American Realistan

One of the biggest problems the United States has overseas is the dichotomy between what values we preach versus what values we practice, and one of the most blatant examples demonstrating that we don’t really walk our talk here in the United States is about to be spewed across television screens all over the world: the major political party conventions.

While too many American citizens are “too busy” following the latest reality and performance contest series to bother with all that “boring political crap” (as one of my Good Orange County (CA) Republican [GOC(CA)R] coworkers recently put it), my research utilizing foreign media sources tells me that the world is very interested in our politics. As the US military is based in something like 700 bases in over 130 countries, and as US corporate interests infest the remainder under the protection of US-paid and trained military forces designed to keep the indigenous work force under control, a logical person can understand why a thinking citizen of a foreign land would pay attention to the events in our nation. They too often know better than American citizens about the important happenings of our nation, and how they will affect the affairs of their own.

One of the events which has to be attracting interest from foreign observers is the throttling of the Bill of Rights through the illegal actions of the two major parties in the name of Homeland Security. We’ve all heard a lot recently about FISA trampling on the Fourth Amendment, and even more about how the US Supreme Court has “protected” the Second with its recent ruling intended to throw a bone to the aged junkyard dog known as the NRA. (After all, the government is hardly worried about a bunch of self-styled Davy Crocketts and Daniel Boones when an Apache helicopter can take them all out with impunity at a range of two miles {maybe more} in total darkness. YouTube has lots of videos - look them up.)

But I’m not here today to stoke those particular fires. It’s the damage being done to the First Amendment that concerns me.

According to Wikipedia, “free speech zones” were first created by the City of Atlanta to protect the 1988 Democratic Conventioneers from having to endure seeing and hearing We, the People express our outrage. That strategy seemed to work so well that it was repeated for the benefit of both major party conventions in 1992 and 1996. Those successes led to the active suppression of public protest becoming a standard component of political convention planning.

There should be a serious outcry over these plans, but to date that has yet to occur. The National Lawyer’s Guild, in a publication entitled “The Assault on Free Speech, Public Assembly, and Dissent” [PDF], attempts to remind the American public that “Dissent is what rescues democracy from a quiet death behind closed doors.” Red flags of warning are waving intensely when the convention doors have been closed and barred, and patrolled by the political police, to defend the political elites from the influences of those they allegedly represent under the dictates of the US Constitution. You know, that thing George W. Bush deemed “merely a piece of paper” and thus of no consequence.

So put yourself into the shoes of a foreign citizen concerned about the growing lawlessness of American entities. Is there any hope that a respect for the rule of law will again peek out from under the secret sites of rendition? It’s very doubtful based on current events. Not even Obama and the Democrats are providing much hope for the return of the rights of redress of grievance.

In Denver, the Democratic? National Convention {sic} will meet behind numerous protective layers. The ACLU is attempting to defend the Constitution by seeking legal direction to the City of Denver and other authorities regarding disclosure of protest restrictions and whether the restrictions are unconstitutional. In addition, with Denver Police planning as many as “>1200 protester arrests, the ACLU is demanding publication of arrest procedures to avoid the temporary disappearance of those detained.

The Denver Post has joined the fray, declaring in an editorial: “what must not happen is controlling protesters to such an extent that their free speech and assembly rights are infringed.”

Sorry - that’s already a done deal. Limiting where and how one can express oneself is, by definition, an infringement.

Those entrusted with the enforcement of the unconstitutional restraint of free expression intended to protect the elites from the Voice of the People are a major part of the problem. Bill Johnson of The Rocky Mountain News relates his past convention experiences, including discovering that “avoiding jail at any political convention is often a matter of sheer luck” and:

“…if I had a quarter for every completely innocent convention-goer I’ve seen … hauled off to jail, I would be sitting right now with a mai tai on a beach somewhere.

