We've been lamenting the loss of Integrity Matters, the blog that described itself a politically moderate and went belly-up largely, we're told, because of us and out incessant questioning of its political position. But here's the thing: Right now, there is no room for moderation in political perspective in this country. During the past five years our elected officials have taken this country so far off the national path mandated by the U.S. Constitution and historical policy that a moderate course correction would still not put us back on the road.
Look, if your teenage son is driving you down a county road that runs between two big corn fields and you look up to find yourself 100 yards into the right-hand field, you don't tell the him to make a course correction that will put you only 50 yards off the road. Instead, you yank his inattentive and reckless ass out of the driver's seat, make a hard left turn and get the vehicle back on the pavement.
And so it is with the Republican Party. The party is being led by an irresponsible, inattentive and reckless driver who has taken us far off the road of American democracy and disregarded the rules which govern that road. So we now need to take a hard left turn.
But make no mistake, this does not suggest that we hold elected Democatic leaders harmless for the position in which we now find ourselves. They too had the responsibility to help steer this nation, and they abrogated that responsibility out of fear, criticism and an utterly twisted sense of patriotism. What both parties billed as patriotism was in fact nothing moret than fear and jingoistic fervor in search of revenge. Instead being the leaders they said they were, they became scared sheep who allowed themselves to be guided by a dimwitted shepard.
For those who hold themselves out as political leaders, and for anyone else who slept through school; to be patriotic means to support and stand up for the ideals that make this great. And many of those ideals are enumerated in the Bill of Rights... you know: the right of free speech, the right to redress of grievances by government officials; the right to defend and protect constitutionally-guaranteed liberties at gun-point if necessary; the right to be free of cruel and inhumane punishment; the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of your person, papers and effects; the right to public trials and a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise... C'mon, you guys remember these, don't you? Say them with me. Loudly, so those who seek to deprive us of those protections and liberties in the name of "national security" can hear you. That's patriotism. Voting is patriotism. Seizing control from fascists is patriotism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Dude, take a prozac. youre going to spin yourself into a stroke.
I was asked not to bring up Clinton but why oh why is he in such a dither about a movie coming out on ABC? Seems Michael Moore did a movie about the current President and Democrats FLOCKED to see it. Clinton doth protest too much
oh and btw Rat, if you did what t ruth said you did...youo're lower than a rat turd. I asked around and figured out who it was but didn't say a word. that's the beauty of the web. You know how to ruin the fun.
Dick,
So, if I understasnd you correctly, you think it's a good that a citizen can no longer pass through an airport, train station or public building unmolested by police demanding to search your person, papers and effects without benefit of a warrant or even probable cause?
And you think it's a good idea for the US government to establish secret offshore prisons where Americans and foreign nationals are taken after having been forcibly removed from this country and are held without charge, trial or even legal representation?
And before you answer by claiming these policies keep us safe from terrorists, please tell us how you know that. Then tell us if it will still be a good idea, if your neighbor, your spouse, your children or even you end up in a place like that. This is, after all, America, the place where everyone is treated equally. If it can happen to people you don't know, then it can happen to people you do know. It can even happen to you.
Please tell us why the indefinate suspension of civil liberties and protections is a good idea.
I only ask because because our Fearless Leader tells us that we are fighting an enemy who wants to kill us because "they hate freedom." But if our own governemt takes our freedom away for "national security" reasons, well, don't you have to ask yourself who's the bigger threat to freedom; terrorists who can kill a few hundred, or even a few thousand people, or a government that can hold 300 million people hostage.
Rat, wow, you work for a newspaper??? To me, that apology sounded a little sarcastic...but..oh well. As for your yammering towards Dick- I know you didn't ask me the question. I don't really , well to use a phrase, give your butt, in a one word answer...yup
During the second world war, some civil liberties were suspended, only to be returned in full force AFTER the war. The Govt. wants to look through my stuff...go right ahead. You want to search me before I get on a plane...go for it. It could be the best cheap thrill I'd get that day. EL AL doesn't...you don't see them bitching.
As for secret prisons...did ya happen to see the videos online of any of the beheadings??Personally, I think EVERY American should be made to watch them. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have panties on my head, than no head at all.
Truth;
First, are you SURE you want to continue on this path? Are you sure you are acting prudently and wisely?
Secondly, If I am such a despicable person, why are you here making a target of yourself?
You made the choice to close down your blog. No one forced you into it.
Moreover, you are correct. I did say I know you. I said it in the context of making a point in your favor. I later retracted that comment on your own site, and since you have seen fit to spike your blog so no one can check the record, I will do so again here in front of you, God and everybody.
Dear Truth;
Please forgive me. I made a terrible error and mistook you for a long-time friend of mine, but after these days of being haunted by your harsh, shrewish and defamatory comments, I now realize I made a grievous error. You could not possibly be the friend I thought you were. The person I was thing of has been a friend for more than 10 years. We worked at the same newspaper. Later, we worked at competing newspapers. In both instances, we shared information and we helped one another to convey complete and accurate stories because we knew we were the best damned journalists in the market and any information we shared only served to keep us in that position.
