Isebrand.com

"Federal court rules against military gays policy"

From Gene Johnson's AP story:

The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

The real marriage fight in CA is in November in the voting booth. Give to CaliPAC, Equality for All, or both.

You’re heard the  news by now. May 15: California’s Supreme Court upheld the right of marriage for same-sex couples.

Please seriously consider giving a small contribution: http://actblue.com/page/may15

We’ve won the right to marry, now we have to defend it. The Calitics CaliPAC will be there to fight against the marriage initiative and to fight for progressive values. Equality for All is the unofficial “official” campaign against the November anti-marriage constitutional amendment.

Nativists, Iraq dead-enders, commongood destructionists...and the religious right

In a recent dKos diary concerning Maryland Republican politics, the diarist described the Republican base as "shrinking to little more than Iraq War dead-enders, nativists and anti-government zealots frothing at the mouth over taxes."

The diary is excellent in the analysis of a recent Maryland GOP Primary contest, but there's cause to quibble with the definition of the base. There's a key demographic missing. Guess who?

Mike Huckabee has the answer if you don't: America's religious rightwing.

Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority (1978-'89) never had support enough to mount a presidential campaign.

But then Pat Robertson did--and did well in Iowa's caucuses, and his Christian Coalition (1988-'97's zenith) surpassed the Moral Majority in size.

Next came GW Bush's national candidacy and presidency (1999-present). Bush hugely won the stronger-than-ever conservative evangelical Christian voting block by playing directly to its concerns and using "evangelicalese" colloquialisms and allusions.

Now Mike Huckabee. He's a dyed-in-the-wool conservative evangelical (effectively a fundamentalist). He's won numerous GOP state primaries and is a viable running mate option for John McCain.

The trend line of national-level electoral success by the religious right is toward greater, not lesser, success and control. Other trend lines, such as opinion poll results of young Americans on issues ranging from civil unions to environmental concerns, may give some credence an eventual waning of the religious right--but that would take probably at least 20 years, and the outcome is speculative. The real electoral (and judicial appointment) facts, however, (nothing speculative about them) could reasonably been seen to indicate the the Religious Right is alive and well in America and within the Republican Party.

Horrid Specter

From Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com: "With one piece of legislation, Sen. Arlen Specter,....the Pennsylvania Republican who masqueraded for months as a tenacious opponent of the White House," offers a bill, the National Security Surveillance Act (S. 2543), that would immeasurably advance the "Bush vision of an imperial presidency."

Richard Nixon infamously told David Frost in a 1977 interview that, by definition, "when the president does it, that means it is not illegal." Specter, in effect, wishes to make the Nixonian theory of presidential infallibility the law of the land....

Specter's proposal is based on the plainly erroneous--and truly radical--premise that Congress has no power to regulate presidential war powers, as spelled out in Article II of the Constitution. That is the John Yoo/David Addington "president as monarch" theory that the Bush administration has been peddling to justify everything from the lawless detention of U.S. citizens to the use of torture as an interrogation tool to the president's deliberate violations of U.S. law governing eavesdropping.

Specter's bill...is framed as a series of amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.
.....
[Specter's] bill makes it optional, rather than mandatory, for the president to subject himself to judicial oversight when eavesdropping on Americans, in effect returning the nation to the pre-FISA era. Essentially, the president would be allowed to eavesdrop at will, precisely the situation that led to the surveillance abuses of the Nixon White House and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.

Contact your US Senators today! It's easy. Simply go here, and select your state from the drop-down menu. Your two Senatrs' names will appear with their contact links. Write them a note telling them that you oppose the National Security Surveillance Act (S. 2543), that it was put there for a good reason: Watergate proved that Presidents can't be above the law.

Crossing Godwin's divide?

The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that the 1st Amendment does not fully apply to America's 21,000,000 federal employees, including public school teachers and professors. Of course, all the ultra-conservatives on the Court were in the majority.

