith in a natural world without a god of any kind. They have the ear of many on the left and support much of the causes of the left in this nation. There goal is to eradicate any form of religion in this nation and impose their faith in atheism.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation tries to use its threats of lawsuits as a way of intimidating small government entities like school districts that are always strapped for funds. That is wrong. Federal and State governments have been taken to court over the use of 'God' in buildings. This group tried to stop President Obama from putting his hand on the Christian Bible the same reasons as they attack the schools. It did not work. If they had their way all expressions of religion would be eliminated. They do not understand that the First Amendment says 'freedom of religion' and not freedom from religion. The Founders never intended to eliminate religion but to allow Americans to practice freely their faith and religion as they wanted without government interference. It is that simple.

You see? It's as if the government being prohibited by the first amendment from establishing religion does not exist at all. The amendment clearly states "religion"…..not Christianity, not a Protestant denomination, not Islam, not Judaism……"religion." To assert in a public school mission statement that, "We value….belief in god", is the very essence of government establishing religion.

Here's the Freedom From Religion Foundation's…umm…mission statment….

"The nonprofit Freedom From Religion Foundation works to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism, and to promote the constitutional principle of separation between church and state.

Since 1978, the Foundation has acted on countless violations of the separation of state and church, and has taken and won many significant complaints and important lawsuits to end state/church entanglements and challenge the “faith-based initiative.”

Here's a couple of good videos, where Annie Laurie Gaylor from the Freedom From Religion Foundation states the facts to a theo-con.

I was an ardent supporter of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries of last year. Obama campaigned, correctly saying that he, alone, of all the candidates, could build a new coalition of voters in America by talking straight and confronting decades-old national problems. He promised a new kind of politics and he delivered, rising above the crazy politics of personal destruction still so often played by conservatives.

Barack Obama was America's best choice for president last November. That fact still remains.

But Obama has made several costly mistakes as president. Costly for America.

The new president's biggest error, I think, was his stance from the beginning that he would not pursue investigations or prosecutions of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney's administration's numerous crimes and acts of treason. Mr. Obama explained that "looking forward" rather than backwards would be his practice more often than not. Obama explained that the pressing issues of our day would get sidelined in some grand spectacle if the rule of law was followed in regard to the Bush administration.

All the "oxygen" in Washington D.C. would be sucked out if Bush and Cheney were held accountable…..and no oxygen would be left for health care reform, global warming legislation, card check, re-regulation of the banksters, etc. That was, and still is, Obama's argument. It's a losing argument.

If Obama would have appointed a special prosecutor from the get go to deal with the past administration, Americans…Republicans, corporate-media whores, would have realized the new president meant business…..wasn't just going to f*ck around. But he didn't.

Now, even though Obama has not gone after George and Dick, you know, to save all that political oxygen, his opponents have pounced on his refusal as a sign of weakness and are feverishly working to deprive Obama from breathing life into his campaign plans. While Obama was preserving political "oxygen" by refusing to re-instate the rule of law in America, his opponents were sucking all the political oxygen from Obama's new presidency by continually repeating the craziest sh*t imaginable, lying and propagandizing at every turn.

Which brings me to the next mistake by Obama. I realize that talk of bipartisanship is usually just that….talk….but with Obama, bipartisanship has not just been talk. It's been a feature. While it is true that Obama got three GOP votes for his stimulus bill….that's basically been the extent of any Republican cooperation.

There are no more "moderate" Republicans left, with possibly the exception of Olympia Snowe (R-ME). There's literally no Republicans left to be bipartisan with. Obama was correct in sensing that the voters wanted bipartisanship, wanted cooperation in order to get stuff done, he was right that the "old politics" had worn out it's welcome……where he was wrong was in assuming that today's Republican Party was something other than a calcified fossil of radically partisan status quo-ism. Where he was wrong was in assuming he had honest-brokers in today's Republicans. He doesn't.

Sarah Palin, Michael Steele, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and their cheerleaders, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, et.al. are anything BUT negotiating partners. To these leaders of the modern GOP, bipartisanship is a disease to be avoided at all costs when Democrats are in power. And bipartisanship, when Republicans are in power, is considered date rape.

