Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Eighty Year Old Woman Purchases $8,000 Of Guns And Ammo While We Lose The War Funding Vote. Is There A message Here?

Eighty Year Old Woman Purchases $8,000 Of Guns And Ammo While We Lose The War Funding Vote. Is There A message Here?

Some See Doomsday, Not Economic Recovery

By Jim Stratton | Posted on Mon, Jun. 15, 2009

The Orlando Sentinel (MCT)

ORLANDO, Fla. - The old woman walked into a Leesburg, Fla., gun shop and explained her situation.

She was 80-something and wore the scars of the Great Depression. It had crippled her family, she told store owner Gordon Schorer, wiping out their savings in a bank failure. Now, near the end of her life, she worried the U.S. was headed down the same road, and she wasn't going to make that trip - not without a fight.

She had stockpiled more than a year's worth of food, put most of her money in precious metals and today was looking for a little insurance.

"She bought $8,000 of guns and ammo," Schorer said. "She's afraid of the future. Afraid she could lose everything."

As bad as the economy is, there are people who fear it is going to get worse - much, much worse.

Fueled by a potent mix of facts, fiction and hyperbole, these economic doomsday-ers envision a financial apocalypse that will render money worthless and normal commerce impossible.

So some are stocking up and making contingency plans: buying weapons, planting gardens and investing in gold and silver. Others are feeding that anxiety, warning that if society is about to go off the rails, the prudent citizen should be prepared to jump clear of the wreckage.

"There's a natural feeling that things like this can't happen in America," said Phil Russo, a Central Florida radio talk-show host who helped organize April's Tax Day protest in downtown Orlando. "But they can, and people just want to be ready for it."

Some of those people turned out for the Orlando protest and dozens like it across the country. Though billed as a rally against high taxes and wasteful spending, the events became magnets for activists of all kinds, including those who believe an economic Armageddon is brewing.

"People I know are getting out of the stock market and putting it (their money) in gold," said Bill Landes, a Haines City resident who attended the rally. "They know there's a problem coming."

The question is, "How big a problem?"

No one doubts that the recession will drag into next year. And unemployment in Florida and elsewhere will likely hit double digits. But most economists view the doomsday predictions as high drama - financial ghost stories trotted out when times get tough.

"Y2K, 9-11, swine flu, et cetera, all have been predicted to precipitate the great collapse," said Sean Snaith, director of the Institute for Economic Competitiveness at the University of Central Florida. "Sensationalism sells whether it is accurate or not."

Prophets of doom have always existed, but today their voices are easier to hear because of the Internet and talk radio. Economic survivalists, also called "preppers," can communicate instantly with like-minded individuals, and dozens of Web sites are dedicated to the coming disaster.

The Florida Preppers Network offers advice on gardening and lists the 100 items likely to go first in a panic. A few companies sell "survival seeds" to let you grow a "crisis garden" to feed your family when chaos takes hold. Their pitch is anything but subtle:

"As the meltdown progresses, one of the first things to be affected will be our nation's food supply. ... If you don't have the ability to grow your own food next year, your life may be in danger."

But for $150 (marked down from $297) you can buy enough seeds to grow an acre of 22 different vegetables to save your family. The seed sellers advertise on talk radio, popping up locally on the Glenn Beck Program. He has warned for months of a financial implosion.

In February, his TV show presented a series of worst-case scenarios, including economic collapse. One guest described heavily armed gangs roaming city streets by 2014. Anyone with money would be a target for kidnapping.

Throughout the show, Beck insisted his guests were not predicting what will happen, only what could.

"People aren't willing to look at the unspeakable," he said. "People don't understand it. This is what worries me."

That's a common trait among apocalyptic thinkers and survivalists, said Richard Mitchell, a sociologist who has studied the phenomenon for 20 years. They alone see trouble coming and put themselves at the center of the story. They alone know how to cope and build a narrative highlighting their insight.

"It's ritual drama," Mitchell said. "You control the action, and you're there to teach others how to live."

Drama or not, the predictions have sparked an increase in vegetable gardening, gun sales and food stockpiling.

