Free Marketeers Against Healthcare? Go Galt and take your communist influence with you...

“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, …”

I assume they were not discussing welfare payments for high ranking military officers when they mention "promote the general welfare". And the 16th amendment allows for the government to tax for the purposes of promoting the general welfare.

16th Amendment

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

There are numerous other mentions in The Constitution supporting their right to tax you for whatever they deem is for the good of the nation. 

And not just to "promote the general welfare" but to "provide" it, as well:

Article 1 Section 8

"Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"

It is safe to say that keeping Americans healthy would be providing for the general welfare of the United States. You may not like it. But that is The Constitution.


As for healthcare being a right? Article 25, section 1 of the Declaration of Human Rights:

“Article 25  Section 1

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care [...]”

Signed by the President of the United States of America and ratified by Congress, healthcare is a right in the USA.

The basis of the Declaration of Human rights was not meant to be an enforceable treaty, but it was to be a recognized document to give legal definitions to generalized ideas like freedom and rights around the world. Things that had, up until then, not really been legally defined have been since that time.

You can and should thank Eleanor Roosevelt for her small part in all of that.

For those of you that screech "free markets" extremism and falsely tout The Constitution, threatening to "Go Galt"? None of this infringes on your rights to pursue “Life, Liberty and Happiness” unless your definition of those things are having a few more bucks so the poor can die of illness. If you think those things than you are an extremist because nothing in The Constitution guarantees you those things as a "right". And, in fact, the legal definitions could not support your extremist misconceptions.

Even Adam Smith, the “father of modern economics”, recognized that a capitalist society based on free markets would cease to function if there were no taxes, wage controls and strong social safety nets to balance the free markets. From his wiki:

“One of the key figures of the Scottish Enlightenment, Smith is the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. The latter, usually abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. Adam Smith is widely cited as the father of modern economics.

[...]

Smith has been celebrated by advocates of free market policies as the founder of free market economics, a view reflected in the naming of bodies such as the Adam Smith Institute, Adam Smith Society and the Australian Adam Smith Club, and in terms such as the Adam Smith necktie.

Alan Greenspan argues that, while Smith did not coin the term laissez-faire, "it was left to Adam Smith to identify the more-general set of principles that brought conceptual clarity to the seeming chaos of market transactions". Greenspan continues that The Wealth of Nations was "one of the great achievements in human intellectual history". P. J. O'Rourke describes Adam Smith as the "founder of free market economics".

However, other writers have argued that Smith's support for laissez-faire has been overstated. Herbert Stein wrote that the people who "wear an Adam Smith necktie" do it to "make a statement of their devotion to the idea of free markets and limited government", and that this misrepresents Smith's ideas. Stein writes that Smith "was not pure or doctrinaire about this idea. He viewed government intervention in the market with great skepticism ... yet he was prepared to accept or propose qualifications to that policy in the specific cases where he judged that their net effect would be beneficial and would not undermine the basically free character of the system. He did not wear the Adam Smith necktie." In Stein's reading, The Wealth of Nations could justify the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, mandatory employer health benefits, environmentalism, and "discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior"."

I have not bolded any particular part since his entire wiki page is worth the read. Go read it all since…

You’ll also find that Adam Smith, the original free marketeer that founded the line of thought free market extremists screech about in the USA today was also one of the strong influences on communist theories.

Classical economists presented variations on Smith, termed the 'labour theory of value', later Marxian economics descends from classical economics also using Smith's labour theories in part. The first volume of Karl Marx's major work, Capital, was published in German in 1867. In it, Marx focused on the labour theory of value and what he considered to be the exploitation of labour by capital. The labour theory of value held that the value of a thing was determined by the labor that went into its production. This contrasts with the modern understanding of mainstream economics, that the value of a thing is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain the thing. Smith is often cited not only as the conceptual builder of free markets in capitalism but also as a main contributor to communist theory, via his influence on Marx.

Yeah, Karl Marx loved him some free marketeer.


So, if you're against healthcare reform for all of the really stupid reasons? The reasons that are not there in The Constitution and the reasons that don't work in a balanced free market and the reasons that are so extremist they are actually going against The Constitution and the laws of the United States of America:

Please, feel free to "Go Galt" and take all of your communist influence with you.

Take a good hard look at the new face of NOM

The newest member of the anti-marriage equality group NOM, Orson Scott Card, is just a plain old lunatic that clearly proves, in his own words, that this is all about treating homosexuals as less than equal.

The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex.

Not Card - He isn't homophobic... And he isn't advocating harsh treatment of them. Is he?

After blabbering on about how homosexuals must admit that they are sinning according to the rules of Card's personal lifestyle choice, his own personal religious views that he is trying to force on everyone else, he later goes on to discuss appropriate punishment for homosexuals:

This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.

And he has the gall to title the piece "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality"...

You see, this has and always been about equality. The loonies at FIC, NOM and other anti-marriage equality groups are truly radical wingnuts that advocate Christianist hate and for treating others as second class citizens.

The latest face they have added to their stable of hate at NOM proves that it is all about equality.

But these days they know that they have to hide that fact because their real views are about as radical and un-American as it gets.

Chele, over at MLN, shows that Orson Scott Card has some serious problems with the US government. It is safe to say that his words do advocate for overthrowing the government and tossing The Constitution into the garbage:

When we're tempted to dismiss the anti-marriage equality crowd as a bunch of passe cranks who are losing their battle against civil rights and who will soon disappear to lick their wounds, we need to remind ourselves that their organizations harbor a lot of seriously deranged people. Family Institute of CT on a local level, and the National Organization for Marriage on the larger stage have the potential to be much more dangerous than they appear at first glance.

People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch has noted that the science fiction writer Orson Scott Card has joined the board of NOM. PFAW shares an interesting quote from Card, which appeared last July during the Prop 8 battle, in the Mormon Times:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. [...] American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

NOM has put a man who advocates overthrowing the American government on their Board of Directors. One can only assume that NOM and their followers either agree that the government is their "mortal enemy" and that the Constitution is "insane" or at least have no problem with people advocating that the government of the United States be destroyed and brought down.

But these people at NOM aren't the radicals.

We are. Because. we. preach. real. equality.

