Sunday, January 22, 2006

A Religious Right Implosion?

by dsteffen

Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:49:37 AM PDT

An Associated Press article in our local paper this morning caught my eye.  It deals with a single denomination of the "values" coalition, but I think it's symptomatic of what's to come.

"Conservatives who loved the battles of decades past have fallen victim to a crusading mentality of bloodthirst," [Rev. Wade] Burleson wrote. "Since all the liberals are gone, conservative crusaders are now killing fellow conservatives."

Those of us who cut our political teeth in the radical left movements of sixties knew this one was coming, someday.  That day may be here.  And it may be good news for 2006 and beyond.  More on the flip.

The article deals with divisions among the Southern Baptists.  Burleson, apparently, has argued recently for inclusion, criticizing attempts by the Southern Baptist Convention to reign in believers who don't tow the line.  And it's not just the liberal Baptists:

Burleson first rankled the board over an obscure policy change: Trustees of the International Mission Board voted in November to bar future missionaries, from using a "private prayer language," or speaking in tongues in private. Previously, missionaries were discouraged from speaking in tongues publicly, but their private prayer was not monitored.

The practice is common among Pentecostals, whose spirited brand of Christianity is spreading rapidly throughout countries where Southern Baptist missionaries work, and in the United States. Many conservative Protestants, however, reject the practice.

Burleson's reward for championing religious freedom, even on so narrow a scale?

About a month later, trustees voted him out. Delegates to the annual Southern Baptist gathering in June will decide whether to approve his removal from the board...

I have thought from the very beginning that the Christian right coalition was an extremely fragile partnership, possible only as long as each element didn't really know what their fellow travelers thought.  It's a movement full of marriages of convenience, a lot of go-along-to-get-along, and the strangest of bedfellows.  It seemed to me that once they thought the liberal "enemy" was dispatched, the leadership would turn its venomous hatred inward and start purging its own.  I thought that for one very simple reason: been there, done that.  In the late sixties, we watched the radical left movement disintegrate into a jumble of warring factions who seemed to hate each other as much or more than they hated the "establishment".

The "People's Liberation Front of Judea" routine from Monty Python's Life of Brian was so funny because we all recognize that it's so true.  And the Christian Right--God on their side or not--are not immune.

How many of the "values" voters who went to the polls in 2004 would have been so eager to usher in a new "Christian America" if they had known one of the leaders of that movement had been going around saying stuff like this?

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."
--Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Now those divisions may be beginning to be exposed--not just across denominational lines, but within a single denomination itself.  (Although I'm sure Pat's words were twisted and taken out of context... </snark> )

Back to the AP article:

"The Southern Baptist leadership is so ideologically driven that it's almost impossible for them not to continually draw lines and narrow the boundaries," [The Rev. Bill Leonard, dean of Wake Forest Divinity School in North Carolina and a critic of the conservative takeover] said. "In the early stages, this was publicly evident with the moderates and liberals. Now, when the convention meets annually in June, you wonder who they're going to throw out this year. There's always somebody."

I've often thought that there were issues like this out there that had the potential to be an enormous wedge in countering the "values" movement.  Now that there are early indications that the Southern Baptists may be heading for their "Robespierre moment", I'd like to ask, "What can  I do to help?"

Tags: Religion, Religious Right, Christianity, christian right, values, Values Voters (all tags)
 
Hey, count us in!
 
The so-called christian-right are some of the must dangerous people on earth.
 
 
 
 

Kerry Calls for Independent Counsel

Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:24:02 AM PDT

John Kerry was on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, this morning. He spoke against Bush's warrant-less wiretaps, calling them "a clear violation of the law."

Kerry said "that the administration has made no effort to consult Congress about any possible alteration to the law that he says restricts the wiretaps -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA," and called for a special counsel and independent investigation into the matter.

Read On

Clueless at WaPo

She speaks

Deborah Howell still has no clue as she channels Malkin:

 "the narrow liberal-blogger definition of whether any Democrats took money 'from Abramoff' -- which neatly excludes contributions he directed his clients to make -- amounts to foolish semantics.''

To be nice about it Debbie, we cherish the news and need you to report the facts properly. A lot depends on it. We have a country divided and the republicans have been running a corrupt campaign against us. Please try to be a little more careful next time.

   "To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind."

As my friend Steve says regarding this statement: 

"the comments wouldn't even merit a notice on most blogs, much less Slashdot"

As you will learn on the "internets" Debbie, those kind of requests (wishing you were fired) are common, however some on the right wing actually revel in getting reporters fired. Now please go back to being an Ombudsman and we'll all get along.

LINK

Crooks and Liars

Sad

There are so many great Christians and Evangelicals that are not represented by the James Dobson's of the world.

Then they should speak out!

We do not hesitate to demand that all Muslims who disagree with Osama and his ilk speak out. We must also demand that Christians speak out against their loons as well.

 

Matthews under fire for much more than latest gaff

Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

The anger over Chris Matthews’ comment that Osama bin Laden in his new video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment, and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation's journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversive treason, and support for Al Qaeda.

The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view that is re-enforced again and again

. In the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential elections, it became the conventional wisdom of prominent "journalists" like Matthews that the bin Laden was rooting for Kerry to win. The bin Laden video which emerged in the days before the election was described by these journalists as proof that bin Laden was endorsing, and even campaigning for, John Kerry. Every cable news show, including Matthews', featured commentary equating bin Laden’s video with the Democratic Party’s foreign policy views.

This is all part of a broad, ongoing and potent campaign to equate opposition to George Bush with being pro-terrorist, and the origin of this campaign is the Administration itself. Bush himself thus uses the language of treason -- treason -- to instruct us that we are permitted to criticize his policies only on the narrowest grounds and with the utmost respect, otherwise we are guilty of aiding the enemy:

Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. . . . When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. . . . So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.

From the NSA scandal to the war in Iraq, the President and his followers repeatedly accuse those who oppose the President of aiding the terrorists and being on the side of Al Qaeda. And it is this smear – that anyone who opposes Bush is not just weak on national security but literally a supporter of the terrorists – that is the only “argument” which Bush followers have and it’s the only one they’ve needed. They have won two straight national elections wielding this McCarthyite filth and with the 2006 elections approaching, they are bidding for a trifecta:

Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections . . . And he left little doubt that in 2006 - as in both nationwide elections since the Sept. 11 attacks - he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue.

Mr. Rove called for civility in politics in his speech to the Republican National Committee, and then for 26 minutes offered a lacerating attack on Democrats . . . "The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Mr. Rove said, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

Rove's strategy has repeatedly worked because our national media “stars” -- even the ones like Chris Matthews who are held out as objective journalists -- propagate the repugnant smear that opposition to George Bush’s terrorism and war policies puts one on the side of Al Qaeda. That's why it's so vital to aggressively protest such comments when they come from "journalists" like Chris Matthews....read on

--posted by Glenn Greenwald 

Joe Klein: It's Easy to Be Hard and Hard to Be Smart

In a Democratic Congressional primary that could have implications for the mid-term elections this Fall, an amateur's bluster squares off against an old political pro
 

Posted Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006

"The republican party has been hijacked by religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of other religious nuts around the world," said Paul Hackett, a recent Iraq-war combat veteran who is running for the U.S. Senate from Ohio. As you may have surmised, Hackett is a Democrat, and his statement, to the Columbus Dispatch, raised an immediate call by the Ohio G.O.P. for an apology. "I said it," Hackett replied. "I meant it. I stand by it." In fact, he has taken to repeating it at every stop along the campaign trail.

