It's Too Late to Plead the Fifth

Okay, so I could've posted about W Bush's confession that he authorized torture last week. But I decided to be a downer the week of Veterans' Day. However, that was last week, and I just got an interesting reminder via Portside, and an idea just occured to me. The reminder, the actual text of which I share later, is that there are two investigations related to the U.S. torture program pending in the National Court of Spain.

And the thought? Since the Republican party has decided to go tea pot crazy and co-sign the idiocy that Obama is some sort of jihadist Manchurian president, and since they promise a series of investigations into the Obama administration, Obama should go after BushCo full board. What does he have to lose? And is it really worth permiting the injustice of not holding war criminals accountable for their crimes?

Bushwhacked, Again!! (Updated)

No new information, just a thought. Isn't it ironic that for all the whining and complaining about liberals using the Courts to push their agenda on the country, that's precisely what conservatives have done.
                                  __________________________________________
If the election of Scott Brown(ie), 'Publican of mASSachusetts, wasn't enough, now this:

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads.

I am near tears.

Protecting the Right to Vote, Updated

Sorry I've been away. I just came across this a few minutes ago. I read the entire thing and will be looking into the whole New Black Panther case. ~ No1KState

Update: The New Black Panther Party is far, far more radical than the actual Black Panther Party, even stoking some indignation from the Black Panthers for using their name. I can't blame them and wonder if they would have a case in court.

Now, as for "voter intimidation," I think I can summarize the whole hoopla fairly quickly. Two members of the New Party stood outside a Philadelphia precinct during the 2008 national election. One of them had a night stick.

That's the extinct of intimidation.

The case, which has has been dropped except for telling the one with the night stick not to ever bring a weapon near a polling place, seems to have been racially motivated in the beginning. The New Party was sued, rather than prosecuted, by BushCo's DoJ on behalf of Republican, white poll watchers just a couple of weeks before inauguration. Under Bush, the DOJ had only brought one other case of voter intimidation, which the won, and it was on behalf of white Americans, too. No one from the precinct in Philly stepped forward to publicly complain of intimidation.

In my opinion, case was rightly dropped. It should have never been brought. If whites were intimidated, it's because whites are irrationally afraid of black men anyway. The precinct itself is heavily black, and Obama probably would've won the precinct by the same margin without members of the New Party standing guard. I should inform you the the national committee of the New Party disavowed the two and doesn't condone having weapons at polling places. They had poll watchers at precincts all over the nation without incident. And poll watching isn't new or "black." So the issue speaks more about the racism of BushCo and the current whining conservatives (The link goes to a google search page. You know, or should be able to deduce, how I feel about linking to conservative sights.) than anything else. The US Commission on Civil Rights, which is dominated by conservatives, intervened and now there's an internal review about why the case was dropped. There should be one on why it was ever brought to begin with.
Now, to be sure, the New Party isn't a group of cub scouts, pun intended. In fact, the Southern Poverty and Law Center has them listed as a hate group. Their ideas aren't all that bad as just ideas for improving the lives of African Americans, and really aren't so different from the platform of the Black Panthers. They practically copied and pasted if you ask me. The problem is that they throw in all too many references to "the white man." And apparently, the rhetoric of the national spokesmen, as distinct from members of local chapters, include references to whites, Jews, and violence, not all in that order. I gotta give the credit for standing up against the KKK, but apparently, even black residents didn't want the New Party of Dallas to come in. For what it's worth, the New Party needs to stick to nonviolent community activism and leave hate towards whites and Jews for others. It's their anti-white and antisemitic rhetoric that turns me off. I'm just too tired right now to round up any strong indignation. For me, it says enough that the SPLC has them listed.

Now, as for my absence . . . I can't blame it entirely on my health. A great, great deal, just not entirely. What energy I could've used here went to a drawn out argument over at racismreview. I should apologize to any regular readers and myself for my lack of judgement. I've grown from the incident, though. I know why I visit that site so often and owe it to myself not to waste energy defending my integrity against people who don't acknowledge the reality of racism in this country. I'm not promising a post tomorrow, but hey . . .