And they aren't homophobes preaching violence, either...

(h/t Box Turtle Bulletin)

The Illegal Spying Whistle Blower Express...

Has just left the station:

A former NSA analyst is confirming to [Keith Olbermann] what so many "tinfoliers" already believed:

The NSA is listening, watching and reading communications from citizens, people in the United States with no security threat, rhyme or reason, at least none that would allow such an intrusion into the lives of your common citizen. No surprise to many, but it does surprise me the beans are being spilled on prime time right now.

This is without FISA, warrants or with any other Constitutional protections.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Yes... They were spying on journalists, as many people speculated.

More to come tomorrow on Countdown.

Expect this to be the first in a long line of whistle blowers to come forward with information on specific crimes committed by the criminal Bush administrations. They no longer have worry about retribution from the most corrupt administration to ever seize power in the USA.

And getting run over by this freight train of truth will be poor little Oxy-Rush:

Earlier today, President Obama issued his first set of executive orders. One of these orders instructs “federal agencies to handle requests for information from the public and press under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] with an eye toward disclosure, not refusal.” The order reportedly returns to “pre-Bush administration policies” regarding FOIA.

In response to the “new standard of openness,” conservative talker Rush Limbaugh said that he fears that the more open FOIA rules will make it easier for Bush to be held to account for any misdeeds he committed as president:

LIMBAUGH: What I’m afraid of is that what Obama did with this executive order is actually make it easier for the media to go get Bush documents. Because you know Pelosi and some of the guys over in congress are talking about war crimes trials and charges and so forth. […]

What I’m afraid of is what Obama’s done here is made the gathering of the information for this kind of stuff– This is not American. This is not America. This is not what America does. We don’t– This is Banana Republic kind of stuff.

Oxy-Rush can't handle the truth getting out and I really think he may be smoking bananas.

[update] Via AMERICAblog, just an update on the journalists suspected to be targeted by illegal spying:

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann interviewed a former National Security Agency analyst tonight. The analyst says that, under the ruse of making sure that the NSA did NOT target American media and journalists, they actually collected information on every communication those journalists and media organizations had 24/7.

This is extremely complicated stuff, and appears to be a rather significant story. Ironically, we had reported back in 2005 on this very issue, asking whether the Bush administration was spying on American journalists. At the time, there was a specific question as to whether CNN's Christiane Amanpour was a subject of inquiry. At the time, CNN's David Ensor dismissed the story, saying that he had a contact in the intelligence agency who "looked into it" and said, nah, it's not happening, don't worry. Yes, because I'm sure the NSA would tell David Ensor if they were spying on him. Anyway, seems Mr. Ensor may get to do a follow-up story.

Internet Censorship Act DEAD!

Via EFF, thus ends one of their oldest and longest running cases and causes:

In a victory for online free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear the government's appeal of a July 2008 ruling holding the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) unconstitutional and enjoining COPA's enforcement. The case was brought by the ACLU, EFF, and a coalition of plaintiffs.

Today's decision marks the end of the road for COPA, a federal law that violated the First Amendment by imposing civil and criminal penalties on commercial website operators that publish sexually explicit material without also using credit card authentication or other technological measures to verify viewer age and block access by minors.

...snip...

COPA was passed after the Supreme Court struck down its predecessor, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), in its landmark decision ACLU v. Reno, the first Supreme Court case to apply the First Amendment to online speech.

Know Your Marriage History

Here is a great piece on the history of miscegenation laws and how they parallel the fight for the basic Civil Right that is Marriage Equality:

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation
By Peggy Pascoe

Ms. Pascoe is Associate Professor and Beekman Chair of Northwest and Pacific History at the University of Oregon. She is completing a book on the significance of miscegenation law in United States history.

We are in the midst of an attempt to ground a category of discrimination in the fundamental social bedrock of marriage law. I would argue that it is virtually impossible to understand the current debate over same-sex marriage without first understanding the history of American miscegenation laws and the long legal fight against them, if only because both supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage come to this debate, knowing or unknowingly, wielding rhetorical tools forged during the history of miscegenation law. The arguments white supremacists used to justify for miscegenation laws--that interracial marriages were contrary to God's will or somehow unnatural--are echoed today by the most conservative opponents of same-sex marriage. And supporters of same-sex marriage base their cases on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, echoing the position the U.S. Supreme Court took when it declared miscegenation laws unconstitutional in the case of Loving v. Virginia. Both sides confront the structures of marriage law exclusion that were also forged during the history of miscegenation, including, as I show below, the legal maneuvering over the seemingly minor bureaucratic practice of issuing marriage licenses.

A Brief History of Miscegenation Laws (continue reading)

Also... A little more basic facts on the origins of the Marriage License in the USA and the main reasons for its origins: BIGOTS & RACISM.

Declarations Of Pride has a great piece up on this subject, from a very personal point of view, that includes some really good observations:

Yet, so many don't understand that rights in America are to be universal; guaranteed to every citizen under the law. Equal under the law is the other way it is expressed. Somewhere along our journey a percentage of Americans got confused, brainwashed, left-behind, whatever...And began to think of marriage as a religious doctrine not a civil construct. This misunderstanding of the nature of marriage is what has gotten us to this point.

Now, combine our need for salvation with our hate for things we don't' understand, and you have a straightforward American debate; rooted in puritanical history, conflated by individual moral superiority. This is a classic cycle we have played out over and over in our history. Whenever we are afraid of something or someone we don't understand we isolate them. Americans are not the fair-minded individuals they always claim to be. There is always some class of people unworthy of what the others have. We have lost our way, and that is why I speak on this so much.

Consider this: Marriage gets to party at the church. It gets a dress. It gets guests in pews. When the party is over, people will turn to God for guidance, but they turn to the state for a divorce!

To review; you come to the government to get married, and you go to the state to legally dissolve your marriage. You may go to church in between to help you nurture a loving relationship, but that is about as far as the relationship between faith and marriage goes.

Christianity as a Lifestyle Choice

That is what it is. You always hear them talking about personal choices and lifestyle choices of others.