Harry Weyandt has seen business climb as the economy sank. He runs Nitro-Pak.com, an emergency-supplies dealer selling everything from first-aid kits to $4,200 packs of freeze-dried foods.

Orders, he said, "went crazy" when Wall Street flopped and recently were running two to three times higher than normal. But though he worries about "serious inflation," Weyandt says, "I don't think there will be a problem buying food."

"Mama Bear" of the Florida Preppers Network would disagree. In March, she warned fellow Floridians that time was running out.

"I wish I could make everyone who is reading this realize how important it is to get your food and emergency supplies for your family ready," she wrote on the network's blog. "There is such a large calamity that is coming, and most people of like minds think it is going to happen soon."

What the U.S. Can Do to Actually Help Iran (Hint: It's Not Decrying Sham Elections)

Posted by Shirin Sadeghi, Huffington Post at 10:15 AM on June 15, 2009.

If Obama is truly supportive of the Iranian people's desire for change, it will stop providing the Republic with anti-American fodder.

When the streets fall silent in the next days and the dissidents once again head underground, the Islamic Republic of Iran will still be standing, buoyed by the last vestiges of a revolutionary platform: anti-Americanism.

In 1979, when the Islamists overtook the popular revolution andestablished an irreversible Islamic Republic, they made all range of promises -- women's rights, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, open government, freedom, freedom, freedom. They also promised to keep the West, and particularly the United States, out.

Today, the freedoms have vanished without possibility and all that is left is anti-Americanism and the irony that America has inadvertently contributed so much to keeping the Republic intact.

Think back to the eight years of war with Iraq that fueled the martyrdom theme that sustained a fledgling and flailing young Islamic Republic who by the estimation of most Iranians had veered considerably from the path of the peoples' revolution. TheUnited States support of that war is public knowledge now -- whether it was backing Saddam Hussein in his early efforts to take advantage of an Iran overcoming revolutionary chaos, orhelping supply Iran with the weapons it needed to steal the lives of millions.

Think of the past and current sanctions which have so damaged the Iranian public. They have played no small part in the economic problems faced by Iranians today, preventing ordinary people from conducting independent business, directly creating price increases for foreign imported products, preventing important international scholarly exchanges, and further isolating the Iranian people from the world. The sanctions have allowed the establishment total control over revenues, income, imports and exports -- they've been a blessing beyond recognition for the clerics and their colleagues.

And what of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine? They have strengthened Islamist fervor throughout the region, labeled the United States as evil-doers, and created exactly the type of instability and division that the Republic thrives on.

Crisis mode is the Republic's autopilot and having an enemy which for many years has somehow justified retaliatory Iranian rhetoric in the eyes of millions of people worldwide who suffer U.S.-backed dictatorships and wars has been the icing on the cake.

The decision to declare Ahmadinejad President is based largely on the fact that the Republic does not want to negotiate with America -- that it quite likes being denounced by the United States.

But it is undeniable that continuing to isolate Iran is the best thing the Obama administration can do to ensure the Republic's continued survival.

Ahmadinejad's divisive rhetoric thrives on the notion that it would look terribly embarrassing for Obama to negotiate with him. But if the Obama administration is on a path toward improved relations with the Muslim world, it must improve its relationship with Iran. Publicly, not behind closed doors.

First off, America must distance itself from discussions of sham elections -- the American government's legitimacy to condemn stolen votes has not yet recovered from its own sham presidential elections of recent. It is actually not the place of the United States government to question the domestic elections of any nation -- this is internal interference and it doesn't look good on the diplomatic or impartiality scales. It also further validates Ahmadinejad's insistent claims of U.S. plans for regime change.

It must cease talk of new sanctions and gradually see out current sanctions.

It must not underestimate the shrewd capability and organizational strength of the clerical system -- a network that is centuries in the making and has successfully guided Iranian leaders of all stripes long before the ulema first established themselves as purveyors of the state religion of Iran some 500 years ago.

It must cease talk of war against Iran and condemn fanatic rhetoric of that kind from any nation. This talk is aggressive posturing which only elevates Iran's credibility amongst the millions upon millions of Islamists, Muslims, and non-Muslim third-worlders who have turned to Iran as the strongest voice of opposition to American hegemony.