Which sent me hurtling to Ohio last week to check out the first hot contest of the 2006 election, the primary election between Hackett and a traditional lunch-pail-liberal Congressman named Sherrod Brown, which will be decided in a May 2 vote. The winner will meet incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine in the fall. It is a race with national implications—winning Ohio has become the holy grail for Democrats—but it also raises an interesting stylistic question for both parties: Is this one of those "outsider" years when the public rises up and cleans out the Congress? Hackett is, flagrantly, an amateur; Brown first ran for office soon after graduating from Yale in 1974, and he has been running ever since.

I caught up with Hackett—a tall, Hollywood-handsome sort—as he strode into a wings joint just outside Marion. At 43, he is a successful lawyer whose Marine reserve unit was deposited in the toughest part of Iraq, Ramadi and later Fallujah, in August 2004. When he arrived home—indeed, as he was embracing his wife—his best friend told him that the local congressional seat was open and that he should run for it. He did, lost well to the heavily favored Republican Jean Schmidt and received lots of positive national attention. With hardly a breath, he turned around and began his Senate campaign, after some prodding from the national-party hierarchy.

At the wings joint, he approached a small crowd of potential supporters with a combative abrasiveness that made Howard Dean seem like Mister Rogers. "I'm a strong Democrat from the great state of Ohio and damned proud of it," he thundered. "What does the Democratic Party stand for? Limited government. Strong national defense. Fair trade. Fiscal responsibility." Limited government? That was the fun part: "I don't want to send someone to Washington to invade my private life, control what goes on in my kid's school, get involved in the decisions made by my wife and her physician or to find out how many guns there are in Hackett's gun safe." He paused, looking for a reaction from any wussified, gun-hating Dems in the crowd. Finding none, he seemed lost. He didn't rise to his preferred state of indignation until the question period, when he was asked about Iraq. "The war is over. Bring 'em home. The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. We have a saying in the Marines: It's easy to be hard and hard to be smart."

Actually, Hackett's campaign is a vivid demonstration of that old Marine saying. His next stop was a meeting of College Democrats at the University of Toledo—earnest young people who seemed omegas to Hackett's very alpha alpha—and he got into their faces early and often. He said gun control was his big difference with Brown, but it was hard to tell: Hackett had only a vague familiarity with most of the other issues. He was stumped by illegal immigration and came up with a crude prescription: "Send 'em back if we can afford it." In the end, Hackett seemed something new under the sun: a blogger candidate—all attitude, all opinions, very little information. Sherrod Brown is not exactly a shrinking violet. He is a defiant opponent of free trade and a defender of blue-collar unionism.

"Anyone who calls me a demagogue on trade knows about one-tenth as much about trade as I do," he said as we wandered through southern Ohio. I joked that he was more an "ambulatory anachronism" than a demagogue, which occasioned a passionate blast against media elitists like me and a terrific argument about trade. What can I say? We really hit it off. Brown was quite the opposite of Hackett on the stump: he asked people questions about their lives, listened carefully to their answers—and answered their questions, about unsexy issues like the Medicare prescription-drug plan, in detail and with respect. Many of those people were unemployed or about to be. There was a real intimacy with the candidate, whom they called Sherrod. It was the most basic sort of politics—an unintended reproach to political professionals who tend to fall for flashy war heroes, and to flashy war heroes who insult the public by thinking they can run for office without taking the issues seriously in a dead-serious time.  

(We have watched politicians listen intently before, we have seen them "feel the pain" of those less fortunate or just down-right screwed by the establishment. What we are waiting for is one who will tell the truth and do something about the plight of the royally screwed.)

Link to more
 
We are with Hackett 100%.. Either a new Democratic Party is emerging, or a new party is about to be born.
 

When George Met Jack

White House aides deny the President knew lobbyist Abramoff, but unpublished photos shown to TIME suggest there's more to the story
By ADAM ZAGORIN AND MIKE ALLEN

Posted Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006
As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few "staff-level meetings" that were not worth describing further. "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said.

The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal—like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s.

In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.

Most of the pictures have the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions. The images of Bush, Abramoff and one of his sons appear to be the rapid-fire shots—known in White House parlance as clicks—that the President snaps with top supporters before taking the podium at fund-raising receptions. Over five years, Bush has posed for tens of thousands of such shots—many with people he does not know. Last month 9,500 people attended holiday receptions at the White House, and most went two by two through a line for a photo with the President and the First Lady. The White House is generous about providing copies—in some cases, signed by the President—that become centerpieces for "walls of fame" throughout status-conscious Washington.

Abramoff knew the game. In a 2001 e-mail to a lawyer for tribal leader Lovelin Poncho, he crows about an upcoming meeting at the White House that he had arranged for Poncho and says it should be a priceless asset in his client's upcoming re-election campaign as chief of Louisiana's Coushatta Indians. "By all means mention (in the tribal newsletter) that the Chief is being asked to confer with the President and is coming to Washington for this purpose in May," Abramoff writes. "We'll definitely have a photo from the opportunity, which he can use." The lawyer had asked about attire, and Abramoff advises, "As to dress, probably suit and tie would work best."

The e-mail, now part of a wide-ranging federal investigation into lobbying practices and lobbyists' relationships with members of Congress, offers a window into Abramoff's willingness to trade on ties to the White House and to invoke Bush's name to impress clients who were spending tens of millions of dollars on Abramoff's advice.

Abramoff was once in better graces at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, having raised at least $100,000 for the President's re-election campaign. During 2001 and 2002, his support for Republicans and connections to the White House won him invitations to Hanukkah receptions, each attended by 400 to 500 people. McClellan has said Abramoff may have been present at "other widely attended" events. He was also admitted to the White House complex for meetings with several staff members, including one with presidential senior adviser Karl Rove, one of the most coveted invitations in Washington.

Michael Scanlon, who is Abramoff's former partner and has pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a Congressman, in 2001 told the New Times of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., that Abramoff had "a relationship" with the President. "He doesn't have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one," Scanlon said. Nonsense, say others. A former White House official familiar with some Abramoff requests to the White House said Abramoff had some meetings with Administration officials in 2001 and 2002, but he was later frozen out because aides became suspicious of his funding sources and annoyed that the issues he raised did not mesh with their agenda. A top Republican official said it was clear to him that Abramoff couldn't pick up the phone and reach Bush aides because Abramoff had asked the official to serve as an intermediary.

The White House describes the number of Abramoff's meetings with staff members only as "a few," even though senior Bush aides have precise data about them. McClellan will not give details, saying he doesn't "get into discussing staff-level meetings." During a televised briefing, he added, "We're not going to engage in a fishing expedition." Pressed for particulars about Abramoff's White House contacts, McClellan said with brio, "People are insinuating things based on no evidence whatsoever." But he said he cannot "say with absolute certainty that (Abramoff) did not have any other visits" apart from those disclosed. Another White House official said, "The decision was made—don't put out any additional information." That reticence has been eagerly seized upon by some Democrats. Senate minority leader Harry Reid of Nevada wrote to Bush last week to demand details, saying Abramoff "may have had undue and improper influence within your Administration."