For over seven minutes last night, Jon Stewart grilled former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on his opposition to gay marriage. Huckabee is touring the country to promote his new book, “Do The Right Thing.” When Stewart compared gay marriage bans to interracial marriage bans, Huckabee restated his view that homosexuality is simply a behavior choice:

STEWART: Segregation used to be the law until the courts intervened.

HUCK: There’s a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship.

STEWART: Okay, actually this is helpful because it gets to the crux of it. … And I’ll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion — we protect religion. And talk about a lifestyle choice — that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don’t choose to be gay. At what age did you choose to not be gay?

Huckabee tried to insist that “60 percent of the American population” opposes gay marriage. Stewart interrupted him, calling it a “travesty” that gay Americans have to plead for their civil rights... (READ ON)

The truth is that being gay or lesbian is not likely a lifestyle choice. The facts would seem to suggest that it is the way you were when you born - in pretty much the exact same way that you are born black, white, whatever, etc. - and environment may only be a factor in how it can effect the genetic code that people are born with. And not just no, but HELL NO! I am not going down that Nazi like road of eugenics to "eliminate or treat" what some of you crazies want to call a disease... That is just sick.

And even if it were a choice?

Who cares... Exercising free will, to make your own choice, is as much a right as it is a personal responsibility. Even according to the Bible, Free Will is a Divine Institution:

1.Free will, 2.Marriage, 3.Family, 4.Government etc.

Yeah... You hear a lot from the religious wing nuts about the "Divine Institution of Marriage" - the second divine institution...

But they conveniently choose to skip the First Divine Institution in their bankrupt arguments.

Free Will - The one God supposedly gave everyone to choose their own destiny.

Religion is quite simply and for certain nothing more than a lifestyle choice...

You aren't born that way. Even if you are a believer - God gave you the free will to choose to believe. In fact some of these religions make a big deal out of converting people into believers. Because. People. Were. Not. Born. That. Way.

They made a choice.

People choose their religions all the time. Often they change their choice of religion on a whim.

Often that religion of choice has clearly bigoted views that they would like to force upon the rest of the world. Anti-Marriage Equality views would be included there. It is no different than other bigoted religious views that have been argued for in the past:

The term "miscegenation" has been used since the nineteenth century to refer to interracial marriage and interracial sex, and more generally to the global process of racial admixture that has taken place since the Age of Discoveries, particularly through the European colonization of the Americas and the Atlantic slave trade. Historically the term has been used in the context of laws banning interracial marriage and sex, so-called anti-miscegenation laws. It is therefore a loaded word and is considered offensive by many.

Today, the word miscegenation is avoided by many scholars, because the term suggests a distinct biological phenomenon, rather than a categorization imposed on certain relationships. The word is considered offensive by many and other terms such as "interracial," "interethnic" or "cross-cultural" are more common in contemporary usage. However, the term is still used by scholars when referring to past practices concerning multiraciality, such as anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriages.

Christians and their ever changing views on traditional marriage...

I am pretty sure most of them have given up the bigoted views against interracial marriages.

Huckabee talks about "5000 years of traditional marriage" based on his own personal lifestyle choice's rulebook - the Bible - but will, no doubt, refuse to accept what that loaded definition actually includes if implemented as law:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Added to that list of new laws would be the many forms of rape marriage that are traditionally acceptable according to Huckabee's God and Bible...

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Just remember that these are precisely the views and lessons that have formed people like Mike Huckabee's "family values and morals" in the religious lifestyle choice they have made.

History will not be kind to you and yours, Huckster...

Time and time again these family values types have had to be forced to re-define their idea of traditional marriage because of what societies morals have defined as abhorrent practices. This time is no different than any of the other times. It truly sickens me that in a nation where all men are supposedly created equal... That we constantly have to sink down to these morally corrupt and repugnant people's level to argue for the most basic civil rights of other men and women. Their right to choose.

Those of you on the other side of these arguments - and I assure you, they are all the same arguments repeated over and over again - will be viewed in the history books as the bigots and haters that you are. But let's be clear on this...

That was your choice.

Not mine. My choice and belief would be that other people have no right to stick their noses in to the love lives, bedrooms and marriages of other adults. And I never had to ask for Mike Huckabee's or any one else, Gay, Lesbian, heterosexual, religious, atheist or other, for permission to get married - other than my wife-to-be at the time. All of you on the wrong side of this argument have been left with the freedom to choose your religion, your morals, your values and even your spouse.

The LGBT community deserves the same rights, the same freedoms guaranteed to them under the Constitution, to make all of these same choices without your 5000 years of traditionally misguided, immoral and bigoted input.

Local Voting Info - New Milford, CT

Reposted and in light of an email request from a reader for local New Milford, Connecticut, voting info:

Find out where to vote!
For your local polling place...

Find Your Polling Place | Voting Info For Your State | Know Your Voting Rights | Report Voting Problems

According to the information I found there are no local town issues to be voted on. Just the candidates and the two statewide questions. I phoned the town clerk's office to verify this information to be true:

Warning
November 4, 2008

State Election

The electors and taxpayers of the Town of New Milford are hereby warned to meet at the respective polling places in said town on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for the following purposes:

I. To cast their votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and State Representative.

II To vote on the following questions for the approval or disapproval of a proposed Constitutional convention and proposed AMENDMENT to the Constitution of Connecticut, a vote of “YES” being a vote for approval, and a vote of “NO” being a vote for disapproval:

1. Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

2. Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

The full text of such proposed questions with explanatory text, printed in accordance with §2-30a of the General Statutes, is available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public distribution.

Notice is hereby given that the location of the polling places is as follows:

Voting District Location of Polling Place
District 1 Northville School, Hipp Road
District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street
District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road
District 4 Gaylordsville Fire House
District 5 Schaghticoke School, Hipp Road
District 6 Hill & Plain School, Old Town Park Road
District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road

Voting machines will be used. The polls will be open at six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a.m. and will remain open until eight o’clock in the evening (8:00 p.m.)

Absentee Ballots for electors and Presidential Ballots will be centrally counted in the Loretta Brickley Room in the basement of the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

The final tally of the election will be in the E. Paul Martin Room in the the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

Dated at New Milford, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2008.
George C. Buckbee
Town Clerk
New Milford

Please note that if you typically voted at the Lanesville fire department in the past, they have switched that District 7 voting location to Sarah Noble School because of the fact that they dead ended that street.