Let's put this in context though, and you tell me if it's irrational to suggest that the U.S. under George W. Bush and Republican leadership hasn't all but set the stage for the republic's collapse:

*The President has broken 750 laws and Congress does nothing about it
*Real wages are plummeting
*Republicans have actually considered suspending elections
*We're losing an insurgent-driven war in Iraq with an army devoid of counter-insurgency training and, therefore, is committing atrocious acts
*The personal-plus-government average US household debt is now more than $557,910
*The media almost monolithically is reactionarily opposed to all centerists and liberals (but did you know it was this bad? One small thing you can do: donate to Media Matters)
*We're involved in a war that is making us more vulnerable to terrorism
*The President, in step with a larger demonization movement, rallies for a Constitutional denial of rights to an entire class of citizens--a first in American history since the time Presidents opposed emancipation and lauded the 3/5's compromise
*Our army is stretched to the breaking point
*Economic "recovery" standards are lower than they were in the 1930's
*Republicans in Congress and The White House routinely attack scientific research, (read The Republican War On Science) thereby affecting everything from the efficacy of sex education to right-to-die cases to global warming

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It doesn't even touch on the issues of corruption and cronyism from D.C. to Iraq or the Republican strategies of stealing elections.

Things are bad.

But are then, if you will, "Nazi-bad?"

Online political discussions have for years been more hampered than aided an initially quite tongue-in-cheek thing called "Godwin's Law," which might be summarized as: "The first person to mention the Nazis in a political debate automatically loses the debate."

I like the spirit of the recent online piece, "A Stretch No More: Crossing the Godwin Divide" by "occams hachet," in which occams calls Godwin's bluff. Yes, comparisons particularly of Bush to Hitler or Republicans to the Nazis run the risk of being cheap, easy, and patently unhelpful. But they run that risk--which is not the same as them being by their very nature always invalid.

In "A Stretch No More," occams makes note of what are if not bold parallels, between the state of our frightened republic and Hitler's Germany, than what are at least evocative realities. One I find particularly troubling is the demonizing and crypto-eliminationist rhetoric in America.

Bruce Wilson recent wrote about this in his post, "Enough Hate Speech to Stun an Ox," on Talk To Action.  And David Neiwert is an expert on eliminationist rhetoric, as well as on "pseudo-fascism" in general.

(Photo collage: from martial "BattleCry" youth rallies to baptisms of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the Christian Right is on the march and transforming American society and law.)

Federal court reinstates challenge to Bush's faith-based initiative

From the AP article:

"A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated the lawsuit brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The group claims Bush's program, which helps religious organizations get government funding to provide social services, violates the separation of church and state."

Why the religious right loves the imperial presidency

The legal proposal known as the "unitary executive" is much in the news. President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, argued for it in November 2000 at a panel sponsored by the rightwing Federalist Society. The proposal, as Walter Shapiro summarized it in Salon.com, argues that "every part of the executive branch (including regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and, yes, independent counsels like Kenneth Starr) should be legally under the control of the president."

The media too seldom notes the synergy between the religious right's current desire for codified Christianization of the United States and the concept of the unitary executive. That synergy is very important; it is a threat to liberty and a reason why both the unitary executive concept in general and Samuel Alito's nomination in particular should be opposed by progressives and anyone concerned about the power and influence of the religious right on the republic and American culture.

The basic idea of a super-powerful or all-powerful president (akin to the concept of an "imperial presidency") is not new. Some early Americans thought the presidency should be an office held for life; some supporters of George Washington wanted to make him our king. Looking more aptly to modern comparisons, we see Franklin D. Roosevelt (a Democrat) and Richard Nixon (a Republican) both embodied relatively super-strong presidencies. Roosevelt attempted to radically alter the nature of the Supreme Court without a Constitutional amendment. Richard Nixon sought the power to declare war (which--though the casual observer would never know it--is a power wisely reserved for Congress) and the power of full immunity from legislative oversight. Motivated largely by personal vindictiveness, Nixon acted illegally on his beliefs about the executive branch's would-be special privileges. Fortunately, the media had active investigative reporters back then who exposed Nixon; also fortunately, Congress was not controlled by Nixon's own political party, and the cumulative result of those two realities was that Nixon's abuses caused his downfall.