Garza, the bolo-wearing former chairman of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, has fond memories of his session with Bush, which he said was held in 2001 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White House. According to e-mails in the hands of investigators, the meeting was arranged with the help of Abramoff and Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. In an April 18, 2001, e-mail to Abramoff, Norquist wrote that he would be "honored" if Abramoff "could come to the White House meeting." Garza—known in his native Kickapoo language as Makateonenodua, or black buffalo—is under federal indictment for allegedly embezzling more than $300,000 from his tribe. Through his spokesman, Garza said that during the session, Bush talked about policy matters and thanked those present for supporting his agenda, then took questions from the audience of about two dozen people. Garza told TIME, "We were very happy that Jack Abramoff helped us to be with the President. Bush was in a very good mood—very upbeat and positive." No evidence has emerged that the Bush Administration has done anything for the Kickapoo at Abramoff's behest.

Three attendees who spoke to TIME recall that Abramoff was present, and three of them say that's where the picture of Bush, Abramoff and the former Kickapoo chairman was taken. The White House has a different description of the event Garza attended. "The President stopped by a meeting with 21 state legislators and two tribal leaders," spokeswoman Erin Healy said. "Available records show that Mr. Abramoff was not in attendance."

—With reporting by Massimo Calabresi/ Washington From the Jan. 30, 2006 issue of TIME magazine

For more on this and related topics

Photos of Bush & Abramoff

Photos of Bush & Abramoff

Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:39:55 AM PDT

Time has seen the photos, but their source wouldn't let them publish.  This calls for a blogswarm -- make the "missing photos" the story until some tabloid ponies up the big bucks.

Who has access to these photos and why show them to Time?  

The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal--like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s.

In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.

Time certainly bends over backwards to give the BushCo spin on this...

Most of the pictures have the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions. The images of Bush, Abramoff and one of his sons appear to be the rapid-fire shots--known in White House parlance as clicks--that the President snaps with top supporters before taking the podium at fund-raising receptions. Over five years, Bush has posed for tens of thousands of such shots--many with people he does not know. Last month 9,500 people attended holiday receptions at the White House, and most went two by two through a line for a photo with the President and the First Lady. The White House is generous about providing copies--in some cases, signed by the President--that become centerpieces for "walls of fame" throughout status-conscious Washington.

Tags: Abramoff photos, Recommended (all tags)

Are we safer? Than what? Germans in 1930's Germany?

Sunday Talk: Are we safer now than we were 4 years ago!!

Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 10:43:10 PM PDT

MISERABLE FAILURE

... BEHIND BARS!!

Below the Fold:

  • The Full Sunday Lineup

    In the Comment Section:

  • The 9-11 Commission  Hands Shrub a BIG FAT Gentleman's F  !!!

  • ANGRY!!! Letters to the Editor

  • Blogging at the Dem Convention, with a very special cameo appearance

  • How the Military Industrial Complex is damaging our national security

  • A wonderful interview with Bishop Desmond Tutu

  • Sunday Funnies with Face the Nation's Bob Schieffier

  • Delicious, Red Carpet Coverage of the Golden Globes - with George Clooney,  Deaniac, Scarlett Johansson,  a very pregnant Gwyneth,  and many, many, many more

  • And debuting today, new photo technology.  This solves an annoying problem for Dial-Up users, but more importantly, now they can hang out and party - no more congestion.

  • It's here, it's here! Come inside and take a spin - it's dial up friendly! Come on, piss off Abu Gonzalez


  • LINK

    Insider Trading in Frist and Delay's Office: Story Growing

    Thu Jan 19, 2006 at 03:04:45 PM PDT

    In an exclusive last night on Air America Radio's The Majority Report, Rep. Louise Slaughter alleged that day-traders had been operating inside the offices of Senator Frist and Congressman Delay.  Telling us that her source was "as good as gold," Rep. Slaughter promised to investigate further and get back to us.  Audio available via AMERICAblog here.

    "I'm going to track this down, I know it's true," Slaughter told us,"that Frist, DeLay and probably others had some day traders working out of their offices." Those working out of the Congressional offices "would find out there's a bill being written by lobbyists, that there would be no asbestos bill ... and when the market opened the next day, the cost of asbestos stock had doubled."

    UPDATE: Congressman Baird (leading this cause on the Hill) laid out the problem on The Majority Report tonight...audio over at AMERICAblog here.

    The context of this story, and the practice of spreading insider "political intelligence" is starting to unfold...developments on the other side...

    The backstory of this involves what's called "political intelligence." The Hill did a story nearly a year ago on firms that harvest insider political info and feed it to Wall Street to get ahead of the news cycle; obviously much of what happens in DC affects the market.

    The Hill piece is here.

    "We provide customized political intelligence and deliver the information ahead of the news cycle," Portnoy said.

    In a business that is in large measure a gamble, information that helps a trader pick one side or the other is critical.

    "It's all about comparative advantage and market efficiency. ... There are lots of things that happen in Washington that affect the market," said Tim VandenBerg, a senior policy analyst at Washington Analysis, a D.C.-based group that advises Wall Street on Congress. "If you are reading about it in The Wall Street Journal, you are reading about what has happened, not will happen."

    For its information, the financial sector can turn to firms such as VandenBerg's, which does not lobby. Another example is Charles Schwab's Washington Research Group, which keeps clients abreast of legislative and regulatory moves.

    Many larger players, including some major hedge funds, have set up their own offices in town. Others hire such firms as Sonnenschein that specialize in lobbying to mine their Hill contacts for another purpose.

    Because they aren't, in fact, lobbying for these clients, firms don't have to register with the Senate or the House. Most firms don't identify their clients or disclose the revenues from the work.

    Then, this past December, Business Week reported on the phenomenon:


    Washington Whispers To Wall Street

    Low-profile firms enjoy a lucrative business selling "political intelligence"

    Day traders were confused. On Tuesday, Nov. 15, they couldn't figure out why there was so much action in USG Corp. (), a Chicago building-materials company whose subsidiary is mired in asbestos lawsuits. The stock was trading at double the normal daily volume and would gain $2.12 to close at $61.55. But there wasn't any major news to power the run-up.

    Public news, that is. Behind the scenes, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had decided to override the qualms of Budget Committee leaders and press ahead with a bill to create a $140 billion fund to relieve companies such as USG of their asbestos liabilities. Frist wouldn't announce his move until Nov. 16. But the news got to key Wall Street players a day early via a little-known pipeline: a small group of firms specializing in "political intelligence" that mine the capital for information and translate Washington wonkspeak into trading tips.

    The business started with a couple of cottage firms in the early 1970s. But now it's taking off. Industry insiders say the explosion of hedge funds has driven new clients and bigger dollars to Washington-watchers. "What hedge funds do is look for inefficiencies in the market," says one hedge fund manager who buys several firms' reports. "And Washington is the world's greatest creator of [market] inefficiencies."

    Unlike lobbyists, political intelligence outfits are not required to disclose their clients or annual revenues, masking the size of this very quiet business. One veteran estimates there are more than a half-dozen contenders collectively raking in $30 million to $40 million a year. Prominent players include the Washington research shops of Prudential (), Lehman Brothers (), and Stanford Washington Research Group, owned by Stanford Financial Group of Houston.