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED YET YOU CAN STILL VOTE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN CONNECTICUT! It is the law. Bring your ID to Townhall where they should have special "presidential ballots" for your use. If you are registered to vote in New Milford, read on...

Also, in as far as the two statewide Constitution questions...

On question 1, most of the Democratic leaning Blogs seem to be in agreement that question 1 (having a Constitutional Convention) would be a bad thing and are pushing for a no vote:

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.

Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.

It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.

There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.

Costly to the taxpayers and could potentially run counter to the spirit and idea of the many recent campaign financing rule changes in Connecticut, and never mind the tendency of radical right wing groups, like the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), to push costly campaigns on to the ballot that will never pass in the real world. It is no coincidence that the fringe Heritage front group, FIC, is one of the groups pushing this agenda. They have little in state support or participation from Nutmeggers and the FIC is the quintessential example of an Astroturf group. Their sole purpose is to try and create a false perception of "grassroots support" for generally repulsive legislation that the majority does not support. They use money and vocal twits to agitate the process and create those perceptions.

To put it bluntly, FIC has more money... Yet, I have more readers (both in and out of state...) But the FIC uses out of state soft money and out of state sister group members to finance and create a fake movement and to get media access. And they want to amend the Connecticut Constitution?

I suggest using your middle finger on that "Hell NO!" vote for question 1.

When it comes to question 2, on allowing people that will be old enough to vote in the election to vote in the primaries if they are only 17, it seems like a reasonable way to help ensure our younger generation learns the civic responsibility of voting as soon as possible. If they will be able to vote in the elections, they should be able to help pick the candidate they want to vote for.

Those were my long answers... The short of it is to vote:

• NO on question 1
  
• YES on question 2

Just my suggestions and reasoning. :)

[update] I drove around New Milford to check out a couple of polling stations (District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street and District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road) this morning to look at the traffic AND there was a little traffic and no real lineups to get into vote this morning. When I stopped to get coffee at the grocery store I reminded everyone I talked with to vote today. One guy said he had already voted at a polling station that I hadn't driven by (District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road) and he said that voting took less time than paying for his milk and bread at the grocery store. Another young lady that worked at the store said she was excited to be voting for the first time. Much like in the past elections, getting to the New Milford polling stations early will save you a lot of time. Usually, they start to get really busy in the mid-afternoon.

I'll try and update you with more local voting information through the day during the day. HatCityBlog is doing the same thing for the Danbury area.

And from the Working Families Party, a party that you might want to consider supporting because they are issues oriented in darned good way:

Working Families Party Works to Push Candidates Over the Top
Minor Party Pushes Message of Economic Security Across the State

As Election Day begins, Working Families Party volunteers and
canvassers spread out across the state in a final push to make the
difference for Working Families endorsed candidates. Over the last six
weeks, Working Families has knocked on 50,000 doors in an effort to
make the difference for candidates across the state that have pledged
their support for Working Families' priority issues, like affordable
healthcare, good jobs, and reducing taxes on middle class families.

"With everything happening in the economy it's understandable that
voters are angry and frustrated," said Brian Petronella, President of
UFCW Local 371 and a co-founder of the Working Families party in
Connecticut. "Change is the buzz-word this election. But if you want
to vote for change like you really mean it, vote on the Working
Families line."

Established in 2002, the Working Families Party has seen rapid growth
throughout the state by using the unusual strategy of
cross-endorsement. When a major party candidate is cross-endorsed by
Working Families, the candidate's name appears on the ballot twice:
once on the major party line and again on the Working Families line.
Proponents of the strategy say it allows voters to "send a message" to
support the Working Families positions on economic justice issues.

Working Families is supporting more than 85 candidates across the
state – mostly cross-endorsed candidates also being supported by a
major party.

With the nation experiencing one of the worst economic slumps since
the Great Depression, the idea of sending politicians a message to
stand up for working families has widespread appeal – across the
political spectrum.

"I think the Working Families Party offers voters something unique and
appealing in this election – a chance to vote for a party that
champions economic issues that matter to middle class voters while
still supporting a major party candidate – typically a Democrat – who
can really win the election," said Paul Filson, Director of the
Service Employees International Union in Connecticut.

Working Families top priority for Election Day is helping to Democrat
Jim Himes over the top in his hotly contested race against incumbent
Chris Shays. Working Families organizers are hoping to appeal to
voters who are frustrated and worried about the economy and
disappointed with both major parties.

Working Families is a minor political party formed by a coalition of
community organizations, labor unions and neighborhood activists who
united to fight for a fair economy. The Working Families Party was
formed to inject issues like healthcare, quality education, and
livable wages into the public debate, and to hold politicians
accountable on those issues.

[update] I've been going around from polling site to polling site in New Milford. At about 2:30 there was already over 1200 voters in District 2, District 6 had around 1340 by 5:00, District 7 was over 1600 by about 6:00 and all of the other Districts, though I don't have exact voting numbers for them all, are on pace for record voting numbers. At every site there are poll sitters for Murphy and NONE for Cappiello. I have been going from place to place poll sitting with all of them and the "Vote no on question 1" people that are out, as well.

Things are looking good if the large numbers translate into real change...

Prop (H)8 in California

According to skippy the bush kangaroo, California doesn't need to worry as much about Proposition 8 as digby seems to think they should:

let's be clear here: gotv is important, and the anti-prop 8 campaign may very well be having trouble generating excitement (we happen to think the anti-prop 8 commercials are among the worst we've seen). but the latest poll from the field poll online shows it's definitely not a dead heat. california progress report:

the california field poll showing proposition 8 behind with 44% support and 49% opposition that was released earlier today is making the headlines of the state’s newspapers—and in fact is national news. these results are remarkably similar to a poll released last week by the public policy institute of california that showed it with the same 44% support and with a level of opposition--52%--that is within the margin of error of both of these polls. these are the two most respected public polling organizations in the golden state.

Anyone can understand that GOTV is important on an issue like this but I am guessing that GOTV for Obama and other candidates on the left out there in Cali will be enough to kill the (H)8.

More importantly, I think, is that any kind of amendment like the proposed Proposition (H)8 will eventually get killed in the courts as unconstitutional.