Johnson was covering a public seminar on dissent and the First Amendment held by the Colorado Chapter of the National Lawyer’s Guild at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law. Denver attorney David Lane told observing civil rights attorneys that “what (police) often mean by lawful order is ‘Stop watching me beat this person!‘” Sean Dingle, a former 10th Judicial District prosecutor, explained that “rank-and-file officers are not well-trained in First Amendment issues” and “law enforcement often clashes with free speech.” Summing up the likely result of the legal battle, David Lane told Johnson at the end of the gathering that the operating rule of the day will be “arrest everyone and let the courts sort it out.”

And when Barack Obama stages his personal Nuremberg Rally at Invesco Field on the last day of the Convention, the Secret Service is leaning toward designating 53,000 square feet of Lot A as the unconstitutional confinement area - I mean, the free speech zone.

Similar plans are underway in St. Paul, Minnesota, despite the serious lack of cooperation from area police agencies to thwart the poor from marching anywhere near those defenselessly wealthy GOP delegates.

Still think this is a nation of free speech? Ask retired Pittsburgh steelworker Bill Neel about his experience in 2002. Stefan Presser, head of the Philadelphia ACLU chapter, had then defined the strategy as defending “political security.” It hasn’t changed any since then.

Blogger Bob Avakian nails the problem on the head: “We don’t need change that we are allowed, and told to believe in — change that won’t really change anything fundamental — we need fundamental, revolutionary change.”

Blogger Charley Underwood of Minnesota issues the call:

We want our country back. …we already know what the New York police think of civil liberties. Stop buying all those expensive weapons and lining up all that statewide police overtime. Be our police.

Just don’t get in the way of our free speech.

So there it is. Will Americans finally notice that the time to take action has arrived? Or, will we continue to allow “the mis-channeling of our outrage” merely into complaining about who most recently got kicked off our favorite reality show?

This is the reality: actions speak louder than words, and all the world is watching - intently. They know they are next, because they read the PNAC Manifesto for World Dominance even if you didn’t. If you don’t act to defend your own rights, they will act to defend theirs - and you aren’t going to like it one little bit.

I’ve caught myself riffing on a tune that took me a while to recall where it came from. I kept hearing “Hillary won’t go… Hillary won’t go… Hilly won’t go …”

Then it came to me, and I looked it up. The following lyrics under the fold were adapted from Sweet’s Little Willie. If you don’t know the tune, you can find an odd cover of it here. [mp3]

(more…)

Honest and aware people should always note the feedback they generate from those around them. It’s how we make those social corrections necessary to achieve desired goals without causing new problems. Few go to the extent I do to see what the rest of the world is saying about America, and generally, the picture of We, the People isn’t too shabby.

But the image of our so-called leaders leaves a lot to be desired. This does, of course, reflect upon we voters as making poor choices, but assuming that no lasting harm is done, we seem to be getting a generous helping of benefit of the doubt anyway.

(more…)

I’m not a supporter of Barack Obama. But if, as it now appears, the people select him to be the next president, then he would be a choice I could abide - provided he is saying what he really means.

This has been my problem with Obama since the 2004 Democratic Convention. His keynote address was a very stirring performance, causing my prior blogger incarnation to rave about him being a future president. Unfortunately, his votes to confirm Condi Rice as Secretary of State despite her blatant incompetence and some of his other pro-Bush votes has cost him my support - and me my enthusiasm for him and his ambition.

But that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the world for Obama. Not yet anyway. But there is a growing concern that, for Obama, that time is drawing nearer with each speech and with each primary victory.

(more…)

When I first began blogging back in July of 2003 on a now-defunct site, one of the reasons I gave for my doing so was that I was already aware that the news media was clearly biased in favor of George W. Bush and the Republicans. I was concerned at the time that the GOP policies would cause great harm to the nation, and that the mainstream media was ignoring this probability. Events since that time have shown that in general, I was right - not that this earns me any special distinction as I’m barely a footnote in blogging history. I’m no Kos, no Atrios, nor am I as well-known as the late Steve Gilliard.