    The business stretches beyond Capitol Hill. "We analyze public policy -- macroeconomics, the Fed, budget, trade, currency -- that affects overall financial markets, sectors, or companies," says Leslie Alperstein, a founder of the firm Washington Analysis. And while leaks such as Frist's asbestos news are welcome, Alperstein says his business is mostly about explaining trends. "If we only dealt in [hot tips], I wouldn't be living in Potomac," he says, referring to a pricey Maryland suburb. "It doesn't happen often enough."

    LOOSE STANDARDS

    It happens enough, however, to trouble some lawmakers. On Nov. 23, Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.) asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to issue guidance for staffers sitting on some of the capital's most valuable information. "The possibility of direct kickbacks [is] enormous," says Baird, who read about the political intelligence business in The Hill, a newspaper covering Congress. He worries that the trafficking comes "very close" to insider trading.

    But ethics experts say no one's breaking the rules. Hill staffers and government employees are forbidden from personally profiting from confidential data and can't share information that's classified or deemed secret by their employers. But within those loose standards, political intelligence is just another legal way for investors to perform due diligence. The intelligence operatives say that Congress, where decisions are made publicly, is fair game.

    So already there is a hugely lucrative practice of trading insider political info...something that needs to be shut-down as is.

    But now, it seems as though the traders may have actually been operating from INSIDE the offices of Republicans.  So even if mining "political intelligence" is still technically legal, this development seems like unambiguous insider trading if true: Republican lawmakers gave market info exclusively to these firms, info that was not yet available to the general public.

    Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.), quoted in the Business Week story and the Congressional point man on the potential scandal, will be on The Majority Report tonight at approx. 7:51 Eastern tonight to talk to Sam Seder.  The audio stream and a list of affiliates can be found here.

    The next step is tying the employees of these intelligence firms to both the Republican party in general, and Delay, Frist, and their staffers specifically. Rep. Baird has already written to the House Ethics Committee to investigate (we'll hold our breath on that) and is proposing legislation to end this corruption.  We've also heard that outside law-enforcement agencies may soon become involved.

    Tags: Louise Slaughter, Ethics, Day Traders, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Air America, Sam Seder, Brian Baird, Recommended, insider trading (all tags)http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/19/17445/7449

    Censored: Rachell Maddow outs Mehlman on MSNBC

    Sat Jan 21, 2006 at 11:07:59 PM PDT

    Crooks & Liars has it, but they don't know it yet because it is kinda hard to pick up - it took a coupla passes for me to catch it.  Here's the link.

    Watch the video.  Listen carefully when it gets to about 3 minutes.


    Maddow:  This is a global war on terror.  This is a war for you or for us to win.  You need patience...

    He sounds like Ken Mehlman when he's saying that only less gay.  I mean this is ridiculous.

    Tucker Carlson:   (obviously taken aback and shocked)  "ooph...  well, I'm gonna blow by that comment.  uh...  but I will say...  whoo...  you just blew my mind by saying that

    that has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen.  I doubt we'll be seeing Rachell on many more news programs though...

    Interestingly, MSNBC censored it. Check out the transcript here. They not only censored the gay reference, they removed Tuckers shocked response so as to not interrupt plausible continuity.

    I dunno, but journalism isn't what it used to be. Now a major news organization purposely falsifies the record. Unreal.

    Tags: Ken Mehlman, Rachell Maddow, MSNBC, Tucker Carlson (all tags)
     
    Freakin' hysterical!
     
    I haven't laughed this hard since rabid Zell Miller challenged Tweety to a dual.
     
    BWHAhahahahahah!

    Blogs, The last frontier in freedom of speech

    Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:13:46 AM PDT

    As I write this there is a powerful force in America. I wouldn't hesitate to say it is more powerful than this corrupt administration. It is the most powerful force in America and it is the blogs! The blogs now run a good portion of the news, CNN, MSNBC and the rest look to the blogs for information. If it weren't for the blogs Bush's corrupt mission would be accomplished by now. We have held them back on many issues!

    In the early part of last year I wrote and recorded a song called "Bitten" the lyrics were

    "Is it possible that right now our government

    and corporations are poised to watch everything we do on the internet?

    In the name of terrorism"? I had edited out "child porn" which was the line before "terrorism", because it seemed a little strong. Like so many of you I had seen it coming.

    Remember the big scare tactic that came from the right about the U.N wanting control of the internet? We have Murdock buying chunks of the internet starting with myspace.com where he already had a backlash for filtering people.

    Recently I read this

    News Corp., the fourth-largest media company, is in talks to buy a controlling interest in an Internet search engine as the company seeks to build advertising sales on the Web.

    The investment would be in "what we think is a wonderful search engine," News Corp. Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch, 74, said yesterday on a conference call with analysts after the company announced earnings. Murdoch said the price will be "insignificant'" and declined to identify the business.

    As it stands now liberal blogs appear to be light years ahead of the right blogs but it now looks like a chess game and the biggest player is the Bush administration who will stack the courts and attack the internet. The internet is the last frontier of freedom of speech in America. It's a grave threat to Bush, just think about all the facts that have come from the blogs. They hate facts and they will do whatever they can to stop it.

    They already have search records from Aol, Yahoo and MSM no surprise there! If you think about it why don't they do their own search and find these sites?  By the time this drags through the courts and bigger news comes along they will have already made several assaults on the net.

    I did a search and found this..

    Governments of developing nations rely on Western countries to supply them with the necessary technologies of surveillance and control, such as digital wiretapping equipment, deciphering equipment, scanners, bugs, tracking equipment and computer intercept systems. The transfer of surveillance technology from first to third world is now a lucrative sideline for the arms industry. Without the aid of this technology transfer, it is unlikely that non-democratic regimes could impose the current levels of control over Internet activity.

    And this

    One of the most important trends in recent years is the growth of multinational corporate censors whose agendas are very different from those of governments. It is arguable that in the first decade of the 21st century, corporations will rival governments in threatening Internet freedoms. Some American cable companies seek to turn the Internet into a controlled distribution medium like TV and radio, and are putting in place the necessary technological changes to the Internet's infrastructure to do so. Aggressive protection of corporate intellectual property has result in substantial legal action against users, and a corresponding deterioration in trust across the Internet.
    http://wwwprivacyinternational.org/...[347]=x-347-61390&als[theme]=Silenced%20Report

    Who are the enemies of freedom?

    The blogs are powerful because it is the people! We must fight this issue as hard as we can and give it our all. All ideas are important and should be discussed.

    LINK
     
    We must fight as hard as we can and them some.
     
    In other words, this is a fight for our Bill of Rights; our Constitution!
     
    Can we do less than our founders?
     
    It is a fight to the political death; either theirs our ours and our country's.
     
    If the fascists attack the Web, they will rue the day that they did.
     
    That is a promise, not a threat. First amendment and fourth amendment rights have been under attack for a very long time.
     
    This had damned well better be where we draw the line and take up the fight in earnest, or there is no doubt that all will be lost and it will take bloodshed to regain it.  

    Read and weep, word for word

    From Media Matters:

    On January 22, the day after The Washington Post first broke the Lewinsky story, the paper ran ... a total of 11 articles, written by or using contributions from at least 20 reporters, and comprising 11,844 words dedicated to allegations that the president lied about a consensual relationship.

    The New York Times gave the story similar treatment....a total of eight articles, written by at least eight reporters, comprising 9,044 words.

    Now, here's what the Post did on December 17 -- the day after the initial disclosure of the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct domestic surveillance that has been widely described as an illegal trampling of the Constitution.... Three articles, eight reporters, 3,227 words -- and that's generously including the USA Patriot Act article in the tally.