So, why the foolish notion by Obama that bipartisanship must always be considered, must be first and foremost in any of his political dealings? Beats the hell out of me. On this one, I am completely stymied.

If Obama is looking to hold moderates and independents by acting oh-so-bipartisan……it's working out just the opposite. By not standing up to the crazed and radicalized Republicans, the new president has shown moderates and independents that he is weak. Current polling suggests that independents and moderates have caught on to that weakness and don't like it.

Does all this portend a return to power of the insanity-filled party of Bush? Not likely. It just means that conservatives will get their way for now…..nothing of much value will be accomplished for the American people during Obama's first term.

Oh well, there's always another election around the corner. The answer to our national paralysis is…….more and better Democrats.

As the Obama administration continues to do everything it can to cover-up for Bush/Cheney-era crimes against the American people, we now learn that Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General, has appointed Republican, John Durham, as a "special prosecutor" to investigate "alleged detainee mistreatment"….

Holder has named longtime prosecutor John H. Durham, who has parachuted into crisis situations for both political parties over three decades, to open an early review of nearly a dozen cases of alleged detainee mistreatment at the hands of CIA interrogators and contractors.

Durham has already been "investigating" the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes…..

The tapes allegedly depicted brutal scenes of waterboarding involving high-value al-Qaeda suspects. That investigation is in its 19th month, though lawyers following the case have cast doubt on whether criminal charges will be filed.

The videotapes investigation, reluctantly begun under the Bush administration, is the key to understanding Holder's goals in appointing Durham to investigate detainee abuse. No indictment recommendations will ever be made in the already 19-month-old videotapes investigation, but that long investigation gives the perception that federal leaders are serious about the rule of law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider…

The White House reiterated in a statement that Obama doesn't believe in prosecuting CIA personnel who used "enhanced" techniques "in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance" that was provided by Bush administration officials.

All a thinking person has to ask themselves is this: Does the executive branch have the power, the legal right under the Constitution, to order actions to be carried out which specifically violate American law and international treaties and conventions? And does the executive branch have the legal right under the Constitution to order new laws to be written by obedient lawyers, ala John Yoo, the architect of the "legalization" of American propagated torture?

Bush and Cheney have already given their answers…..now "looking forward, not backward" Obama is giving his. Neither have anything to do with fidelity to law or the Constitution…..but both answers have to do with perception of fidelity to law and the Constitution. Because as Karl Rove and the Townhall Buster Uppers have already proven…..perception is all that matters.

Holder, (if you can even fathom this), isn't setting up an "investigation" to determine if people ordered the open violation of existing law or treaties. He's setting up an "investigation" to determine if people exceeded the "new laws" written by John Yoo and Jay Bybee.

It would be similar to only investigating whether a getaway man in a bank robbery had exceeded the orders he was given by the architect of the bank robbery.

But that's where we're at in America today. And so, just as with Abu Ghraib, perhaps a low level, no-name, CIA employee or private contractor will be reprimanded after John Durham concludes his report in 4 or 5 years….perhaps not.

All that really matters is that Obama, like Bush before him, creates a perception of taking egregious violations of law seriously. He really doesn't.

Others working for Obama don't take violations of the law seriously, either. Consider Obama's CIA chief, Leon Panetta…..

In a message to CIA employees, agency director Leon Panetta declined to enter the debate over whether waterboarding and other "enhanced" questioning techniques were legal or crossed the line into torture. But he vowed to defend employees who were acting under the legal guidance they were given at the time and noted that any review must consider the pressures that agency personnel were facing.

"This much is clear," Panetta said: "The CIA obtained intelligence from high-value detainees when inside information on al-Qaeda was in short supply."

Panetta's defense of CIA personnel used to be called the Nazi defense. But no more. Now the Nazi defense……we were only obeying orders, and hey, we were under a lot of pressure….is the American defense. It is the defense of the lawless.

The only thing in "short supply" from 2001 onward was loyalty to American law and the Constitution. Perception of terror, fearmongering, was all that mattered during Bush/Cheney….and they were successful in selling their lawless coup through that perception of terror.

Now, Obama is creating the perceptions. The perception of getting to the bottom of numerous Bush White House-ordered crimes by appointing an investigator who will start his investigation with the understanding that the Bush White House had the perfect right to order crimes to be committed.