The Battle for Voting Rights

Could reassignment of the Bush-era head of the Justice Department section charged with protection of voting rights mean real change?

Adam Serwer

Sometime during Christmas week, Christopher Coates, the chief of the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department, was quietly reassigned to an 18-month detail in the U.S. attorney's office in Charleston, South Carolina. Coates, a longtime career attorney in the Civil Rights Division, became head of the Voting Section in 2007. The previous head, John Tanner, left in 2007 in the midst of an uproar over racially inflammatory remarks.
Outraged conservatives quickly accused the Obama administration of reassigning Coates in order to cover up its dismissal of a voter-intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party that Coates supervised. Hans von Spakovsky, former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights under the Bush administration with a history of pushing for voting restrictions that disproportionately harm minority voters, said it was another sign of the Obama administration enforcing civil-rights laws on an "ideologically and politically biased basis." The conservative Washington Times headline blared "Justice Dept. Moves Panthers Pursuer to S.C."

This was not the first time the Civil Rights Division, of which Voting Rights is a part, has hit the headlines -- the division was widely criticized under the Bush administration. A joint report filed by the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility found that Brad Schlozman, who had been appointed to run the division, along with von Spakovsky and Tanner, regularly considered political affiliation when hiring career attorneys. According to the report, Tanner in particular complained that prior to the Bush appointees removing safeguards against politicized hiring, you had to be a "civil rights person" to work in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. In 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama blocked von Spakovsky's nomination to the Federal Election Commission saying von Spakovsky was "directly involved" in efforts to "disenfranchise voters" and "politicize" the Voting Rights Section.

A Government Accountability Office report released in December confirmed what veteran civil-rights lawyers who left the division over the past eight years had feared -- during the Bush administration, enforcement of civil-rights laws in employment discrimination, voting, and hate crimes fell across the board. It wasn't just about the cases: The racial atmosphere in the division was so hostile toward African Americans that by 2007, almost all the black lawyers in the division had left.

The New Black Panther voter intimidation case became an opportunity for conservatives to turn the tables on accusations of politicization. The battle for the soul of the Voting Rights Section didn't end with the new administration -- it continued, with conservatives in Congress and in the media waving the dismissal of the New Black Panther case as prima facie evidence that Democrats were politicizing the Justice Department.

Coates wanted to pursue the Black Panther Case, which became a rallying cry among conservatives. The Washington Times printed one-sided articles alleging politicization within the Voting Rights Section. Republican Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas and Frank Wolf of Virginia accused the administration of engaging in a "cover-up." In the Senate, Republicans used the New Black Panther case as an excuse to hold up Obama's nominee to head the Civil Rights Division, Thomas Perez. The now right-leaning U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), dominated by Bush appointees who are ideologically opposed to the division's traditional role of protecting minority rights, began investigating the dismissal of the Black Panther case and subpoenaing Justice Department lawyers. At a December American Constitution Society event, Thomas Perez, now confirmed as head of the Civil Rights Division, seemed to fire back at conservative critics, saying, "Those who had been entrusted with the keys to the division treated it like a buffet line at the cafeteria, cherry-picking which laws to enforce."

At first glance, Coates' extensive experience with voting rights -- he first worked for the American Civil Liberties Union and later the Justice Department -- made him look like just another career attorney. But Coates' current and former colleagues at the Justice Department say Coates underwent an ideological conversion shortly after a black lawyer in the Voting Rights Section, Gilda Daniels, was promoted to deputy section chief over him in July of 2000. Outraged, Coates filed a complaint alleging he was passed up for the job because he is white. The matter was settled internally.

"He thought he should have been hired instead of her," said one former official in the Voting Section. "That had an impact on his views … he became more conservative over time."