    And from the Times, which had broken the NSA story the day before.... two articles, four reporters, 3,076 words.

    All told, on January 22, 1998, the Times and the Post ran 19 articles (five on the front page) dealing with the Clinton investigation, totaling more than 20,000 words and reflecting the words of at least 28 reporters -- plus the editorial boards of both newspapers.

    In contrast, on December 17, the Times and the Post combined to run five articles about the NSA spying operation, involving 12 reporters and consisting of 6,303 words.

    Read On

    Top Dems Announce Push for Public Financing of Elections

     
    Top Dems Announce Push for Public Financing of Elections

    As the GOP corruption scandals have unfolded over the last year, many have urged Democrats to get serious about truly reforming America's political system by pushing public financing of elections, instead of offering relatively tiny changes to lobbying/ethics rules. And now, in a major new announcement, some of the most senior and powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill are launching a big push for passage of such a proposal.

    To find out the details, go to http://www.workingforchange.com/blog
    Powered by PHPlist2.8.12, © tincan ltd

    Golf - Political Scandals - Jack Abramoff

    WASHINGTON

    OF all the lessons to emerge from the Jack Abramoff scandal, the most culturally consequential may be just three words long. And it is already being taught as part of an ethics training session for special agents at the F.B.I.

    "I'm going to go over a lot of things today, and I can take all of your questions, but let me give you the all-encompassing rule," a lawyer teaching the course began at a recent session in Miami, according to one of the participants.

    "Golf," he said, pausing for effect, "is bad."

    Golf is bad. The ominous warning can almost be heard echoing across the greens of the political establishment, where the game is not only a cherished pastime but has increasingly become a critical cog in the wheels of campaign financing and lobbying. Lavish political fund-raisers are built around golf tournaments. Fact-finding Congressional trips are tailored to cross paths with golf resorts. Candidates and their supporters spend tens of thousands of dollars on golfing costs each campaign cycle - more and more each year, it turns out - as part of the cost of doing political business.

    But now, as the Abramoff ordeal in Washington unfolds, golf is acquiring the whiff of scandal, its exclusive fairways and cozy clubhouses redolent of an improper commerce between money and influence.

    There is nothing inherently illegal about mixing politics and golf; as long as everyone pays his own way, it can be as innocent as a game of pickup basketball. But the Abramoff scandal, which suggests that tens of thousands of dollars were spent by lobbying groups to fly lawmakers around the world to play golf, in violation of ethical and perhaps legal strictures, exposes golf as an almost irresistible political carrot that is used to buy favor and access.

    Until golf entered the picture, the ethics scandal surrounding Tom DeLay was hard for many to fathom. It involved complicated transactions between obscure political action committees. (Mr. DeLay was indicted last year in Texas in a campaign finance case and has also been under investigation in Washington as part of a wide public corruption case involving lobbyists' efforts to secure legislation for their clients.) The issues are difficult to convey to average voters. But a weeklong $70,000 trip to the golf course in St. Andrews, Scotland, arranged through Mr. Abramoff, as suggested by financial records and participants in the case? To Democrats seeking to exploit the matter, that is the eye-popping stuff of scandal.

    More than any other perk - except perhaps free meals and drinks at Mr. Abramoff's upscale restaurant, Signatures - expensive overseas golfing trips have surfaced as his lobbying gift of choice, meant to curry favor with lawmakers and, more often, their underpaid staff members. Golfing fees to courses in the Washington area have also been listed as evidence of attempts at bribing public officials in court documents.

    The effect has been, at least for now, to cast a shadow over certain fairways. "I think what we will see here in the current environment is members being pretty careful about getting caught in golfing adventures that don't pass the sunshine test of full disclosure," said Fred Wertheimer, the president of the nonpartisan group Democracy 21 and a longtime advocate of stricter ethics rules in Congress. "How long that will last remains to be seen, particularly for those who are golf-obsessed. There's a certain golf caucus on Capitol Hill, and playing golf is very high on their list of priorities for the country."

    Thus the question is raised: What it is about golf that politicians seem so unable to resist, even when their reputations, their very careers, are at stake?

    "To be able to play the most challenging golf courses in the world is as good as it gets," said Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, who shares a golfing obsession with his friend Bill Clinton. "That is a dream vacation."

    "Other people shouldn't be paying your golfing dues," Mr. McAuliffe quickly added.

    For Mr. DeLay, who wears his golfing passion on his plaid pants, the appeal of playing the historic St. Andrews course would have been obvious to Mr. Abramoff, who helped organize a trip for Mr. DeLay and his wife, along with several of Mr. DeLay's aides, to Britain in 2000. Two years later Mr. Abramoff arranged a similar trip for a less obvious lawmaker: Representative Bob Ney of Ohio, who was so unfamiliar with the game, a colleague said, that he had to borrow golf clubs from his son.

    Yet according to an e-mail message Mr. Abramoff sent to one of his wealthy Indian tribe clients asking for money that year, Mr. Ney had requested the trip, asking "if we could help (as in cover) a Scotland golf trip for him and some staff." That trip - which cost about $100,000 - wound up bringing together the key cast of characters in the Abramoff case, including David H. Safavian, the former Bush administration official indicted last year for allegedly lying to investigators about his dealings with Mr. Abramoff around the time of the golfing trip, and Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition.

    Mr. Safavian has said he paid his own way for the trip. Mr. DeLay and Mr. Ney said that a conservative group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, financed their excursions; in the case of Mr. Ney the group has denied paying for the trip. In any event Mr. Abramoff was closely allied with the policy research center, and he funneled thousands of dollars from his clients into its bank accounts around the time of Mr. DeLay's trip.

    Although it was not a charge that Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to in his settlement with prosecutors, the act of funneling money through a nonprofit, like the policy center, to help fly a lawmaker overseas in exchange for official favors could be considered a bribe. Prosecutors are reviewing all of the trips as part of their investigation.

    "Golf has a long, treasured heritage in terms of junkets and even potentially corrupt socializing," said Jan Baran, a lawyer specializing in campaign finance and ethics (and who described himself as "someone who personally doesn't understand or appreciate the allure of golf").

    "There are risks both in terms of the amount of money involved in some of these trips and also that the members are actually kind of reaching out and asking for these types of opportunities, in essence soliciting trips," Mr. Baran said.

    House ethics rules do not allow lobbyists to pay for members' travel and require lawmakers to disclose gifts and travel from all sources. Private groups are also banned from paying for lawmakers' recreation, including golfing fees. But as demonstrated in the Abramoff case, compliance with those rules is voluntary and sometimes spotty. Who, after all, is keeping watch over lawmakers to see which golf courses they are frequenting, and with whom?

    Golf has long held a special place in political life, with President Dwight D. Eisenhower its patron saint and the Burning Tree and Congressional Country Clubs just outside Washington among its holiest grounds. Limited to the upper classes for much of the 20th century, the game was played more by members of the Senate than the House, according to Donald Ritchie, a Senate historian. Yet there have been scandals, big and small, all along the way.

    During the alcohol-free era of Prohibition in the 1920's, lawmakers flocked to private golf courses because they could get a drink; President Warren G. Harding sparked a ferocious uproar over the bottle of whiskey he pulled from his golf bag on the greens at the Chevy Chase Club just across the city line in Maryland, according to "First Off the Tee," a history of presidential golf habits written by Don Van Natta Jr., a reporter for The New York Times.