The friend I'm of is the one I helped move. Twice. It's the friend whose house I made repairs to so they could sell it for a better price. And I did that for free... willingly, because that person is my friend and was unable to do it themselves.
The friend I'm thinking about has been an honored guest in our home many times. And my wife and I have been guests in my friends’ home many times also. We’ve broken bread together, and taken care of each others’ pets at vacation time. The friend I'm thinking of honored our friendship when they chose to get married in the garden at our home a while back.
You're right, TruthinAction. You are absolutely right, and I was wrong. Moreover, I have no excuse, except to say that my friend is going through a very difficult time and has been at the forefront of my thoughts and prayers, because there is nothing I can think to do to help them. Therefore, I'm down to four and a half or five hours sleep Aper night and a daily tension headache that seems to never go away. ... But none of this is your concern, I certain of that now. And I should have re-examined my comments earlier, because the evidence was right in there in black and white. The friend I was thinking of would never publicly call me a liar and disavow our friendship, as you have done.
"Those rights you mentioned are reserved for AMERICANS, not the enemies of our country."
That's wrong Dick. You misread the document. To wit:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
You'll note the document make no reference to "Americans" or "Citizens." It says "person" and "people."... That means any person or people held or detained in the custody and/or care of the American federal, state or local government. It also refers to any people of persons held or detained on U.S. soil inside or outside the confines of the United States of America, such as emabssies, military installations, consulates, missions, or detention facilities.
Caughtit:
No. I used to work for a newspaper.
Sorry Rat but the constitution governs over the people of the United States of America, not All persons of the world that happen to be held in Guantanamo, or any other prison we supposedly have.Read the preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...."
That doesn't mean anyone who happens to get arrested and lands in Gitmo.
Nope.... you're STILL wrong. The Constitution dones NOT govern the people. The Constitution governs the government, defining its mechanics and setting limits on its powers.
Maybe when the rest of the world establishes such a document, then we can cover the whole of humanity with one blanket of freedom,
OMG Noooooooooo...that's what the UN wants...they only know how to screw up a one car funeral and they want to govern the world now
No Symmy: You are just wrong, and the more you persist in being wrong, the more culturally, legally, historically and literally illiterate you look.
By your own estimation, the words are "We the people," not "we the citizens." First, you have to keep in mind that this is a legal document and not a literary document. A legal document is worded precisely and is structured be free of ambiguities.
Second, the preamble has no place in this discussion, because it simply tells us who authored it and what its intent is. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that it pertains only to citizens.
Thirdly, your position is ridiculous on it face. If what you say were true, then illegal immigrants would not be afforded the protections of the law. And they clearly are.
Fourthly: "National Compassion?" I don't believe I've ever heard that term before in a discussion of constitutional liberties. Can you give us a reference for it please?
worded precisely and is structured be free of ambiguities.
If this were true, we wouldn't be arguing. You're incorrect rat.
Well, it is true and the reason we're arguing is you refuse to think and reason.
if what you say is true...then there also wouldn't be a huge argument about the second amendment. That's why things are constantly argued in front of the supreme court....duh
Oooooohh. Is THAT what the Supreme Court does?.... I always wondered.....Now please continue to bolster your position, it you can.
I can see why you don't work for a paper anymore...it's your wonderful people skills. Of course that's not all the supreme court does, but they do habdle alot of constitiution law. And as you know, illegals don't have these rights. C'mon, don't be so dense
this Constitution for the United States of America
that doesn't say.....for the whole wide world.
"but we can't do that when a portion of fanatic religious terrorists wants to convert or kill anyone who chooses freedom over their theocratic belief."
Symmy:
Is this really what you believe; that a bunch of hyperactive fundamentalist islamic missionaries
got together to determoine how best to get others to subscribe to their faith and came up with a campaign that wouil kill everyoen who doesn't believe as they do?
You get your "truth" from the Whitehouse, don't you?
"To all - I remember FDR and his "New Deal". My bet there aren't any of you that remember those days, food lines, no jobs, no welfare, except on a limited scale. FDR pumped some money into this country. He made work where there was no work and the people got some pride in their work. He took the youngsters off the street and gave them jobs doing menial things - as building the Appalachian Trail, Maine to where the mountains ended. Any of you remember the concert barge anchored off the water steps at the Lincoln Memorial, I do, went to summer concerts there. Built by WPA people. Many buildings along Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenue were WPA built.Truman - pretty smart man. Not a meglomaniac like this present excuse for a president. Reagan? Well, until our present excuse for a president, no previous president had managed to run this country so far into debt and less than nothing to show for it. Oh I forgot, what we will have when he finally departs is a whole lot of pi ctures at various places which all told do nothing for anyone except his ego.