Coates' star rose during the Bush administration, during which he was promoted to principal deputy section chief. While not mentioned by name, Coates has been identified by several current and former Justice Department officials as the anonymous Voting Section lawyer, referred to in the joint Inspector General/Office of Professional Responsibility report, that Schlozman recommended for an immigration judge position. Immigration judges have jurisdiction over whether or not foreign nationals are deported. In his letter to Monica Goodling, a former senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who was implicated in the scandal involving politicized hiring, Schlozman wrote of Coates:

Don't be dissuaded by his ACLU work on voting matters from years ago. This is a very different man, and particularly on immigration issues, he is a true member of the team.
At the heart of the New Black Panther case was Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which offers legal protections against voter intimidation. It had only been used once prior to the Bush administration -- in 1992 to prevent a statewide voter-suppression effort initiated in South Carolina by then-Sen. Jesse Helms. In this case, the Bush administration wanted to use Section 11(b) against several New Black Panthers who had stood in front of a polling place in a black neighborhood, one of whom wielded a baton.

"There was no pattern and practice, no concerted effort to cage thousands of voters like in the [1992] Jesse Helms case," said Gerry Hebert, a former senior Voting Rights Section attorney who has served under multiple administrations. "That strikes me as the kind of large-scale voter-suppression case that would be more appropriate for Justice Department resources to be spent on."

The Bush administration filed two Section 11(b) cases, both on behalf of white voters, both supervised by Coates: the Black Panther case and a separate case in Noxubee, Mississippi. The Voting Rights Section had gone from ensuring voting rights for all Americans to focusing on the conservative bugaboo of "reverse racism."

A December report from Ryan J. Reilly of the legal publication Main Justice revealed that the now conservative-dominated USCCR had subpoenaed Coates and another Voting Section attorney, J. Christian Adams, to testify before the commission regarding the New Black Panther case. Adams is a straightforward ideologue, hired during the Bush era of politicized hiring. Having previously worked as a volunteer for the Republican National Lawyers Association, Adams has written pieces praising "tea party" activists and compared President Obama to Nazi appeasers. He was one of the lawyers assigned to the New Black Panther case.

Shortly after the report in Main Justice, von Spakovsky, who was at the center of the politicized hiring scandal at the Bush Justice Department, took to the pages of National Review to defend Coates and Adams and attack Thomas Perez, for not honoring the USCCR's subpoena. Two members of the USCC, Peter Kirsanow and Abigail Thernstrom, have also written for National Review, where the New Black Panther case has become a frequent topic of conversation.

According to Voting Section employees, the racially hostile atmosphere -- and for the most part, the politicization of the section -- that had existed during the Bush administration dissipated with John Tanner's departure. For some in the section, the New Black Panther Case symbolizes a chapter in the section's history they would rather put behind them. Thomas Perez has declared the Civil Rights Division "open for business," slamming the Bush administration for its lax enforcement of civil-rights laws. Department veterans who left, like Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez, are now trickling back. The atmosphere of "fear and retaliation" that once permeated the Voting Rights Section is gone. Last year saw the highest number of hate-crimes prosecutions since the last time a Democrat was in office. In many respects, the promises of change made by Obama as a candidate have fallen by the wayside. But not in the Civil Rights Division. Not in the Voting Rights Section.

On Tuesday, employees in the Voting Rights Section a held goodbye lunch for Coates. At the end of the lunch, employees went around the conference table expressing their appreciation to Coates. At the end, the attendees were startled when Coates pulled out a binder and began reciting a written defense of his decision to file the New Black Panther and Noxubee cases. Voting Section employees exchanged glances in disbelief.

"It felt like he was summing up to a jury," one attendee said.

Coates' replacement, Chris Herren, is a longtime career attorney with an encyclopedic knowledge of voting rights issues whom one Justice Department employee described as being "like Yoda with voting rights." Laughlin McDonald, head of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, and someone who has worked with Herron on voting rights issues for years, said "I can't really think of a better [choice] in that division."

As one Justice Department official put it, "It just feels like things are finally being righted."

Killing Black Business

I am just ripping off Btx3 today! Sorry. You should be getting my own original brand of checking the racism very soon. ~ No1KState

crossposted at dangerousNegro:

Farbeit for me to become another of those black liberals just finding things to hang around white folks and Republicans' necks like fiery cross-shaped albatrosses. Though, they do give us a lot of material to work with. I mean, they have an entire cable news channel we can dress down every day!

But. It is important that we offer policy proposals and other ideas to move us as a community and the nation forward. And here's one idea: the government should actually help keep black business strong and not collaborate in its destruction!