    Dan Burton, the Republican congressman from Indiana, came under fire in 1997 for accepting an invitation to play the famous Pebble Beach tournament in California - a lifelong dream of his - at a time when the corporate sponsor of the Pebble Beach National Pro-Am Tournament had business before the committee he led.

    President Bush lost his patience on the golf course one morning in August 2002. "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers," Mr. Bush told reporters who asked him about a suicide bombing in Israel the night before as he was stepping up to his first swing. "Thank you. Now watch this drive."

    But a vast majority of political golf outings these days take place hidden well out of public view; the remoteness and privacy of golf is one of its appeals to politicians who otherwise live under a microscope. Meeting with campaign contributors and major lobbyists on a golf course allows lawmakers to raise money, get out of the Capitol and do something they enjoy at the same time.

    The bonding works in several ways. Sometimes lawmakers or their supporters are the hosts of tournaments where participants pay to play with the guest of honor. At other times lawmakers play a quieter game of golf with a lobbyist who over time becomes a friend, and can help direct bundles of campaign donations from multiple contributors when re-election comes around.

    All of which is perfectly legal. Most golfing members of Congress are proud of their participation in the sport, not embarrassed. Representative John Boehner of Ohio, one of the candidates running to replace Mr. DeLay as majority leader, belongs to Burning Tree despite the fact that it doesn't accept women as members.

    Even Congressional members from some urban areas treat golf as a fund-raising vehicle. Representative Ed Towns, Democrat of Brooklyn, spent more than $18,000 on overhead for a golf fund-raiser at the Woodcrest Club in Syosset, N.Y. last August, according to campaign disclosure forms.

    "They view it as something they must do - they've got to have these fund-raising events, and it's a chore," said Kent Cooper, a co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonprofit, nonpartisan service that analyzes campaign finance data. (A full listing can be reviewed on the Web site www.fecinfo.com.)

    "The question is, can you make it less of a chore? Can you enjoy it? Can it be fun? As opposed to eating a chicken dinner at a fund-raising event, it can be outside in good weather. You get some exercise."

    Mr. Cooper went on to muse: "You sort of wonder, do members of Congress exercise other than golf? Have they moved the smoke-filled room to the green? No one is going to stop them from taking out a cigar on the golf course."


    LINK

    Yeah, yeah, Osama, Osama...blah...blah...blah.

    NOW, WATCH THIS DRIVE!

    U.S. under-secretary, Burns: Iran will be taught a lesson

     US undersecretary of state calls Iran ‘a world threat’
    * Calls Iran’s N-programme outrageous
    * Admits ‘complexities’ in India-US talks

    By Iftikhar Gilani

    NEW DELHI: US Undersecretary of State R Nicolas Burns has called Iran “a threat to world peace” and vowed to “teach it a lesson”.

    He said this in a press conference following talks with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran on Friday.

    Iran has “crossed so many international red lines, that it has to know that will be a penalty to be paid,” he said.

    The two countries, however, held divergent positions on Iran. While Burns said that Iran should be referred to the UN Security Council, Saran maintained that New Delhi would prefer the matter resolved within the purview of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    Saran said that India was committed to finding an amicable solution to the Iran issue. “We have close, civilised relations with Iran, and would not like to see any confrontation. International consensus needs to be evolved on the issue,” he said.

    Terming as “outrageous” Iran’s comparison of its nuclear programme with India, Burns said that Russia, China and the EU-3 – Germany, UK and France – agreed that Iran had “crossed the line it should not have crossed”, although the views of all these countries were not identical the US position on the issue. “They were outrageous remarks ... On the one hand, you have a country that has never been a proliferator while on the other, you have a regime in Iran which ... for 18 years conducted secret nuclear research,” said Burns.

    Meanwhile, Burns admitted that there were difficulties ahead in formulating an agreement on nuclear cooperation with India, but said these difficulties would be removed in time.

    He said that the framework for an agreement has been established but was far from completion, as it envisaged “overturning” both the US and international law. “There’s no question that we have made some progress over the last six months, but much progress has still to be made.”

    “We have concluded (that) we need to discuss this in greater detail in the coming days, and this dialogue will continue,” Saran said.
     
     
    Bush is the greatest threat to world peace, according to the rest of the world, you idiot.

    Deluge Shuts Down Post Blog

    Ombudsman's Column Had Sparked Profane Responses

    By Paul Farhi
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, January 21, 2006; A08

    An experiment in open expression and free speech has proved a bit too free for The Washington Post and its Web site.

    The newspaper company has temporarily shut down Post.blog -- a section of Washingtonpost.com that invites reader comments -- after receiving hundreds of posts, many using profane or sexist language, responding to columns by The Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell.

    The deluge, which overwhelmed the Web site's screening efforts, began after Howell wrote in a column published Sunday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff "had made substantial campaign contributions to both major parties." That is incorrect. As Howell noted on Thursday morning in a short piece on Post.blog, Abramoff did not make direct contributions to Democrats but directed his lobbying clients to do so.

    By then it was too late. Spurred in part by various liberal Web sites, readers had begun flooding Post.blog with comments, most of them criticizing Howell. Many of them used language unsuitable for a public forum. Unable to keep up with a stream of more than 1,500 postings, editors of the Web site decided to close it down until order could be restored.

    The episode was another demonstration of the unbridled -- and often uncivilized -- discourse that can take place on the Internet around political issues. The Los Angeles Times faced a somewhat similar situation in June when it enabled online readers to rewrite one of the newspaper's editorials about the Iraq war; the paper dropped its "wikitorial" feature after some users posted obscene photos and foul language.

    It also comes at a time when newspapers, via their online operations, are attempting to foster more dialogue and interaction with their readers. Post.blog is one of more than two-dozen Web logs, or blogs, on the Post site that enable reader feedback, much of it unedited. Indeed, some of the offensive postings that had been on Post.blog before its closure began to migrate to another section of The Post's Web site, although those were quickly removed.

    The blog will remain closed while Washingtonpost.com staff members sort through the postings about Howell's column, said Jim Brady, the site's executive editor. The staff will re-post comments deemed appropriate when the site reopens. The company, he said, is taking "technological and human" steps to prevent a repeat of the incident.

    Although The Post's Web operations are separate from the newspaper, the editorial standards are much the same, said Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor. "If it's not something we'd tolerate in the newspaper, it's not something we'll tolerate on the Web site," he said. He said the general expectation is that reporters and readers alike will act like guests in someone's home: "You don't expect someone to strip naked, swear or attack you under those circumstances," he said.

    Howell said yesterday she felt "stunned" by the reaction to her Sunday column, which she called "imprecise" in its characterization of Abramoff's actions. As an editor and reporter for decades, she said she has been criticized by readers for controversial articles, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning series about AIDS in the Midwest that she edited at the St. Paul Pioneer Press in the 1980s.

    Despite the harsh tone of the comments she received, Howell said she did not ask the Web site to shut down the blog. "It's a free country," said Howell. "I'm a First Amendment freak."

    The critical postings appear to have been generated by a group of liberal Web sites that began criticizing Howell not long after her Sunday column appeared. This group includes MediaMatters.org, Dailykos.com, FireDogLake.blogspot.com and Atrios.blogspot.com, according to Jamison Foser, a senior adviser to Media Matters for America, which describes itself as a progressive media watchdog organization. The group is partially funded by insurance magnate Peter Lewis, a major contributor to Democratic candidates and party organizations.