It is also important to note that these type of ballot initiatives in California are precisely what worries most of the people fighting against the Connecticut "Constitutional Convention" issue on the ballot here, this year. It paralyzes the ability of legislators to govern, it often creates "laws" that will get kicked back as unconstitutional, and wastes taxpayer money at every turn. And all of this is done as a backhanded way to divide voters on issues, and to feed off of the hate of fringe voters more often than not. And it is often out of state soft money flooding into the state that funds these initiatives through Astroturf groups like the Family Institute of Connecticut.

New Milford Voting - Heads up!

In light of an email request from a reader for local New Milford, Connecticut, voting info:

Find out where to vote!
For your local poll...

According to the information I found there are no local town issues to be voted on. Just the candidates and the two statewide questions. I phoned the town clerk's office to verify this information to be true:

Warning
November 4, 2008

State Election

The electors and taxpayers of the Town of New Milford are hereby warned to meet at the respective polling places in said town on Tuesday, November 4, 2008, for the following purposes:

I. To cast their votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and State Representative.

II To vote on the following questions for the approval or disapproval of a proposed Constitutional convention and proposed AMENDMENT to the Constitution of Connecticut, a vote of “YES” being a vote for approval, and a vote of “NO” being a vote for disapproval:

1. Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the State?

2. Shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit any person who will have attained the age of eighteen years on or before the day of regular election to vote in the primary for such regular election?

The full text of such proposed questions with explanatory text, printed in accordance with §2-30a of the General Statutes, is available at the Town Clerk’s Office for public distribution.

Notice is hereby given that the location of the polling places is as follows:

Voting District Location of Polling Place
District 1 Northville School, Hipp Road
District 2 Catherine E. Lillis Building, East Street
District 3 Pettibone School, Pickett District Road
District 4 Gaylordsville Fire House
District 5 Schaghticoke School, Hipp Road
District 6 Hill & Plain School, Old Town Park Road
District 7 Sarah Noble School, Sunny Valley Road

Voting machines will be used. The polls will be open at six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a.m. and will remain open until eight o’clock in the evening (8:00 p.m.)

Absentee Ballots for electors and Presidential Ballots will be centrally counted in the Loretta Brickley Room in the basement of the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

The final tally of the election will be in the E. Paul Martin Room in the the Town Hall at 10 Main Street.

Dated at New Milford, Connecticut, this 17th day of October, 2008.
George C. Buckbee
Town Clerk
New Milford

Please note that if you typically voted at the Lanesville fire department in the past, they have switched that District 7 voting location to Sarah Noble School because of the fact that they dead ended that street.

Also, in as far as the two statewide Constitution questions...

On question 1, most of the Democratic leaning Blogs seem to be in agreement that question 1 (having a Constitutional Convention) would be a bad thing and are pushing for a no vote:

The Connecticut Citizen Action Group (CCAG) urges a no vote on the question. As one of the organizations that has lead the fights to open up our political process (Direct Primaries, Campaign Finance and Ethics reforms) we believe a convention would be a waste of taxpayers' money and could be corrupted by the same special interests that our new campaign finance reform laws are designed to protect us from.

Proponents of a convention either do not understand the process or are deliberately trying to mislead the public by saying that the vote on November 4th is about initiative and referendum. If the vote passes it is then up to the legislature to determine the process for selecting delegates to the convention. This will likely be done through a costly special election and primaries. The convention is then convened, which will result in additional costs to the state. The delegates may or may not propose amendments to the constitution, which would be subject to a future popular vote. There is no guarantee that what the proponents of the convention are arguing this vote is about will be included these proposals.

It is plausible that many of the proponents of a convention would mask their real motivation due to the unpopularity of some of their ultimate goals. Connecticut does not want to ban a woman's right to choose or to allow discrimination against same sex couples. Advocates of these and other radical positions realize that they cannot win enough legislative races to accomplish their goals so they are trying to push a convention to create a new avenue for their fight. Their gambit will have significant costs for the state at a time we are facing a huge deficit. I am confident their stealth agenda will ultimately be rejected.

There is a high likelihood that the delegate selection process will be driven by lobbying and other big money interest. It is not surprising that special interests are looking for new ways to exert influence as Connecticut embarks on the first election cycle under our public financing system. The new system has been a smashing success with over 75% of candidates voluntarily participating. It has been praised across the country and will result in a state government more accountable to voters not special interests.

Costly to the taxpayers and could potentially run counter to the spirit and idea of the many recent campaign financing rule changes in Connecticut, and never mind the tendency of radical right wing groups, like the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC), to push costly campaigns on to the ballot that will never pass in the real world. It is no coincidence that the fringe Heritage front group, FIC, is one of the groups pushing this agenda. They have little in state support or participation from Nutmeggers and the FIC is the quintessential example of an Astroturf group. Their sole purpose is to try and create a false perception of "grassroots support" for generally repulsive legislation that the majority does not support. They use money and vocal twits to agitate the process and create those perceptions.

To put it bluntly, FIC has more money... Yet, I have more readers (both in and out of state...) But the FIC uses out of state soft money and out of state sister group members to finance and create a fake movement and to get media access. And they want to amend the Connecticut Constitution?

I suggest using your middle finger on that "Hell NO!" vote for question 1.

When it comes to question 2, on allowing people that will be old enough to vote in the election to vote in the primaries if they are only 17, it seems like a reasonable way to help ensure our younger generation learns the civic responsibility of voting as soon as possible. If they will be able to vote in the elections, they should be able to help pick the candidate they want to vote for.

Those were my long answers... The short of it is to vote:

• NO on question 1
  
• YES on question 2

Just my suggestions and reasoning. :)

CT Marriage Equality Officially Begins Nov 10th

Or sometime within that week:

The State Supreme court decision on same-sex marriage becomes official Tuesday with its publication in the Connecticut Law Journal, and that means same-sex couples could be tying the knot in about two weeks.

[snip]

"It could be the 13th, but it will happen the week of November 10th," Ben Klein, of Gay/Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said.

Not much time for them to get their wedding plans together... Good luck to any of you that take advantage of actually having EQUAL RIGHTS when it comes to your own personal pursuit of happiness.