Via my new black blogosphere friend, Btx3:

President Obama wasn’t kidding about the demolition of small business under the Bushit administration. This data derived from statistics kept by the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies pretty much says it all.


The Shrinking Small Business Pie - SBIC Investment Under Bush

Look at that bottom right number, and as part of the “Shrinking pie” - it isn’t hard to discern whose shorts got hit the hardest.

Look at the bottom line - that was the shrinking percentage to Women and Minority owned businesses, down from 26% in 1998.

When you consider that only about 3% of the commercial Venture Capital money goes to women owned businesses, and .03% goes to black owned businesses - you begin to understand the “problem”.

______________________________

Please read the entire article.

Latest GOP Distraction: ACORN Probed for Voter Sign-Up Fraud

Here's what ACORN spokespeople have to say:

Two spokesmen for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for
Reform Now, on Thursday said the FBI has not contacted the group.

"ACORN has not been notified that we are the target of an investigation by any authorities — nor should we be," spokesman Kevin Whelan said in a statement. "ACORN members have done a good and patriotic thing by helping bring more than a million of their fellow citizens into our democratic process." . . .

ACORN has said the "vast majority" of its workers are conscientious, but some might have turned in duplicate applications or provided fake information to pad their pay. Workers caught submitting false information have been fired, ACORN officials say.

ACORN says laws in a number of states require it to submit all registration cards it collects even dubious ones, so its workers segregate applications with missing, suspicious or false information and flag them so state election officials can quickly check them further.
Brian Kettenring, an ACORN spokesman, said its employees flagged questionable registration forms for election officials in 11 states, none of which is investigating the group. He also said he did not believe a 'Mickey Mouse' voter registration card in Orlando, Fla., was submitted by an ACORN worker.

I think Republicans should listen and stop acting like they're the ones who want to protect voters' rights. I mean, after all, some of the US attorney's who were fired were fired for not investigating allegations of voter fraud even though there was no evidence of such fraud.

House Republicans have been pushing for the Justice Department to investigate ACORN, calling on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to make sure ballots by ineligible or fraudulent voters are not counted on Nov. 4.

The issue also became campaign trail fodder for McCain, who on Wednesday night demanded to know the full extent of Obama's ties with ACORN. McCain said the group could be on the verge of "destroying the fabric of democracy."

Come to think of it, I guess BushCo has gotten what it wanted. And that should make every American sad. Every American.

This Time, I'm Adding My View

The ladies were at it again. I meant to actually get up and watch, but I overslept.

Here's the thing. McCain is losing. So he and his supporters, including Elizabeth Hasselbeck, are resorting to smear, fear, and racist tactics. Neither of them, and no one else I know, has completely "all-America" association. So this whole thing is completely repulsive. They claim Obama isn't being "completely honest." But what more does the electorate need to know? And what difference does it make anyway?

Hasselbeck is also accusing the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr of hating his country. Even though he voluntarily joined the marines during Vietnam. She's basically jumping from his finding fault with the country to him hating the country. And let's just be clear. There are plenty of faults to found with America, even discluding racism.

And for the record, as a black person, probably an overwhelming majority of us have mixed feelings about this country. We can look past the faults of this country, especially it's anti-black bias, to get to the affectionate "love" most conservatives think everyone should be. What's more, the overwhelming majority of us are adults. We understand that a country, even the one of our citizenship, isn't something to be "loved."

Also, I have to deal with this right-wing lie that the Democrats are at fault for our economic crisis. Let's get one thing straight. Our country's economic decisions have been made for the past 8 years or more from a conservative standpoint. Supply-side, lower taxes, deregulation, that's what has gotten us into the trouble we're in now. No one forced banks to do millions of "sub-prime" lending, aimed primarily at people of color. What Democrats and African Americans wanted was an end to the red-lining that was keeping African Americans from getting loans that rightly qualified for.