Conservative: defined as? My dictionary as ...opposed to change...I wish I thought this present administration was interested in maintaining existing forms of government. Big Brother is alive and well in this present administration. In order to keep us all safe - the police/SS now read what we post, keep track of our phone calls, make sure whatever we have in our luggage or handbags/pockets doesn't explode, maim or kill - as in nail clippers. If you travel by air and check your baggage, don't put anything in your baggage which is too dense (a box of chocolates or a book will do) to be seen thru - 'They' will cut the approved lock off the bag and if they find something like booze (souvenir) or a medal toy that is run on a battery, they will take it. CRAP! When Mr. Prez decided to go to war in Afghanistan, it was for one thing - find the mastermind behind 9/11. Instead he found a much r icher ore - poor downtrodden people ruled by the Taliban. Not mention some nasty war lords who were used to running things according to their lights. Sooo - teach them Democracy. Yeah! Among the people allowed into this new country he was forming were a number of religious types bent on teaching Christianity! To Moslems? You have to be kidding. Each feel they are the ONLY religion! The American religious types finally had to be removed. And by the way - this mastermind has managed to elude all the searchers and Poof - is nowhere in sight! What as a good conservative did Mr. Prez and his administration conserve? Mr. Prez should have read British history on the subject of the Afghan wars. What is happening in Iraq shouldn't be happening. The outcome so far is and will be for the lifetime of those who have been wounded - Sorta like what happened after the American Civil War 1861-1865 which was another political war, alot of men with one or more limbs missi ng, blind, wounded in spirit and needing help for the rest of their lives. So far Mr. Prez's administration seems bent on limiting the help given by the VA and the military hospitals. Before FDR set up the Social Security Administration, there was NO pension plan for workers. Either you had lots of money or you had none. The Poor houses were all over every state in the union. The poor signed up for monthly vouchers for two or three dollars of basic foods. If they got to the place where they had not even a place to go to - read relative/friend, they went to the poor house. And from there into a plain box into an unmarked grave. Not too far from where you are in MD, there is a road marked "poor house road".
Mr. Prez has large interests in oil - they pay him at present into a trust. Nice. Added to that, and his nice salary in the area of $200,000/yr is also all the little bits to take care of him for the rest of his life. S__T
Y'all need to read some American a nd World History - at least to the 16th century! "
"The Preamble tells us who the Constitution was written for also..."
Yes it does, Summy. It says people. It does not say "Americans" or "Citizens."
... as for you knowing it's a good idea because you read tea leaves and MAD magazine... um.... is that the satire magazine aimed at 10-year-old boys, or is it some publication put out by a Washinginto think tank addressing Mutually Assured Destruction?
Actually, it doesn't really matter because, either way, you're reading the wrong material for this discussion.
One of the books you may consider employing for this discussion is a dictionary. If you do, you'll find that the first definition of the word "molest" is "to disturb, interfere with, or annoy." Other publications you might try are newspapers like the Washington Post, New York Times and such. Also, try news magazines Newsweek, Time, USN&WR. You might also give a look-see at some history books-- not the grammer-school texts whose content is controlled and spun to present the official perspective. .... you know what I mean.... open a book and open your mind.
Symmy:
I don't recall ever naming any "favorite incumbants." But, I'm old and sometimes forgetful...can you refresh my memory?
Dick:
Regarding the 82nd Airborne or any other regular military unit; See here's where the reading of American history and a basic understanding of the Constitution would come in real handy for you. You'll recall the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that forbid the use of fedeal armed forces for law enforcement with in the borders of the United States, except where expressly autorized by the Constitution or Congress.
"Not suggesting a one world government, but a world free of fear that would allow citizens of each nation to establish a government of their people, by their people and for their people, preferably not a theocracy."
SYMMY:
So, in effect, your saying you agree with the First Shrub's policy of allowing each nation to determine their own destiny and their own form of government.... as long as it's the government he want's it to have?
And just look at the success that policy has been so far.
And just we're clear; you need to understand that the Iraqis are not fighing democracy, per se. They're fight the imposition of a government not of their choosing inflicted by an occupying foreign army that represents nation whose religious philosophy is not their own. You and I would do the same thing were we faced with similar circumstances in this country.
Concurrently, they are fighting each other for power and revenge.
Is this the policy you want to persue?
right you are, Dick. It is 'ar."
I don't read Pravda so I can't even guess as to its accuracy... as to the books, you might want to read some stuff by the major movers and shakers of foriegn policy: Nixon, Kissinger, Albright, Rusk... you know... those guys.... then you might want to go back and read some of the earlier stuff dealing with the Constitutional Congress, the Federalist Papers, some Jefferson Papers, Thomas Paine, ect.
No umbrage taken, Dick
FDR did not lead us out of the Great Depression, indeed there are some economists who aver that his heavy-handed approach during his first so called "hundred days" only mired us in it deeper.The stock market never recovered to it's pre-crash levels until many years later, after the second world war had begun. This same war is what truly put America back to work. All the public works projects provided for the most part was "three hots and a cot". Many unemployed young men during the Thirties joined the military, the food was better, and we weren't at war. I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that FDR knew in advance of Pearl H arbor, but he knew was a good enough student of history to realize what it could do for him politically.
Post a Comment