Love Makes a Family is looking for donations to help defend this newly minted equality. You know there are wingnuts out there that are already plotting to force their misguided opinions into other peoples' marriages and happiness. Instead of fighting this decision they might do better to invest their political war chest in marriage counseling to figure out just what, exactly, is so wrong that makes their marriages success so dependent on somebody else's personal lives?

I don't know about any of you but my marriage hasn't changed one little bit, nor has it been diminished in any way, since the Supreme Court decision. Figure the odds?

Will These Citizens Have Marriage Equality?

We will find out today, according to Undercurrents:

Same Sex Marriage Decision Today!

Today at 11:30 the CT Supreme Court will
release their decision on same-sex marriage.

Or will they be relegated to the status of second class human beings and citizens deprived of their rights to pursue their life, their liberty and their happiness?

Update [2008-10-10 11:47:4 by Connecticut Man1]: According to mattw at MLN, there is a party in Hartford tonight celebrating Equal Rights:

Thanks, Supreme Court:

Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.

Rally at 5:30, party at 7pm (tba).

Instead of fireworks activists and Bloggers supporting equal rights will be entertained by far right wingnut heads exploding all day long… heh

Watching Them Watching You...

According to the ACLU, the fear mongering government figures there are about 927,269 terrorists walking amongst us all at this very moment:

Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?

In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.¹

At that rate, our list will have a million names on it by July. If there were really that many terrorists running around, we'd all be dead.

Now, figuring that there are 50 states and then the District of Columbia that makes for about 18,181 terrorists for every state. Perhaps, even, your next door neighbor? As for the District of Columbia? You will find all of the D.C. terrorists scurrying to and from the various GOP offices on The Hill and the White House.

Those effin' Republican terrorists and their fear campaigns...

Add brought to you by Republicans For Fear!

"Republicans for Fear!" are also known as your local and national GOP candidates and politicians - like Chris Shays, Joe Lieberman and John McCain - that have lost their frickin' minds:



Please feel free to crap your pants in fear as the GOP tries to scare you into giving up what little freedom you have left in order to protect the bush legacy of illegally spying on Americans from being fully investigated.

Or you could be more logical and patriotic by impeaching bush to protect The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

It all depends on whether you put bush, the GOP and partisan politics above The Constitution, OR if you put country over partisan politics.

Take your pick and make your stand so we know who and what you are...

Thank you Senator Dodd!

Via Missy's Brother at My Left Nutmeg, Americans thank Senator Chris Dodd for working to protect The Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the FISA battle:



The rest of Congress could learn a thing or two about leadership from Senator Dodd, and we thank him for his efforts in protecting our freedoms. Keep up the good work!

Previously brewed in New Milford:

Illegal Surveillance and the Telecoms - Just the Facts

Via PFAW:

• In December 2005, the New York Times reported that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans have had their phones wiretapped by the National Security Agency (NSA) without any judicial review. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), passed by Congress in 1978, prohibits domestic spying unless a warrant is first issued by the FISA Court. By authorizing government spies to bypass the process mandated by FISA, President Bush authorized them to break the law.
  
  
• The so-called “Protect America Act,” which passed in August, made the situation worse by sanctioning a legal infrastructure under which American citizens might unwittingly be subject to daily, repeated invasions of privacy or violations of other constitutional rights. These liberties are not abstract or optional. Freedom from government spying on our private lives is at the core of what it means to be an American – the kind of personal liberty that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to protect.
  
  
• All parties involved must be held accountable for any illegal activity, including telecommunications companies (telecoms) that satisfied government requests for information about private communications. FISA currently provides sufficient mechanisms to allow telecoms to proceed lawfully with such requests. Every American should have the confidence that our judicial system will ensure that telecoms will not be permitted to circumvent this established process and undermine our fundamental right to privacy.
  
  
• It is unacceptable that the FISA reform being debated now seeks blanket immunity for the telecoms’ alleged complicity in the Administration’s actions. If the telecoms never have to testify, Americans may never know the true extent to which they have been targeted for surveillance. We have a right to know what’s been done and how far the overreaching went.
  
  
• In protecting the telecoms, the Administration is protecting itself. At a minimum, the Administration should not be given the power to bury the secrets of its domestic spying program by keeping the telecoms out of court. Telecom immunity not only has the potential to excuse illegal activity, it also precludes the public from getting access to information and prevents Congress from conducting effective oversight.
  
  
• Immunity compromises will not serve the interests of the American people. Substituting the government as the defendant in telecom lawsuits will only further rob Americans of their day in court by forcing them to sue a government that may use the power of the executive, state secrets, and other “privileges” to withhold information. Reimbursing the telecoms for their legal costs through indemnification rests financial burden on the taxpayers – essentially Americans paying for spying to which they object.
  
  
• Congress should err on the side of our Constitution and not bow to political pressure by signing off on telecom immunity. Americans deserve nothing less.

Now... There is one aspect of this that gets overlooked by many. BooMan makes a reasonable case that the entire lawsuit issue for telecoms is completely bogus:

There is no reason to immunize the telecom corporations because they are already immunized if they had a good faith reason to believe they were following the law. The only reason to immunize them is to prevent the truth about the extent of the lawbreaking from coming to light.

Even if this were not the case and they acted in bad faith the matter of lawsuits was already settled in the market place:

It has nothing to do with lawsuits and everything to do with covering the asses of the politicians that have acted criminally by illegally spying on Americans. Don't let them switch the topic to something as piddly as minor lawsuits that will cost telcoms a minuscule slice of their profits:

The Bush team argue impending financial doom for the telecom industry should lawsuits be permitted to continue. However, at this time, the financial impact is speculative (pdf file) with a market that “seems unconcerned” about the lawsuits filed against telecoms:

For example, when the complaint in Hepting v. AT&T Corp. was filed and when AT&T’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, AT&T’s stock price remained essentially unaffected. The entirety of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regulatory system requiring public filings and disclosures is premised on the idea that, when the relevant information is available publicly, the market is the most effective indicator of the value of a corporation. That the stock price of AT&T was unaffected by the suit indicates the market’s determination that the company’s financial footing remains sound, despite the potential liability.