And once you look at the numbers, millions of people of color were given sub-prime loans even though they qualified for prime loans. Which, I should point out, is why the overwhelming majority of African Americans don't "love" this country. "Whitey" screws everybody, us especially, and then turns and blames it on us black folk. It had right after the Civil War when crime dramatically increased in the South, and even though 90% of the crime was committed by whites, including ex-Confederate soldiers, somehow, the entire increase was blamed on recently freedmen and women. So, we're used to this song and dance, and it is why essays and articles that Barack Obama's meteoric rise proves the end of "black politics" and racism fall on . . . well, I wouldn't say deaf ears to the extent that we do hear what's being said. Perhaps uncaring ears because we know you're lying to yourself and just aren't willing to accept your lies for ourselves.

So, the system remains racist. And blaming black people and other racial minorities for this crisis when just about every CEO and COO and CFO of the failing companies are white is racist as well.

But anyway, voter. Be smart. Be wise. If this is all McCain has, then he doesn't have anything positive to say about himself. And also, take note that he makes these accusations at rallies, not at the debates. He preaches to the choir. He makes these comments where no one can respond.

And as far as the mandate on parents to place health care coverage on their children - parents will have government assistance available to them. This ain't about the parent. It's about the child.

Isn't That the US Calling the Kettle Black?

We should all be aware of the Russian invasion of Georgia.

I've been listening to the coverage and no one's connecting the dots. In fact, Pres. Bush and John McCain are rattling sabers at Russia. McCain wants to throw Russia out of the G8. They're just writing checks they can't cash!

Two quick points.

1. The US is hardly in a place to "condemn" Russia's invasion. I mean, how exactly did the illegal Iraq Occupation begin?

2. The reason we can't do anything more about the crisis is that we're in . . . Irag!!

If what you have to say doesn't make these two points, just shut up.

For his part, Barack Obama pressed for strong diplomacy.

Girl-child Just Ain't Safe in a House Full of Men

Sexual Assault in Military 'Jaw-Dropping,' Lawmaker Says

July 31, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A congresswoman said Thursday that
her "jaw dropped" when military doctors told her that
four in 10 women at a veterans hospital reported being
sexually assaulted while in the military.

A government report indicates that the numbers could be
even higher.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, spoke before a House
panel investigating the way the military handles reports
of sexual assault.

She said she recently visited a Veterans Affairs
hospital in the Los Angeles area, where women told her
horror stories of being raped in the military.

"My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent
of the female veterans seen there say they were victims
of sexual assault while serving in the military," said
Harman, who has long sought better protection of women
in the military.

"Twenty-nine percent say they were raped during their
military service. They spoke of their continued terror,
feelings of helplessness and downward spirals many of
their lives have taken since.

"We have an epidemic here," she said. "Women serving in
the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a
fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq."

As of July 24, 100 women had died in Iraq, according to
the Pentagon.

In 2007, Harman said, only 181 out of 2,212 reports of
military sexual assaults, or 8 percent, were referred to
courts martial. By comparison, she said, 40 percent of
those arrested in the civilian world on such charges are
prosecuted.

Defense statistics show that military commanders took
unspecified action, which can include anything from
punishment to dismissal, in an additional 419 cases.

But when it came time for the military to defend itself,
the panel was told that the Pentagon's top official on
sexual abuse, Dr. Kaye Whitley, was ordered not to show
up despite a subpoena.

"I don't know what you're trying to cover up here, but
we're not going to allow it," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-
California, said to the Defense official who relayed the
news of Whitley's no-show. "This is unacceptable."

Rep. John Tierney, the panel's chairman and a Democrat
from Massachusetts, angrily responded, "these actions by
the Defense Department are inexplicable."

"The Defense Department appears to be willfully and
blatantly advising Dr. Whitley not to comply with a duly
authorized congressional subpoena," Tierney said.

An Army official who did testify said the Army takes
allegations of sexual abuse extremely seriously.

"Even one sexual assault violates the very essence of
what it means to be a soldier, and it's a betrayal of
the Army's core values," Lt. Gen. Michael Rochelle said.

The committee also heard from Mary Lauterbach, the
mother of Lance Cpl. Maria Lauterbach, a 20-year-old
pregnant Marine who was killed in December, allegedly by
a fellow Marine.