That was then.

Today, many of Nixon's more powerful admirers, like Vice-President Dick Cheney and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld agree with Nixon and want to craft an imperial presidency.

They have succeeded hugely. (See here, here, here, and here; also, a broader overview wisely including President Clinton's administration is here; also, Cheney's love of the imperial presidencyrecently caught the attention of The New York Times.)

What makes the imperial nature of the Bush presidency especially dangerous is that it comes at the same time when much of the religious right believes, probably correctly, that a tipping point has been reached in their struggle to formally Christianize America in brazen defiance of our Founding Fathers' enlightenment ideals and in opposition to our Founders' dreams of what America might be at its best.

The religious right is basically a marriage of socially and theologically conservative Christians (including fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals, and others) with the Republican Party (including neo-conservatives within it, represented by Donald Rumsfeld among many others). When Republican candidates win, the religious right wins.

And now, the religious right sees that the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the Presidency. (Consider also that the culture of the Republican-controlled executive itself is expressly conservative Christian: after all, Bible studies occur in the Bush White House, Bush consults "rapture Christian" shamans on foreign policy, and Bush adheres strongly and openly to his version of Christianity.)

What is more, the media has also been variously tamed or purchased by the conservative Republican movement in America. (See Michael Massing's "The End of News?" and "The Press: The Enemy Within.")

It might be said that only the Supreme Court is the only serious player among great socio-political estates that remains to fall to pro-Christianization conservative movement in the U.S.

Enter Samuel Alito, and enter the great hope for a living "unitary executive," which under this president could be used to steamroll ahead the religious right's beloved Christianization agenda, and would almost certainly also embolden George Bush in his own public religiosity (Won't Alito's confirmation be evidence of Jesus' divine endorsement of all Bush stands for?), thereby foisting onto The United States of America its first Commander-in-Chief and de facto Pontifex Maximus.

So, for the religious right, what now is not to like about the concept of supreme executive power? Yes, FDR made the presidency even more powerful, but he exhibited merely a genteel Episcopalian sort of Christianity; what is more, he wasn't a conservative; he backed progressive ideas from racial integration of the military to Social Security, Medicare, and the FDIC. Nixon was a conservative, but he also seemed not very religious. (His language made at least one evangelical literally cringe when he and I considered together a transcript of an unedited Oval Office recording. And you thought sailors could swear?)

But today is very different: it's the era of near Republican hegemony and a pop evangelical president born of a multi-millionaire Big Oil dynasty and born-again of a multi-million person Big Jesus nationalistic piety. This era is a great threat to the health of America, including to the hope that our children might come of age in a truly informed, democratic republic committed to defending and expanding liberty, justice, and human rights for all.

So, what are some of the things we can do to counter this trend?

More on that soon.

Unitary Executive = Alito's formula for the imperial presidency

Best Monday aphorism: "Context often trumps content in politics." Walter Shapiro's, "Alito's Bad Luck," in Salon.com.

"[In November 2000 Alito] participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Federalist Society. . . . [He] argued strenuously in favor of a hail-to-the-chief legal theory called 'the unitary executive,' [which] argues . . . that every part of the executive branch (including regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and, yes, independent counsels like Kenneth Starr) should be legally under the control of the president. . . . [O]ther proponents of this theory -- notably Dick Cheney's new chief of staff, David Addington -- have leaned on it to argue that a president can go beyond the law in carrying out his duties as commander in chief." (Emphasis mine.)

Heather Havrilesky's review of "The Last Abortion Clinic."

(Originally published on Salon.com.)

Every month, I get letters in the mail from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood and NOW telling me that abortion rights are being threatened and my $50 pledge is necessary to wage this important fight. Every year or so I read the letters and then write a check, but most months I throw all that paper into the recycling bin without scaring myself over the latest threat to choice. Hasn't Roe v. Wade been under attack for decades now? Regardless of the Roe foes Bush packs onto the Supreme Court, a return to the dark ages of underground abortions has always seemed -- despite all the reports to the contrary -- too fantastical to warrant a constant state of fear.