Despite this lack of Web stature, I felt that every little bit would help, and it looks like I was correct. An ABC News/Facebook Survey has found that, for the first time in polls since 1996, Internet news sites are rivaling newspapers as Americans’ sources of presidential election news. We bloggers are also the only election news source to show growth.

(more…)

I’m writing this one on the fly, so if it’s a bit sloppy, [insert famous Steve Martin gag phrase]

Over at Citizens for Legitimate Government, Michael Rectenwald opens up an examination of why concerns over corporate sponsorship of political candidates is nothing to be concerned about:

…what we mean by “corporate” today is its popular, connotative sense. In this sense, “corporate democracy” means that our democracy has, presumably, come under the sway of corporate (business) dominance. That is, for-profit corporations control the funding, the agenda, and ultimately the politicians whom they select and ‘elect’ into office. As such, “corporate democracy” is an oxymoron. It cannot exist.

I would like to suggest to the self-styled “Dr. Rec” that maybe he’s been a bit too busy to read certain current events.

(more…)

I’ve been quite remiss in my posting duties due to real-world time constraints. Luckily, I have a few loyal readers who occasionally give me something that I think deserves posting. Such is the case today, an observation concerning the recent claims by Mitt Romney that his father George marched with Martin Luther King. This story has since been disproven, adding to the already numerous reasons (which do NOT specifically include his Mormon faith in my opinion) why Romney is wrong for this nation (standard non-martial law condition applies), but I will allow VS-) to have the floor. Just keep in mind that this was written prior to the story - as presented by the candidate-  being shown to be false.

R

Detroit Free Press is not exactly most reliable source on anything, let alone on all things Romney. But the time is particularly intriguing–Romney now backtracks to say that he was speaking metaphorically when he said that he “saw” his father “march” with MLK. He neither saw them, nor did they march together. As MSNBC puts, “Romney says that it depends on what the definition of ’saw’ is.”

(more…)

I won’t attempt to defend the sorry record of the Democrats in protecting your economic interests and employment prospects. But can you be sure that the Republicans care a whit about you either?

The North American Free Trade Agreement… was opposed by 65% of U.S. citizens in 1993. That was just before President Bill Clinton, backed by all but three of the nation’s 1,300 daily newspapers, eked out a narrow victory for NAFTA with mostly Republican support.

(more…)

By the middle of next month, the Bush administration will have to present evidence that the so-called Surge is working in order to retain Congressional funding for continued operations. There should be little doubt that this report, to be given to the Congress by Gen. David Petraeus, will be largely a fabrication.

The reality of the situation is represented by an article, posted by Truthdig, written by a US government contractor about to depart for good from Iraq. Truthdig editors post that they know the identity of this contractor, but for reasons that should be clear to anyone who harbors the slightest suspicion of the motives of the Bush cabal, they choose not to reveal it.

After all - what’s sauce for the propagander should also be for the goose!

(more…)

At the beginning of the secession of the slave-owning states over the election of Abraham Lincoln, The Valley Spirit of Franklin County, Virginia published one of the most honest contemporary admissions that the pending internecine strife was in part about race:

“The Democratic Party maintain that our government was formed by white men to be controlled by white men for the prosperity and happiness of their race.”

Just because the South lost the Civil War doesn’t mean that this attitude had changed - not in the slightest. As New Republic assistant editor Clay Risen wrote in the Boston Globe on March 5, 2006:

“For almost 100 years, a coterie of white elites had controlled the South by leveraging racial antagonisms and legal discrimination to ensure white solidarity behind the Democratic Party. Southern historians argue that the initial shift to the right was led by older whites in a backlash against [Lyndon] Johnson’s civil rights efforts. [Johnson] forfeited the region to the Republicans by signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation.

“[I]t’s hard to ignore the decades of subtle and not-so-subtle efforts by Republican presidential tickets to court white racism…. According to the conventional wisdom, … white voters were soon gobbled up by Nixon’s racially coded “Southern strategy.”

The modern version of racism doesn’t concern the emancipation of the black race, but the political and economic exploitation of the brown race.

(more…)