Moreover, telecommunications carriers have survived enormous payouts in class action suits in the past. For example, in September of this year, Sprint received preliminary approval from the court for a $30 million class-action settlement. And in 1994, AT&T agreed to pay a $100 million settlement. Just as they have for the other risks incumbent in their business, telecommunications carriers have liability insurance to protect them in the event of an adverse civil judgment. And if, at some point in the future, a series of judgments comes to present a threat of widespread bankruptcy in the telecommunications industry, the government may take action at that time. But any preemptive liability shield is premature and unneeded.

Thus, should the telecom lawsuits proceed and if damages are awarded by the courts and if the damages are not covered by telecom liability insurance, and if Congress then determines that a bailout is needed for the industry, then Congress has the authority to legislate funding to the industry, thus preserving the plaintiffs’ right to a judicial remedy and the public’s right to a transparent government. As Sen. Feingold notes:

If the companies engaged in such widespread illegal conduct that the damages would be enormous, Congress can intervene to limit the damages. That’s a far more appropriate response than simply giving the companies a free pass for any illegal conduct.

Moreover, if the concern is financial liability, why is the immunity so broad that “cases will be dismissed even if they do not seek money damages but only declaratory and injunctive relief.”

The lawsuit distraction is just that... A distraction from the real issue of the bush illegally spying on Americans.

And even if the matter was not already settled in the market place... As Russ Feingold said, "Congress can intervene to limit the damages." Do not let them distract you from the fact that the bush administration was illegally spying on Americans, and not just after 911 but before that, according reports:

A former telecom executive told us that efforts to obtain call details go back to early 2001, predating the 9/11 attacks and the president's now celebrated secret executive order. The source, who asked not to be identified so as not to out his former company, reports that the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a "data-mining" operation, which might eventually cull "millions" of individual calls and e-mails.

Like the pressure applied to ITT a half-century ago, our source says the government was insistent, arguing that his competitors had already shown their patriotism by signing on. The NSA would not comment on the issue, saying that, "We do not discuss details of actual or alleged operational issues."

Any reasonable person would realize that invocation of 911 by anyone is completely bogus when the illegal spying was, in fact, started before that date. Equally important here is the fact that it was not just Foreign calls that were being monitored, BUT all of the traffic on their networks:

Although the president told the nation that his NSA eavesdropping program was limited to known Al Qaeda agents or supporters abroad making calls into the U.S., comments of other administration officials and intelligence veterans indicate that the NSA cast its net far more widely. AT&T technician Mark Klein inadvertently discovered that the whole flow of Internet traffic in several AT&T operations centers was being regularly diverted to the NSA, a charge indirectly substantiated by John Yoo, the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the official legal memos legitimizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Yoo told FRONTLINE: "The government needs to have access to international communications so that it can try to find communications that are coming into the country where Al Qaeda's trying to send messages to cell members in the country. In order to do that, it does have to have access to communication networks."

And when I say all of the traffic, I mean telephone calls, both local and foreign, as well as all internet and Email traffic:

Conventional wisdom has long been that the bulk of the surveillance operations -- groundbreaking because they lacked judicial oversight -- involved primarily telephone calls. However, officials say the Bush administration's program frequently went after e-mail and other Internet traffic.

These actions by the bush administration go far beyond being simply criminal. They are an attack on the The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

What part of these oaths do the politicians that swear to them fail to understand here?

• Presidential Oath:
  
  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
  
  
• For Congress Members:
  
  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter."

Many of these politicians' actions are not simply impeachable offenses for a failure to uphold their oaths of office, but exhibit a heretical acceptance of criminal actions and contempt for the founding documents that could only be described as treason.

Harry Reid Has Got To Go!

Josh Marshall on the upcoming FISA vote that Senator Chris Dodd plans to filibuster:

The handwriting has been on the wall for some time, but it now seems certain that Senate Democrats will pass a new FISA bill that contains retroactive immunity for telecoms, shielding them from lawsuits over their cooperation with the Bush Administration in its far-reaching warrantless wiretapping program.

Via Glen Greenwald:

Harry Reid -- who has (a) done more than any other individual to ensure that Bush's demands for telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping powers will be met in full and (b) allowed the Republicans all year to block virtually every bill without having to bother to actually filibuster -- went to the Senate floor yesterday and, with the scripted assistance of Mitch McConnell and Pat Leahy, warned Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold and others that they would be selfishly wreaking havoc on the schedules of their fellow Senators (making them work over the weekend, ruining their planned "retreat," and even preventing them from going to Davos!) if they bothered everyone with their annoying, pointless little filibuster.

To do so, Reid announced that, unlike for the multiple filibusters from Republican colleagues, he would actually force Dodd and company to engage in a real filibuster. This is what Reid said:

[I]f people think they are going to talk this to death, we are going to be in here all night. This is not something we are going to have a silent filibuster on. If someone wants to filibuster this bill, they are going to do it in the openness of the Senate.

That is what Democrats have been urging Reid to do to the filibustering Republicans all year -- in order to dramatize their obstructionism -- but he has refused to make them actually filibuster anything, generously agreeing instead that every bill requires 60 votes. Instead, he reserves such punishment only for the members of his own caucus trying to take a stand for the rule of law and the Constitution, those who are trying finally to bring some accountability to this administration.

As I noted in my post yesterday, Reid had the audacity to send his spokesman, Jim Manley, to falsely claim to the New York Times that "Senator Reid intends to do everything he can to strip immunity from the bill" -- even though the exact opposite is true. Reid is engaged in at least as much maneuvering to ensure that Bush and Cheney get what they want here as McConnell would be willing to do if he were the Majority Leader.

This is beyond ridiculous, and Harry Reid needs to give up the Senate gavel or be stripped of this position by the rest of the party. This is not simply about retroactive immunity for telcoms that acted illegally... This is about a criminal offense and treasonous act that bush confessed to in front of millions of television viewers.

This assault on The Constitution and the Bill of Rights by politicians across the political spectrum must be stopped if democracy and freedom are to survive in the USA.