It must engage in face-to-face dialogue with Iran. Distant criticism and transoceanic discourse make both sides lose credibility, fashioning a wild west stand-off out of what should be diplomatic talks.

Overall, the United States must give the Republic less excuse for legitimacy in anyone's eyes.

The Republic requires American antagonism to uphold its regional influence and its stranglehold on the Iranian people -- the United States should deprive it of this gift. Both the United States and Iran need each other, but only one is a superpower. While the clerical dictatorship in Iran is stronger than ever, what is even stronger today is the public's will to be rid of it.

Don't think for a minute that Iranians actually believed that Mousavi is a reformer -- they were so desperate for a chance at peace of mind -- however little and temporary it might have been with a Mousavi win -- that they were willing to go along with the charade. The landslide win was just a slap in the face to anyone who actually thought that even a miniscule window of opportunity would be possible.

The public isn't stupid -- it is at its wit's end.

In Iran today, daily life is a complex psychological battle for dignity. What you wear, who you associate with, what you say and do either inside or outside your own home -- all of these things are under government control and take a daily toll on the public's livelihood and serenity.

The people are so hopeless that they were willing to show support for Mousavi -- a man known for upholding the values of a Republic that has systematically deprived Iranians of basic civil rights; a man who, as senior adviser to President Khatami stood by as the second "cultural revolution" of the late 1990's and early 2000's swept students off the streets, shut down semi-free newspapers, terrorized dissidents, and paved the way for the so called "hardliners".

If the Obama administration is truly supportive of the Iranian people and their real desire for change, at the very least it will stop providing the Republic with anti-American fodder. Instead, it will engage in dialogue with Iran toward the one goal it actually can achieve, eliminating the last bastion of the Republic's revolutionary zeal: the American threat.

Congress Should Vote No on War Funding Bill

Today, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on yet another supplemental funding bill , this time providing nearly $80 billion to continue waging the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total bill is now at $106 billion). And, just like they have done repeatedly in years past, progressive Members of Congress should vote against this funding and end our nation's descent into a disastrous quagmire in Afghanistan.

As I've noted before, the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan unites our opponentswithin the country and region and makes cooperation by key regional players like Iran,Russia and China far less likely with the prospect of tens of thousands of US troops on their border. As for those with the most at stake - Afghan people - over 80% oppose an escalation of American troops in their country.

This is why 51 Members of Congress voted against the supplemental war funding when it first appeared before the House in May. They recognized that ending the war in Afghanistan is an essential part of improving our national security and stabilizing central Asia, and acted out of that conviction.

This past week, a number of progressive bloggers have been hard at work to encourage those same Members of Congress to again vote no when that funding reappears this afternoon. And, according to the citizen whip count kept by Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake, they're very close to keeping the 39 no votes needed to defeat that funding. After years of working and voting to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, these Congressional progressives have a chance to do just that. The many reasons to end these wars have not changed, and so, too, neither should their vote to oppose the supplemental funding.

Members of Congress will soon have another opportunity to build pressure against the military escalation in Afghanistan by supporting a bill by Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) that demands that the administration establish what the president has publicly stated is needed in Afghanistan - a military exit strategy. McGovern plans to introduce his bill as a floor amendment to the House Armed Services Committee's Defense Authorization bill when it hits the floor next week.

But, first thing first - today Members of the House should be voting no on the supplemental.

The Win Without War coalition planned to announce a coordinated day of action today in support of Rep. McGovern's bill. With the last minute scheduling of today's vote on the Supplemental, however, that work is being delayed to avoid creating any confusion on Capitol Hill. I hope my former colleagues will join the growing list of co-sponsors of Rep. McGovern's bill. Today, however, their focus should be on opposing the supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

LEFT OF THE RIGHT: A New Call For Demowimps Nancy Pelosi And Harry ...
Gather.com - Boston,MA,USA
But then I realized that it isn't the Republicans President Obama is having to cave in to, it's Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader ...