    "I certainly understand that readers can get out of hand," said Foser, whose own organization has dealt with a flood of virulent comments in the past. On the Media Matters Web site, he said, "we try to make clear the importance of dealing with substantive [issues] and not personal insults. Those kinds of comments are not encouraged by us and we do not approve of them."

    At the same time, he said, news organizations shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bath water" by permanently shutting down a channel for general expression. "We hope The Post puts the appropriate comments back online and figures out a way" to keep the dialogue going, he said.

    © 2006 The Washington Post Company

    Republicans Worried About Party Faithful

    By RON FOURNIER
    AP Political Writer

    January 20, 2006, 11:38 AM EST

    WASHINGTON -- A growing number of Republican voters are frustrated by congressional spending and scandal, according to GOP leaders from across the country who worry that an "enthusiasm deficit" could cost the party control of Congress in November.

    Some rank-and-file Republicans wonder what happened to the party that promised to reform Washington after taking control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.

    Belafonte Continues Tirade Against Bush

    NEW YORK Jan 21, 2006 — Entertainer Harry Belafonte, one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, compared the Homeland Security Department to the Nazi Gestapo on Saturday and attacked the president as a liar.

    "We've come to this dark time in which the new Gestapo of Homeland Security lurks here, where citizens are having their rights suspended," Belafonte said in a speech to the annual meeting of the Arts Presenters Members Conference.

    "You can be arrested and not charged. You can be arrested and have no right to counsel," said Belafonte.

    Read On

    Bush is a loser in the first degree

    PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Jan. 19 - Two years after the Pakistani Army began operations in border tribal areas to root out members of Al Qaeda and other foreign militants, Pakistani officials who know the area say the military campaign is bogged down, the local political administration is powerless and the militants are stronger than ever.

    Both Osama bin Laden, who released a new audiotape of threats against the United States this week, and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are believed to be living somewhere in the seven districts that make up these tribal areas, which run for more than 500 miles along the rugged Afghan border and have been hit by several American missile strikes in recent weeks.

    The officials said they had been joined by possibly hundreds of foreign militants from Arab countries, Central Asia and the Caucasus, who present a continuing threat to the authorities within the region.

    The tribal areas are off limits to foreign journalists, but the Pakistani officials, and former residents who did not want to be identified for fear of retribution, said the militants - who call themselves Taliban - now dispensed their own justice, ran their own jails, robbed banks, shelled military and civilian government compounds and attacked convoys at will. They are recruiting men from the local tribes and have gained a hold over the population through a mix of fear and religion, the officials and former residents said.

    An American military official in Afghanistan, in an e-mail response to questions about Pakistan's tribal areas, said: "I believe this region is going through a period of revolutionary change, in which moderates and extremists fight for the future of their nations. And with vast, lawless areas in which Taliban-style justice holds sway, Pakistan faces serious challenges." The official agreed to comment only on the condition of anonymity.

    Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, chief spokesman for the Pakistani military, said the accounts of the size of the militants' forces were exaggerated. He put the number of foreign militants in the whole of the tribal areas at "100, plus or minus."

    But the officials and residents say the militants are far more numerous, and have embarked on a disruptive campaign of terrorism, particularly in North and South Waziristan: in the last year, 108 pro-government tribal elders, 4 or 5 government officials, informers and even 2 local journalists, have been assassinated by militants, local journalists say.

    Qaeda operatives are the driving force behind the local militants and are influencing their tactics, the officials said. The militants have managed this despite a hammer-and-anvil strategy in the region, with American military forces pressing from the Afghan side of the border. There have been three American strikes in the area in the past six weeks, involving missiles fired from remotely piloted Predator aircraft operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, but whether they were an expression of American frustration or the outcome of a burst of intelligence remains unclear.

    Despite government denials, the officials said, the strikes may have had the tacit approval of Pakistan's leadership, which has issued mostly pro forma condemnations. The officials asked not to be identified because their supervisors do not allow them to talk to the media.

    The most recent strike, in Bajaur on Jan. 13, killed as many as 18 civilians, but might also have killed several high-level Qaeda members.

    [On Saturday, President Pervez Musharraf told Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns that the Jan. 13 strike "must not be repeated," The Associated Press reported.]

    Bajaur, Afghan and Pakistani security officials said, is not as out of control as North and South Waziristan, but it has become a staging post for fighters entering and leaving the eastern Afghan province of Kunar, where American forces have encountered some of the most serious resistance over the past year.

    Al Qaeda's propaganda unit has produced video CD's showing Afghan fighters being trained by an Arab commander and mounting ambushes on American soldiers and convoys in Kunar. Afghans know of two Arab commanders who fought against Soviet forces and have stayed on in Bajaur, said the governor of Kunar, Asadullah Wafa.

    The Afghan border police say they learned of a meeting in a mosque in Bajaur six months ago between members of the Afghan Taliban, a group led by the renegade mujahedeen commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar from Afghanistan and the Arabs, during which they are said to have divided up responsibility for insurgent operations in Afghanistan.

    Pakistan's military has become more cautious about emerging from its bases in North and South Waziristan, and the civilian administration is so hamstrung that the senior government representative in South Waziristan does not even live there.

    "We run a government on paper, but not on the ground," said one government official who has worked in North and South Waziristan, which have seen some of the heaviest combat of the past two years.

    Now, the heaviest fighting has shifted to North Waziristan, where there are reports of casualties among the military or the civilian population almost daily. At least three small mountain lookout posts built by the army with American funds have been knocked out, one official who was there recently said.

    "The situation is going from bad to worse," the official said. "No one can raise their voice against the Taliban." Armed local militants come and go freely and have even opened offices in the main bazaar of Wana, in South Waziristan, driving up in pickups filled with armed fighters. They use the offices to recruit followers from the large, illiterate and unemployed youth of the area, a former resident said, asking not to be identified for fear of retribution from the militants.

    Military operations, which have killed at least 40 civilians and wounded 600, said one official, have also driven youths to join the militants.

    General Sultan, the military spokesman, cautioned against taking such reports too seriously. "Calling them Taliban is sensationalizing the situation," in an interview in his headquarters Rawalpindi. "There is a mix of foreigners, Al Qaeda and Taliban and local supporters." By Taliban, he meant fighters from Afghanistan.

    He said foreign militants had been eliminated in South Waziristan and existed in North Waziristan now only in small groups, adding that there were also few local militants allied to Al Qaeda and other foreigners.

    He did not have figures for military casualties in 2005 but said there were fewer than in 2004, when 250 Pakistani soldiers died. "It's not anything like that now," he said.

    Home to six million people and covering 10,000 square miles, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas for years provided a sanctuary for Afghan and other foreign fighters opposed to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. But for the past four years, after members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and foreign allies were driven out of Afghanistan, they have lived in the area and gradually taken greater control.

    Government officials who have spent time in the tribal areas say there may be as many as 1,000 foreign militants there, but because many have intermarried and raised families, their status as foreigners is somewhat blurred.

    Today the region is believed to be home to a kind of rogue's gallery. Besides Al Qaeda's leaders, Tohir Yuldashev, the Uzbek leader of the Independence Movement of Uzbekistan, which was allied with the Taliban, is thought to be in North Waziristan.