PBS's "The Last Abortion Clinic" . . . shook me out of my stupor. As this "Frontline" special clearly and carefully explains, whether or not Roe v. Wade is repealed, the antiabortion agenda in many states has already made it nearly impossible for a poor woman to get an abortion.

Naturally, we're introduced to the usual roundup of dewy-eyed antiabortion idealists armed with melodrama and scare tactics, and treated to disturbing footage of women standing outside an abortion clinic shouting, "I love you, Mama! Please let me live!"

But then the program digs into the legal history of abortion, from Roe v. Wade to Casey to Ayotte, without which it's impossible to understand the insidious battle that's being fought on the state level. Working strategically within the boundaries of the law, antiabortion activists have managed, in many states, to restrict abortions and abortion clinics so aggressively that abortion-rights activists say that conditions are as bad as they were before Roe v. Wade passed in 1973.

In Mississippi, the antiabortion movement has managed to close down all but one abortion clinic. And by requiring women to go to the clinic twice, once for information and counseling, and a second time for the procedure, which must take place at least 24 hours later, women who drive from other locations in the state have to make two trips or spend the night in town. For women who can't afford the money or time off from work, these obstacles are likely to seal their fates.

"We don't feel bad that people in the delta can't have an abortion," says Terri Herring, president of Pro-Life Mississippi. "To say that we want to be sure that poor women can get their abortions, like we're doing them a favor by helping them kill their baby, is just not OK with me."

But do the sentiments of one antiabortion activist say anything about the position of state officials? Apparently so: Mississippi actually sells license plates that say "Choose Life" on them, with all proceeds going to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. What can women get at these centers, 2,000 of which exist nationwide? Free pregnancy tests, confidential counseling, free ultrasounds so the women can see their unborn children, and free baby clothes. What can't they get? Free birth control or birth control counseling, information on where to get an abortion, or free prenatal care.

"The purpose of the center is to deal with the woman who has an unplanned pregnancy, and her choices are abortion, adoption, parenting. She has basically those three choices," says a representative of one center. Of course, if the woman "chooses" abortion -- or even wants to consider a way to not get pregnant the next time -- she's out of luck.

That doesn't stop antiabortion activists from claiming that they're interested in helping these mothers and their babies. Just so we understand where all of these very compassionate people are leading Mississippi, we visit a town called Clarksdale, where 75 percent of babies are born to single mothers, many of whom are teenagers, and more than one-third of the population lives in poverty. When the "Frontline" producers ask a young mother about access to abortion, she has a look on her face as if he just asked, "Have you ever thought of summering in the South of France instead?"

For those who are foolish enough, as I was, to believe not only that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned but also that things will be fine as long as that doesn't happen, "The Last Abortion Clinic" offers a sobering look at the reality in most states, where local governments seem to care very little about the impossible circumstances poor women face in dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

But no one has a firmer grasp on just how bad it is for these women than the head of an abortion clinic in a neighboring state, whose identity is withheld for her safety and the safety of her clinic. "Sometimes I fantasize about Roe being overturned, because then I think that there would be this real threat, this real enemy," she says. "As long as everything flies below the radar, never an all-out attack, I think that most women and men are asleep. I don't think they realize what's going on. The assault on abortion rights is very clever. It's very smart. And we're losing."

It just got scarier: Alito

And it may have just got scarier: Alito. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, (3d Cir. 1991). Yet, Alito's radical anti-choice opinion in Casey has been followed by conservative but not necessarily radically conservative opinions, and all observers seem to agree he's less radical than Scalia and smart and likable. So, my guess: he'll get confirmed just in time to scuttle gay civil rights, pull a few more bricks out of the Wall of Separation of Church and State, and basically be decidedly more conservative than O'Connor was (but less personally obnoxious than Scalia or Roberts are).