Mary Lauterbach said her daughter filed a rape claim
with the military against Marine Cpl. Cesar Laurean
seven months before he was accused of killing her.

"I believe that Maria would be alive today if the
Marines had provided a more effective system to protect
the victims of sexual assault," she said.

In the months after her daughter filed the rape claim,
she said, the military didn't seem to take her
seriously, and the onus was on "Maria to connect the
dots."

"The victim should not have the burden to generate
evidence for the command," Lauterbach told the
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs.
"Maria is dead, but there will be many more victims in
the future, I promise you. I'm here to ask you to do
what you can to help change how the military treats
victims of crime and to ensure the victims receive the
support and protection they need and they deserve."

Another woman, Ingrid Torres, described being raped on a
U.S. base in Korea when she worked with the American Red
Cross.

"I was raped while I slept," she said.

The man who assaulted her, she said, was a flight
director who was found guilty and dismissed from the Air
Force.

Fighting back tears, Torres added, "he still comes after
me in my dreams."

The Government Accountability Office released
preliminary results from an investigation into sexual
assaults in the military and the Coast Guard. The GAO
found that the "occurrences of sexual assault may be
exceeding the rates being reported."

"At the 14 installations where GAO administered its
survey, 103 service members indicated that they had been
sexually assaulted within the preceding 12 months. Of
these, 52 service members indicated that they did not
report the sexual assault," the GAO said.

The office found that the military and Coast Guard have
established policies to address sexual assault but that
the implementation of the programs is hampered by an
array of factors, including that "most, but not all,
commanders support the programs."

"Left unchecked, these challenges can discourage or
prevent some service members from using the programs
when needed," the GAO said.

Tierney said, "what's at stake here goes to the very
core of the values of the military and the nation
itself.

"When our sons and daughters put their lives on the line
to defend the rest of us, the last thing they should
fear is being attacked by one of our own.

Sorry, Obama

I pretty much gotta side with Ludacris on this one!

Ain't I a Woman

Err, uh, yes. I am.

Admittedly I infrequently tackle issues of importance to woman. I have my reasons for this, maybe I'll post on them later. But there are somethings concerning women's rights that just gets to me.

Let me put a few things out there (or, skip foward to * and read this):

1 - I hardly believe there's some "ambition gap" between the sexes. Income gap? Sure. Domestic responsibilities gap? You betcha! But "ambition gap?" Please. As the saying goes, "Every woman needs a wife." That includes me.

2 - I know "W" was supposed to stand for "Women for Bush," but right now, "W" pretty much stands for, "Why?" or perhaps even, "What?!" This recent administration has been bad for women. Court appointees. Reproductive rights. Equal pay. Healthcare. Family leave. War. Any issue of which women have some special concern has been given the enemy combatant treatment. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that McCain would be to women's rights what Bush has been to America's civil rights. Similarly, there's not doubt in my mind that Barack Obama will do as much if not more for women than he will for people of color.

3 - I used to be anti-abortion, even through Women Studies 050 - Intro to Women's Studies. I felt abortion was something women did after having been stupid. Then I took Black Women's History and learned about slavewomen's infanticide. Lord knows I would not have been mad had my slavemother killed me. And sometimes, it wasn't infanticed, but the shear dearth of resources that led to an infants death. Even though slaveholders didn't like their money being manipulated by the free-choice of property, they certainly couldn't prove that a baby died because his/her mother killed him/her. That made me think of society's impact on women's decision to have abortions.

Plus, there was the fact that I used to respond to the issue with this: Don't step in mud and expect me to clean it up. It finally dawned on my at some point that a woman's decision to have an abortion had nothing to do with me at all.

4 - Hillary Clinton is not champion or symbol of women's rights. Her campaign was basically about a woman's right to act like a man. And although that argument does have merit, it's just not an argument I find compelling enough to draw any passion. It's much like the actual fact that racial equality is more or less black people's rights to act white. Doesn't exactly do it for me.
________________________

That said.

*Now, the Bush administration is trying to pass off some cruddy reasoning as "conscience" for basically restricting a woman's access to contraceptives in an emergency situation, rape for example. Read up on it. A woman who's been raped has a right to contraceptives, and it's not for anyone to make the decision for her. Should she end up pregnant against her will, it amounts to being raped all over again.