    Jalaluddin Haqqani and Mr. Hekmatyar, who are both wanted by American forces in Afghanistan, and gained their fame as Afghan commanders from the days of resistance to the Soviet occupation, are widely believed to move between the tribal areas and Afghanistan.

    (The Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and his close deputies, are thought to be farther south in the province of Baluchistan.)

    The local militants are mostly also men who gained fought in Afghanistan, either against the Soviet Army or alongside the Taliban in its civil war against the Northern Alliance. But it is the foreign fighters who have most radicalized the local population, all agree. "The driving forces are the foreigners," General Sultan said.

    The American military official in Afghanistan said the solution to the problem was to strengthen the Afghan Border Police, and "almost certainly it will involve Pakistan continuing to conduct operations in the border region and coming to grips with the Taliban influence inside Pakistan."

    "Pakistan appears to struggle with whether to crack down on Al Qaeda and the Taliban, not just with how to crack down on them," he wrote. "This war will take time and unfortunately we expect future attacks on coalition and Afghan forces."

    The inhabitants of the tribal areas are deeply religious, yet the local militants have introduced a new extremist language, like that of Al Qaeda, said one official who has spent time in the tribal areas.

    The militants' main obsession is to fight Americans in Afghanistan, but they also attack the Pakistani Army and government officials, who are seen as subservient allies.

    "They are religious, mujahedeen, and they think the military are serving the cause of Bush," the official said. The struggle is cast in the most messianic of terms, as a battle between God and Satan, he said.

    Anyone who is seen to have links to the West or the government, including journalists who work for international news agencies, are also targets. Two local journalists have been killed and one kidnapped in recent months. Another left the area with his family last month after a bomb destroyed part of his house.

    The military, rather than pacifying the region, has aggravated the situation by sidelining the civilian administration and the traditional tribal councils, which have also been drastically undermined by the numerous assassinations of tribal elders, the officials said.

    The army's tactic of negotiating with militants in South Waziristan has only emboldened them, the Pakistani officials said. Self-styled Taliban militants have emerged in spectacular fashion in North Waziristan.

    On Dec. 7 in Miram Shah, the administrative center, a band of militants waged a battle with a local criminal gang, killing 11 of them and burning down 25 houses.

    The military and the Frontier Corps, which is a militia drawn from the local tribes, stayed out of the battle, and later the Taliban killed 26 or 27 gang members.

    The clash made the militants enormously popular among local residents, who had suffered extortion at the hands of the gang, the official said. The campaign was reminiscent of those under the Afghan Taliban, who were born out of a movement to cleanse southern Afghanistan of rapists and other criminals in 1994.

    Now, the official said, no one can contest the Taliban's authority in Miram Shah. General Sultan dismissed that, saying both groups in the clash had been put out of action.

    Ruhallah Khapalwak contributed reporting from Asadabad, Afghanistan, for this article.

    LINK

    U.S. accused of spying on those who disagree with Bush policies

    BY WILLIAM E. GIBSON
    South Florida Sun-Sentinel

    While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.

    Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.

    "Agents rummaged through the trash, snooped into e-mails, packed Web sites and listened in on phone conversations," Hersh charged. "We know that address books and activist meeting lists have disappeared."

    The Truth Project gained national attention when NBC News reported last month that it was described as a "credible threat" in a database of suspicious activity compiled by the Pentagon's Talon program. The listing cited the group's gathering a year ago at a Quaker meeting house in Lake Worth, Fla., to talk about ways to counter military recruitment at high schools.

    Talon is separate from the controversial domestic-surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency. Bush has acknowledged signing orders that allow the NSA to eavesdrop without the usual court warrants, prompting an outcry from many in Congress.

    Bush plans to tour the NSA on Wednesday as part of a campaign to defend his handling of the program.

    "This is a critical tool that helps us save lives and prevent attacks," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said on Friday. "It is limited and targeted to al-Qaida communications, with the focus being on detection and prevention."

    The Defense Department's Talon program collects data from a wide variety of sources, including military personnel and private citizens, Pentagon spokesman Greg Hicks said.

    "They are unfiltered dots of information about perceived threats," Hicks said. "An analyst will look at that information. And what we are trying to do is connect the dots before the next major attack."

    To Hersh and some members of Congress, the warrant-less surveillance and Talon are all a part of domestic-spying operations that threaten civil liberties of average Americans and put dissenters under a cloud of suspicion.

    "Neither you nor anybody in that (Quaker) church had anything to do with terrorism," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. "The fact is, the Truth Project may have a philosophy that is adverse to the political philosophy and goals of the president of the United States. And as a result of that different philosophy, the president and the secretary of defense ordered that your group be spied upon.

    "There should not be a single American who today remains confident that it couldn't happen to them."

    LINK This is coming out of Jebistan, Folks!
     
    Bradenton, Fla., near where I spent my summers as a child.
     
    God bless you, Bradenton.
     
    Perhaps, we can reclaim Florida, after all. (By "we" I do not mean Democrats; I mean sane people.

    Reaganomics, Dubya, and the Gospel of Wealth

    By Maria Luisa Tucker
    Posted on January 18, 2006, Printed on January 22, 2006
    http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/tucker/31011/

    God wants you to be rich. If you believe in God enough, fortunes will follow … or so some evangelical preachers successfully convinced their congregants during the 1980s. It was during that era of televangelism and the rise of the Christian Right that these messages about wealth were espoused by a evangelical preachers who taught the so-called "gospel of prosperity." According to the prosperity gospel—also called the Word-Faith Movement, gospel of Wealth, Health and Wealth Theology, Name it and Claim it, or Seed Faith Theology—the Bible promises material wealth to true believers.

    Well, according to the New York Times, this "gospel of prosperity" is back in fashion. And I believe the ebb and flow of prosperity teaching has something to do with our national politics.

    In the 1980s, the religious message of prosperity fit well into the political context of the Reagan years. Both Reaganite Republicans and prosperity preachers viewed wealth as the visible proof of God's blessing on America, and as the ultimate fulfillment of the American Dream. Conversely, poverty was viewed by both groups not as a failure of an economic structure, but as a result of sin. For Republicans, the sin was a lack of a strong (Protestant) work ethic; for prosperity theologians, poverty was proof of a lack of faith in God. (I have a whole theory of how Reaganomics and prosperity preaching went hand-in-hand, which I may write about at a later date.)

    The prosperity gospel went out of fashion, largely due to high-profile scandals by prosperity preachers, such as the 1989 conviction of millionaire preacher Jim Bakker on fraud charges. Slowly, the prosperity preachers found themselves with fewer congregants, and lots of suspicious looks. For about a decade, the prosperity gospel was out of the limelight and many downsized from megachurches to online ministries. But, reportedly, the ridiculous prosperity gospel is picking back up.

    Today, George W. Bush's worship of both wealth and "Christian" values has re-created the environment where prosperity preaching thrives. It even thrives inside the White House: In 2002, one of Bush's "spiritual advisors," prosperity preacher Kirbyjon Caldwell, stayed in the Lincoln bedroom.

    Maria Luisa Tucker is a staff writer at AlterNet and associate editor of the Columbia Journal of American Studies.

    © 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
    View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/tucker/31011/
    There are other myths, and historical stories about the truth of what happens to the wealthy, elite nobility or royalty. who abuse their power.