All Spin Zone
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Another Iranian Online
August J. Pollak
Baghdad Burning
Barry Lando
Bloggrrrlz Gallery

Bob Geiger
Body and Soul
Boing Boing
Booman Tribune
BOP News
Bush Watch
Clean Air Blog
Cool Hunting

Dahr Jamail
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
DC Media Girl
Echidne of the Snakes
Elayne Riggs
Falafel Sex, and Other Things Best Left Unsaid

Farai Chideya
Feminist Peace Network
Huffington Post
Informed Comment
James Wolcott
Jesus General

Lady Jayne's Blog
Liberal Oasis
Mad Kane
Media Girl
Media is a Plural
Michael Berube

News Dissector
News For Real
Oliver Willis
Pacific Views
Political Animal
PR Watch
Prometheus 6

Raed in the Middle
RH Reality Check
Robert Greenwald
Roger Ailes
Rox Populi
Sadly, No!
Seeing the Forest
Shakespeares Sister
Sisyphus Shrugged
skippy the bush kangaroo

Stay Free!
Steve Gilliard
Talking Points Memo
The Bilerico Project

The Hutchinson Political Report
The Republic of T
The Revealer
The Sideshow
The Swift Report

Think Progress
This Modern World
Trish Wilson
War and Piece
What She Said!
Whiskey Bar
Working Families Vote 2008

Why is the Obama DOJ Trying So Hard to Block Torture Lawsuits?

Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 2:30 PM on June 15, 2009.

News this weekend that Jose Padilla has the right to sue torture lawyer John Yoo is no thanks to the Obama administration.

In case you missed it, this weekend brought good news and bad news on the accountability-for-torture front.

First the good news: Convicted "terrorist" Jose Padilla -- who in 2002 was declared an "illegal enemy combatant" by the Bush administration and imprisoned on a Navy brig, where he languished for more than three years on the grounds that he planned to unleash a "dirty bomb" on U.S. soil (only for said charge to later disappear in favor of a totally different charge) -- has been given the green light to sue notorious torture lawyer John Yoo.

"The decision issued late Friday by a judge in San Francisco allowing a civil lawsuit to go forward against a former Bush administration official, John C. Yoo, might seem like little more than the removal of a procedural roadblock," wrote New York Times reporter John Schwartz on Saturday.

"But lawyers for the man suing Mr. Yoo, Jose Padilla, say it provides substantive interpretation of constitutional issues for all detainees and could have a broad impact."

According to the civil suit, which was brought forth last year, during the years he was held in military custody:

" ... Mr. Padilla suffered gross physical and psychological abuse at the hands of federal officials as part of a systematic program of abusive interrogation intended to break down Mr. Padilla’s humanity and his will to live. For nearly two years, Mr. Padilla was held in complete isolation and denied all access to the court system, legal counsel and his family. He was subjected to mistreatment including but not limited to extreme and prolonged sleep and sensory deprivation designed to inflict severe mental pain and suffering; exposure to extreme temperatures; interrogation under threat of torture, deportation and even death; denial of access to necessary medical and psychiatric care; and interference with his ability to practice his religion. In the year and a half that Mr. Padilla remained in the Brig after he was granted limited access to legal counsel, much of this severe abuse continued."

(Go here for more details on Padilla's alleged mistreatment.)

Yoo, whose role in creating the legal framework for the Bush administration's torture program is well-documented, responded to the suit by arguing that he cannot be held responsible for tactics that were not considered unconstitutional at the time.

In March, lawyers for the Obama administration basically agreed,arguing against Padilla's right to sue. "We're not saying we condone torture," DOJ attorney Mary Mason said at the time. But because Yoo "had no supervisory role over Padilla or his detention,” she said, the lawsuit is not valid.

On Friday, however, Federal District Judge Jeffrey S. White -- a George W. Bush appointee -- disagreed.

According to the New York Times, White "rejected all but one of Mr. Yoo’s immunity claims and found that Mr. Padilla 'has alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the requirement that Yoo set in motion a series of events that resulted in the deprivation of Padilla’s constitutional rights.'"

Attorney Tahlia Townsend, one member of Padilla's defense team, called White's ruling a "a significant victory for American values, government accountability and our system of checks and balances."

What is Padilla seeking in compensation from the U.S. government for the torture inflicted upon him?