What the . . . Er, Heaven?!

After enough time had passed for McCain to criticize Obama for not visiting the troops in Germany, the Pentagon admits to some "concern."

Chief Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell confirmed to Politico that Department of
Defense officials cautioned Barack Obama's campaign that his planned visit to wounded American troops in Germany could not be political in nature and that he would be barred from bringing along campaign staff and reporters. He also said that Cindy McCain recently requested to visit sailors aboard the U.S.N.S. Comfort and was denied.

And let's remember, Obama visited the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

McBush is coming across as sickeningly egregious. And to display my womanist sentiments, remember my complaining about Clinton's cackle? Well, McBush's chuckle/wheeze and that elderly-Joker-like smile is disgusting.

Now Comes the Attacks on Voting Rights

Getting into people's privacy wasn't enough for the Bush administration. Now, they're showing Congress up when it comes to voting rights. And, of course, minority, elderly, and poor voters are the ones who are prevented from voting. And that's how you get presidents like W.

Justice called uncooperative on voting rights
Conyers to Mukasey: There hasn't been enough cooperation with Congress

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

From Onion News Network


Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

No, it's not true. But don't you wish it were? And isn't it hilarious? In kinda of a sad, ironic way?

Federal Judge Refuses to Investigate CIA Videotape Destruction

Basically, Judge Kennedy says the tapes weren't covered by his order and he's satisfied that the Justice Department is looking into it.

Congress is also continuing to look into it. I for one want answers!

This Is One Reason a Democrat MUST Win in November

The Supreme Court is atrociously divided along partisan lines. It's sickening!

I just watched Jim Lehrer and a report on the case concerning the Indiana voter ID law. According to the reporter (whose name I can't recall), Robertson, Alito, and Scalia displayed suspicion against the voting rights advocates; Ginsburg and Breyer display suspicion against the state.

Let me give you some background. Indiana's law requiring voters to present photo ID is supposed to help curb voter fraud. There are two problems with that theory:

1. Illegal voter suppression and intimidation is much more prevalent than voter fraud, which primarily concerns people voting who shouldn't be.
2. There's very little evidence of voter fraud.

Even Scalia had to admit there seemed to be little benefit from the law. He also questioned how much burden the law places on people, which I attribute to his conservative, privileged white male perspective. He wondered how the court could make a decision. I think the answer is easy - find in favor of the people's right to vote.

With this law, a voter would either have to present a driver's licenses or go through the hassle of obtaining a state ID card. The hassle would include, for example, having to pay for a birth certificate to present in order to get the ID. That'll be harder for some than others, but it'll cost anyone. On the face of it, it sounds like 21 century poll taxes, reading tests, etc or, rather, simply James Crow, Jr, Esquire.

If a voter doesn't have ID at the time of the vote, they can vote by provisional ballot which would only be counted if they arrived at the county courthouse in the county seat to either show an ID or sign an affidavit saying they're too poor to afford a state photo ID. It could be just me, but if I'm too poor to afford a state photo ID, I may also have trouble getting to the county seat.

Voting rights advocates believe the law will place undo burden on the poor, who'll be disproportionately minorities, and elderly. Both of who usually skew towards the political left. The state wants to prevent fraud, which isn't happening. And back to the point of this post, the Court's conservatives are doubting the voting rights advocates and the liberals, or in the case, the reasonable justices, doubt the state.

Voter ID laws (20 states have a form of one) arose in response to presidential election of 2000. That makes Indiana's law and any law like it a joke! The problem with the 2000 election, Florida and Tennessee admit, is that people were illegal prevented from voting. The problem had nothing to do with dead people voting, or Illinois voters voting in Michigan.