Up until this school year, high school classes where the Bible is the focus of study have only been available in some Texas public schools.

With these types of results….

Mark Chancey, associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has studied Bible classes already offered in about 25 districts for the Texas Freedom Network.
"Some classes promote creation science. Some classes denigrate Judaism. Some classes explicitly encourage students to convert to Christianity or to adopt Christian devotional practices," Chancey said.

This school year Texas is implementing, as Bill Maher would say, 'new rules'. The Bible will be an accredited class this year in virtually all Texas public schools.

The new Texas state law..

If, for a particular semester, fewer than 15 students at
a school district campus register to enroll in a course required by
this section, the district is not required to offer the course at
that campus for that semester.

Each school district that offers kindergarten through
grade 12 shall offer, as a required curriculum:
(1) a foundation curriculum that includes:
(A) English language arts;
(B) mathematics;
(C) science; and
(D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United
States, and world history, government, and geography; and
(2) an enrichment curriculum that includes:
(A) to the extent possible, languages other than
English;
(B) health, with emphasis on the importance of
proper nutrition and exercise;
(C) physical education;
(D) fine arts;
(E) economics, with emphasis on the free
enterprise system and its benefits;
(F) career and technology education; [and]
(G) technology applications; and
(H) religious literature, including the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on
history and literature.

Texas public schools theocratized…Also here….

The Wall Street Journal… goes into the details about what Texas theocons have in mind with the Bible as a subject for public school study. It seems that recommendations for implementation of Texas' new theocon law is in the hands of three reviewers….

Three reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.
……

The conservative reviewers say they believe that children must learn that America's founding principles are biblical. For instance, they say the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution stems from a scriptural understanding of man's fall and inherent sinfulness, or "radical depravity," which means he can be governed only by an intricate system of checks and balances.

The curriculum, they say, should clearly present Christianity as an overall force for good — and a key reason for American exceptionalism, the notion that the country stands above and apart.

"America is a special place and we need to be sure we communicate that to our children," said Don McLeroy, a leading conservative on the board. "The foundational principles of our country are very biblical…. That needs to come out in the textbooks."

ABC explains here that this has to do with Christianizing all U.S. public school textbooks.

Some in the Village think mandatory Bible classes in high school is a super idea….

Newsweek's David Waters…As a source of divine inspiration, prophetic imagination and poetic wisdom, the Bible is unsurpassed.

Willis Elliott, a dean of American Protestantism, wrote, "The Bible is the scriptural foundation of the American mind, including the mind of the American military . . . The American way establishes no religion and privileges biblical religion."

Newseek editor John Meacham….You cannot understand America or its institutions without understanding the Bible and its influence. But that is a different thing from saying that the country's public institutions elevate one vision of religious faith over another.

Naturally, The Reverend is not in favor of accreditizing Bible classes in public high schools. The First Amendment is crystal clear about government being prohibited from establishing religion…..and the Bible is ONLY a religious book.

This comment from the KLTV link captures the essence of this Texas theocon nonsense….and my sentiments on the matter….

Guest: This is truly an amazing story. Requiring The Judeo-Christian Bible to be taught in school serves no purpose but to begin raising generations of people to accept a theocracy and reject and destroy American Democracy. Texas has a church on every corner for worship, and instead of spending secular time on religion, children need to be spending that time learning math, science, music, art, etc. This is not progress. If the class were an elective in ancient literature, and said class included the Qu'ran, the Vedas, etc., it would make sense for children with talent and propensities toward history, language, etc. Human intelligence has to be given a chance to evolve and this will never happen if people just plain refuse to progress. We don't worship nature anymore like, for example the ancient American Indians did; we don't sacrifice babies like the ancient Incans; we don't kill people like the ancient Celts; or animals like the ancient Hebrews; and now it's time to quit bowing down to big black rocks, statues and pictures of a virgin mother, to quit believing in sacred cows, to quit dancing around with snakes, to give up Voodoo and all primitive thinking, and evolve. Good luck, Texas, you just dumbed down.

Dumbing down for Jesus. Or, No Child Leaves His Bible Behind. For radical extremists, like Texas' theocons, this is called progress.