According to wire reports, "Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron, are seeking one dollar in damages and a declaration by the court that his treatment was unconstitutional."

Pretty impressive given the extent of the damage Padilla's treatment has reportedly wrought. (He is currently serving 17 years behind bars on somewhat hazy charges of "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in a foreign country.") It's the principal of the thing.

The Bad News

At the same time that Jose Padilla is one step closer to something resembling justice, plaintiffs in a different, seemingly promising, lawsuit against another purveyor of Bush-era torture keep getting roadblocks thrown in their direction by the Obama DOJ.

On Friday lawyers for Obama's DOJ argued -- yet again -- that an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of five victims of extraordinary rendition should not proceed. The lawsuit is years in the making and this is only the latest appeal in a series of unsavory (to say the least) arguments launched by the Obama administration in blocking accountability for torture on "state secret" grounds. Most recently, in April the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the lawsuit, Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen Dataplan, could go forward. But on Friday, Obama's DOJ asked the court to rehear the case.

"The Obama administration has now fully embraced the Bush administration's shameful effort to immunize torturers and their enablers from any legal consequences for their actions," said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, in a press release. "The CIA's rendition and torture program is not a 'state secret;' it's an international scandal. If the Obama administration has its way, no torture victim will ever have his day in court, and future administrations will be free to pursue torture policies without any fear of liability."

Of course, the other bad news is that even the "good news" is not so good in terms of the Obama DOJ. Jose Padilla's step toward achieving a shred of accountability for Bush era crimes is not because of the Obama administration. It is in spite of it.

In Congress: 32 Heroes, 21 Frauds

Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2009-06-11 03:57.

By David Swanson

The congressional elections of 2006 and 2008 were almost universally understood as shaped by public desire to end the war in Iraq. Last month, when a war supplemental spending bill (another $97 billion for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) was expected to easily pass in the House with bipartisan support, 51 Democrats sought to please their constituents by voting No. Tuesday evening, when the same bill stood a good chance of failing, 20 of those same Congress members voted Yes and one did not vote. But 30 stood by their vote when it actually meant something. They were joined by 2 more, for a total of 32 Democrats voting No.

A coalition of progressive bloggers had been whipping hard to reach the total of 39 and fell short by 7. In fact, we fell short by 12, because the White House persuaded 5 Republicans to oppose their own party and vote Yes. Most Republicans were voting in opposition to International Monetary Fund spending that had been added into the bill by the Senate. At least one Republican, Ron Paul, and maybe as many as 9, when they voted No were opposing the war funding as well.

These were the 51 Democrats who, along with 9 Republicans, voted No the first time around, when their votes stood no chance of actually blocking the funding: Baldwin, Capuano, Clarke, Cohen, Conyers, Cooper, Costello, Doggett, Edwards (MD), Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank (MA), Grayson, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Honda, Inslee, Kagen, Kaptur, Kucinich, Lee (CA), Lewis (GA), Lofgren, Markey (MA), Massa, Matsui, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller, Napolitano, Neal (MA), Oberstar, Payne, Pingree (ME), Polis (CO), Schakowsky, Serrano, Shea-Porter, Speier, Thompson (CA), Tierney, Towns, Tsongas, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Weiner, Welch, Woolsey.

The procedural vote on the rule to bring the bill up for a vote on Tuesday separated the true heroes from the merely great. Here's the roll call. Only 10 Democrats voted No: Filner, Heinrich, Kaptur, Kratovil, Kucinich, Michaud, Minnick, Mitchell, Rush, Waters. Of these, 5 voted No to oppose war funding (rather than to oppose IMF funding): Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Michaud, and Waters. But true heroes are also those who spoke out publicly and/or privately lobbied their colleagues to vote No with them in the days leading up to the vote. That list is even shorter, including -- as far as I know -- only Kucinich, McGovern, and Woolsey opposing the war money, with Filner and perhaps a few other Democrats publicly opposing the IMF funding. As far as I know, only Kucinich spoke on the floor of the House against war funding, and he did so repeatedly. Barbara Lee put out a statement against the war funding after it had passed.