Yeah, I'm biased. I think the law is a fraud. Yeah, I'm siding with the liberals. But I think it's ridiculous that the justices are so partisan. This case, indeed Indiana's law, has more to do with partisanship than actual law. Especially considering the facts as I earlier laid out, it would seem Indiana should be making sure all eligible voters can vote; the state has nothing to gain by having this law on the books. The only entity that stands to gain is the state's Republican party. It's just plain mess that the Supreme Court could display such differences in what's obviously a partisan law in the first place. Either the law is Constitutional or it's not; it either protects rights and withholds rights. Even honest conservatives will admit that voter ID laws are unnecessary. The point is to keep Democratic leaning voters from being heard. And the Supreme Court is divided? And this is the Supreme Court of the vaunted United States of America? This is what we're allegedly trying to spread around the world? Give me a break!

And to make matters worse, the Bush administration is arguing on behalf of voter ID laws at the same time it admits that voter fraud is a myth. The administration's argument is that since so many people may not vote because they think that their vote won't matter due to voter fraud, in order to build voter confidence, there should be laws to prevent voter fraud. The argument is specious on its face. But then to add to the sheer putridness of the administration, it has been the administration and other conservative partisan groups who spread the falsities of voter fraud, which the claim will place doubt in the minds of legal voters, in the first place.

Now, I could be over-reacting. The cases hasn't been decided; the report I heard was about oral arguments. I hope it's properly decided. I really do. But the divide on the Court isn't just ideological; it's partisan. It's sickening. It's embarrassing.

If the rights of people to vote, to receive equal pay, not to experience harassment on the job, etc, etc, etc is to be protected, a Democrat president has to be elected. The Democrats have to fight on behalf of the people who are least able to fight on behalf of themselves.

Say What Now Huh?

According some members of the right, should Barack Obama wins the Democrat nomination but then loses the presidency, America should fear riots and violence from "certain segments" of society. You'll have to see the link for the entire quote. I was going to publish it but decided against giving more space to racism.

So, lets forget the "bourgeois riots" of members of the GOP of 2000 and the peaceful protests of that same year led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. (Thanks to Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com for pointing this out.) Forget the rally in Jena, LA just this past fall this remained peaceful, divine help or not. Let's ignore the Olympic riots of 2002 whose participants were mostly (if not all) white. You know what, while we're at it, let's just pretend that the US doesn't have a history of racial riots where whites have killed and destroyed black lives and communities.

I have to say, it's rare that something so racist is said and passed as intelligent commentary and analysis. Not that I don't think there shouldn't be riots should the Democrat presidential nominee, whoever that may be, lose in 2008. Already, Republicans, with the help of the Bush administration, is looking to suppress votes. (There has been recent success in blocking these efforts.) But to continue living under and farther spreading the delusion that blacks are inherently violent while whites are either saints or misunderstood in ridiculous.

And just in case you wondering, no, this isn't what I had planned as far as detailing structural racism in the US. I'm left to wonder, though, who in their right mind can actually believe, or purport to believe, all Americans are competing on a level playing field and while simultaneously maintaining such racist notions. And, no, I haven't even gotten into some of the more ridiculous self-congratulations for the demonstration of white colorblindness from a man who advocates the abortion of all African American babies. But, I will.

To be perfectly honest, and I should be, the Obama's campaign has led to some altercation. Granted it was on the part of Bill O'Reilly, but an altercation nonetheless. I'll also admit that if you wanna get a better feel for the story as well as the recent history of riots led by European Americans, you should check out the links.

Uh, What? Run That by Me One More 'Gain

First, Mukasey says the Justice Department can't cooperate with Congress's investigation of the destruction of CIA tapes.

The Justice Department and the C.I.A.'s inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said the department would not comply with Congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."

No one's quite sure what's on the tape, but the Bush administration and the CIA had been instructed NOT to destroy the tape. Presumably, the tapes are of the CIA using torture. And, the Bush administration would cooperate with Congress, but they don't wanna the investigation to look political. In a move reversal its normal course of (in)action, Congress in planning to defy the administration.

Of course, there are questions about who in Congress was told about the tapes, what they were told about the tapes, and what they said about what they were told. Some say Congress wasn't told much. Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary claims Congress knew more than Bush.

Now, the Bush administration doesn't want a federal judge asking questions since Congress and the Justice Dept is already investigating CIA tapes.

In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department.

Somebody please explain this logic!