Chris Dodd prepares for the inevitable showdown:

Speaking to reporters today, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) said that he would again filibuster any bill that a provision in it granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms -- or as he put it, "use every tool at my disposal as a Senator" to stop it. So if you were wondering whether anything has changed since Dodd dropped out of the presidential race, nothing has.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sent a letter to President Bush today to ask that he support an extension to the existing surveillance bill -- which seems very unlikely to happen. That letter's below.

Go Dodd! Feingold too! And any of the other Senators that understand what this country is really about...

[update] From Nicole Bell at Crooks and Liars:

Unbelievable. So much for doing the people’s work. I’ll echo John last night and say this is an opportunity for the Democratic candidates to show some leadership, since Reid is obviously not going to. Clinton, Obama, Edwards? Where are you? This is a no-brainer to stand up for the American people.

As angry as I am at this news (and trust me, it’s a good thing John doesn’t like swearing in posts, because I’ve got some words for Harry that would make a sailor blush), and as much as I encourage you to contact Harry Reid, I would also ask that you take a deep breath before doing so

I have one word for Harry Reid:

PRIMARY

If the people don't chase you out of Washington, DC with pitchforks in hand before then?

Not Just No...

But... HELL NO!

Last December, Republicans in Congress introduced a resolution noting the significance of Christmas and the Christian faith, which eventually passed, blurring the lines between church and state — and they’re at it again, attempting to rewrite American history and further the lie that America is a Christian nation. Via Secular Coalition for America:

Jan. 11 - Flush with last year’s success in passing H.Res. 847, “Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith,” Christian nationalists — those who would have the United States be governed as a Christian theocracy — are pushing H.Res. 888, another resolution which promotes a false and distorted Christian nation reinterpretation of our history. Generally, we do not take action regarding resolutions because they are ceremonial in nature and express the non-binding opinion of one chamber. They do not have the force of law. Read on…

Contact your Representatives and tell them to say "NO!" to H. Res. 888.

Dodd on FISA Victory

We won this battle but the GOP war against The Constitution and The Bill of Rights is still on. Meanwhile, Dodd sends a message to the hundreds of thousands of people that supported his efforts:



There is only one other Presidential candidate that has taken these Constitutional battles as seriously as Dodd by actually walking the walk. That is Dennis Kucinich, with Kucinich leading the charge on the Impeachment front and a myriad of other liberal/progressive issues. Other candidates merely pay lip service to these issues, or fall in line after the real leaders break ground on these issues.

Matt over at Dodd's Blog points out the obvious:

One of my recently discovered favorite blogs is Lead or Get Out of the Way. It's authors write under pseudonyms pulled from Revolutionary era patriots - their goal is to help promote more and better Democrats. One of the coolest features of their site is that they use two tag clouds to sort out who is leading the most and who most needs to get out of the way.

Take one guess who they see as leading the most?

Chris Dodd.

Remember that we must step up the pressure on Congress critters if we are ever going to effect real change. Send a message of thanks to Dodd here and/or fiscally REWARD outstanding behavior here...

As a side note: Here is some coverage of the other liberal New England Senator, Ted Kennedy, that was caught doing something good on this issue as well. And here is another Senator's personal take on the battle, as Russ Feingold Blogs over at TPM Cafe.

Fox News Won't Televise It...

So, it must be true:


Via emptywheel, over at her new firedoglake home:

CCR is one of the organizations that will go before the Supreme Court on Wednesday in hopes of restoring Habeas Corpus. At the same time, they're trying to raise awareness of Bush's attacks on our rights with ads like this and a cool campaign to send Bush a copy of the Constitution (what do you get the President who has everything??). But when they went to Fox to buy time for this ad, Fox asked for proof that Bush had shredded the Constitution.

Perhaps it's time to launch a campaign to inundate Fox with your favorite proof that Bush trashed the Constitution. Copies of the Risen-Lichtblau scoop on warrantless wiretapping, pictures of the "free speech zones" at Bush appearances, a copy of the report proving NYC spied on citizens and detained many illegally leading up to the Republican convention in 2004. Anyone else have some good ideas?

Thank You Chris Dodd!

For what? For this news in my Email box:

Today is a great victory for all of us -- and another example of Chris
Dodd's leadership.

If it wasn't for our efforts, together, retroactive immunity would be well on its way to sailing through the Senate ... largely unnoticed.

The fight continues, for sure, but this was a big victory today.

Visit www.ChrisDodd.com for more updates as they happen.

We'll be in touch.

Tim Tagaris
Chris Dodd for President

More via Think Progress:

Greg Sargent reports that the “version of the FISA bill that was just reported out of the Judiciary Committee does not — repeat, does not — contain retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) had threatened to place a hold on any FISA bill that contained immunity. The Judiciary Committee’s action today renders moot the need for such a hold.

UPDATE: Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) issued the following statement:

“The FISA legislation reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today is a distinct improvement over the legislation passed by the Intelligence Committee last month. Though it still falls short in many areas, the bill includes several significant provisions that will better protect the privacy of innocent Americans. I applaud Senator Leahy for the package of changes he put together, and I appreciate my colleagues’ support in passing two additional amendments that I offered to further enhance privacy protections. I hope that, when the full Senate considers this issue, the Majority Leader brings up the Senate Judiciary Committee bill instead of the badly flawed Intelligence Committee alternative.

“There is still much to be done to fix this bill. In addition, the issue of retroactive immunity for companies that allegedly participated in the President’s warrantless wiretapping program will be fought out on the floor. I will continue to strongly oppose retroactive immunity when the full Senate considers this legislation.

“As a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees I have been fighting for months to pass a strong FISA bill that adequately protects the privacy of Americans who are not suspected of having done anything wrong. I will oppose and filibuster any bill on the Senate floor that fails this test or contains retroactive immunity.”

Meanwhile back on the animal crackers ranch... Who are the fucking morons that let this travesty of justice continue?

“In his second day on the job, Attorney General Michael Mukasey leaped into the political fray,” telling Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) that he opposes his electronic surveillance plan and would recommend the president veto it if it is passed.”

Heckuva job Brownie Feinstein and Brownie Schumer... Censure ain't enough for these two incompetent bush enabling Dems. No wonder so many ask about recalling them.

Too bad we don't have a mechanism to recall Joe neoCON Lieberman in Connecticut.

Again... Thanks Senator Dodd for doing something to stop the republican cycle of abuse.