The actual vote on the bill came shortly after the procedural vote, with 32 Democrats voting No. Here's the roll call. Of the original 51, 30 stayed strong: Tammy Baldwin, Michael Capuano, John Conyers, Lloyd Doggett, Donna Edwards, Keith Ellison, Sam Farr, Bob Filner (statement on IMF), Alan Grayson, Raul Grijalva, Michael Honda, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich (watch video, read statement, another statement, statement on IMF), Barbara Lee, Zoe Lofgren, Eric Massa, Jim McGovern (watch video), Michael Michaud, Donald Payne, Chellie Pingree, Jared Polis, Jose Serrano, Carol Shea-Porter, Jackie Speier, John Tierney, Nikki Tsongas, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, Peter Welch, and Lynn Woolsey (watch video, read statement). These 30 were joined by these 2: Brad Sherman, Pete Stark.

These 32 Congress members, in many cases, stood up to threats, promises, and abuse from the White House and Nancy Pelosi. President Obama and several cabinet secretaries, the National Security Advisor, and of course the White House Chief of staff lobbied hard, including threatening to cut off all future electoral support. These members resisted and placed the interests of their constitutents and of the people of America, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, above the interests of the Democratic Party. They are heroes. They are the place to start building a caucus that might achieve peace.

We have citizen heroes too, groups and blogs and individuals who raised their voices and organized against this bill, including but not limited to: Action Center For Justice, After Downing Street, Air America, Alternet, American Friends Service Committee, the Backbone Campaign, Nick Baumann, Blue Mass Group, Brave New Films, Jennifer Brunner, Brendan Calling, Burnt Orange Report, Buzz Flash, Calitics, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Common Dreams, Daily Kos, Dday, Declaration of Peace, Democracy Now!, Democrats.com, Digby, Docudharma, FireDogLake, Bruce Gagnon, Green Mountain Daily, Glenn Greenwald, the Hip Hop Caucus, Howie Klein, Humanists for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jeremy Scahill, Just Foreign Policy, The Nation, Cynthia McKinney, Michigan Liberal, Linda Milazzo, Michael Moore, Military Families Speak Out, My Left Nutmeg, Not Larry Sabato, Open Left, Out of Iraq Blogger Caucus, Patriot Daily, Peace Action, Peace No War, Progressive Democrats of America, Jason Rosenbaum, Coleen Rowley, Santa Cruz Progressive Email List, Square State, Jonathan Tasini, True Maine Blue, Doug Tudor, United for Peace and Justice, US Labor Against the War, Veterans for Peace, Voters for Peace, Joan Wile, Win Without War, Marcy Winograd, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, World Can't Wait, the Young Turks.

But here's the Hall of Shame. These Congress members voted No for show when it didn't matter, and voted Yes to fund wars when it came to crunch time: Yvette Clarke, Steve Cohen, Jim Cooper, Jerry Costello, Barney Frank, Luis Gutierrez, Jay Inslee, Steve Kagen, Edward Markey, Doris Matsui, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Grace Napolitano, Richard Neal (MA), James Oberstar, Jan Schakowsky, Mike Thompson, Edolphus Towns, Nydia Velázquez, and Anthony Weiner. And John Lewis, for one reason or another, did not vote.

We have citizen frauds too. These are organizations that, like fraudulent Congress members, acted as if they opposed wars when it didn't much matter, when the government was run by Republicans dedicated to continuing wars. These are blogs and organizations that put the Democratic Party's positions ahead of what's good for the country or the world or -- I would argue -- even the Democratic Party. They did not lift a finger to oppose this war supplemental: Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, Moveon.org, Talking Points Memo, and True Majority.

Of course the bulk of Congress and the bulk of civic organizations are not mentioned here at all because they are proud war mongers or they are groups that never involve themselves in the struggle for peace even when it's safe to do so. The worst offense is not necessarily hypocrisy. The worst offense is promotion of militarism. But hypocrisy can fool you if you don't focus your vision on it. And it will continue unless we make sure Congress knows we are onto them. We've been phoning Congress nonstop for the past week, but I strongly encourage you to make a few more calls, to thank the heroes and spank the frauds. The arc of justice is long but it only bends if we keep bending it.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Fair Use Notice: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.