Lieberman Slides Further Down The Authoritarian Scale

It's absolutely nuts that this idea has raised its ugly head in our supposedly democratic society. Yet Joe Lieberman and other freedom-hating politicians have it in their head that arbitrarily stripping people of their citizenship if it is deemed they are "terrorists" by an unknown person or persons.

Rachel has more on this:

South Carolina School Denies Child's Right To Wear An Obama Shirt

In another troubling episode for Barack Obama fans (as in 77% of the country) a school district in South Carolina told a child and his mother not to wear a t-shirt with Barack Obama on it. Here we are in 2009, and we still have self-important educators school administrators pretending to be fair and balanced with a dress code when this is clearly not as simple as an offensive article of clothing.

From WIS10:

SUMTER, SC (WIS) - A Midlands parent called us about a shirt with President Barack Obama on it, that she says her child was not allowed to wear to his public elementary school.

"He's our first black President of the United States," says fifth-grader Elijah Smith. "It makes me real proud."

It makes a lot of people proud, but apparently, not Principal Liz Compton and Superintendent Frank Baker:

"I did speak with Mrs. Compton, and she did state that it would not be a good idea for Elijah to wear the shirt," says Byrd. "I proceeded to ask her why, and she said that she didn't want to cause any conflict. What she really meant by that in details I'm not sure, but she was very vague with her answer."

Out of respect, Elijah did not wear the shirt.

Later that day, Venetia called Sumter's Two School District Superintendent Frank Baker.

"What Mr. Baker stated to me was that he would not have a problem with Elijah wearing the Obama sweatshirt after Mr. Obama was sworn in," says Byrd. "I felt offended."

Offended isn't the only word I'm thinking about here. Comparing the name and image of our President, whether President-Elect or President, to a gang or other dangerous symbol or what not is ludicrous. People like Baker may think they're so smart by using the 'gang colors' defense of their subtle racism, but it fools no one.

And why is that so many of these anti-Obama stories come out of the south? Oh yeah, nevermind.

Broadway Cares...About Civil Liberties

Not only do they work to fight HIV and AIDS, now the creative class that makes Broadway what it's known for is teaming up with the NYCLU to speak out for our civil liberties:

We Just Got A Little More Liberty Today

We can all thank Ann Aiken in Oregon for her decision to rule certain parts of the Patriot Act unconstitutional today in her U.S. District Court. It has been obvious to most legal scholars that the law passed in the fury after 9/11 was largely unconstitutional. A democracy must not give too much authority to one person. This isn't the Autocratic States of America and Judge Aiken reminded us of that today.

From The Washington Post:

A federal judge in Oregon ruled yesterday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional, marking the second time in as many weeks that the anti-terrorism law has come under attack in the courts.

In a case brought by a Portland man who was wrongly detained as a terrorism suspect in 2004, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it "permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

"For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law -- with unparalleled success," Aiken wrote in a strongly worded 44-page opinion. "A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

When Republicans talk about activist judges, this is what it all boils down to. When the judiciary wants to protect the Constitution from their overreaching executive authority Republicans get mad. They would rather have less liberty for the illusion of safety. They would rather give more power to Bush to do whatever he wants than keep our democracy intact.

Well they haven't won that war yet, and with courageous women like Ann Aiken, it won't be theirs to win either.

The Congressional Silver Lining

So as you all know, the Congress enabled George Bush in the last two days to illegally (or not illegally anymore) wiretap American citizens to his cold dead heart's content. Over sixty Democrats decided to help the traitor-in-chief in his quest to destroy our liberties and our constitution. But there is a silver lining that a Republican Congress would not have provided.

From The LA Times:

WASHINGTON — Pushing to chart a new national energy policy, House Democrats on Saturday passed legislation that would require the nation's utilities to generate more electricity from clean-energy sources, such as the wind and the sun.

And in another indicator of the changed political landscape on Capitol Hill, they stripped the oil and gas industries of $16 billion in tax incentives and voted to apply those tax breaks to efforts to spur production of cleaner forms of energy.

The energy measures passed in a final burst of activity before lawmakers were to adjourn for their summer recess this weekend.

Now, this all depends on if the President signs this legislation and if he does, without a signing statement that says he doesn't have to follow the law Congress passed. What are the chances of that? Hmmmmm.

So is this a silver lining, or just a meatless, tasteless bone thrown to us by the Democrats in Congress? Our constitution is in shambles, our nation can be spied on at will without a care by dozens of Democrats who claim that our "security" is threatened if we do not give up our liberties. While Congress is on their pleasant summer break full of trips and fundraising events so that they can keep being re-elected, maybe they can pick up some reading material by Patrick Henry and be reminded what America is all about.

A Crime To Speak Your Mind On A Banner

Our nation's highways are adorned by advertising billboards and all things that can distract drivers. As long as there have been paved highways, someone has been trying to get your attention for what they can sell or convince you of. So when a couple of activists in suburban Chicago hung a sign that calls for Bush and Cheney to be impeached, they got charged with crimes.

From The Downers Grove Sun:

Jeff Zurawski, 39, of Downers Grove and Sarah M. Hartfield, 45, of Naperville were initially charged with disorderly conduct for displaying a banner that read "Impeach Bush and Cheney - LIARS" on May 6 on the Great Western Trail above Interstate 355.

But more charges were brought against the two war protesters last week in DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton: reckless conduct and unauthorized display of a sign in viewing of a highway, both misdemeanors.

The new charges each carry a penalty of up to one year imprisonment, while the original charge was up to a three-month sentence in the county jail.

"This is political prosecution," said environmental rights attorney Shawn Collins, who has taken on Zurawski and Hartfield's case pro bono.

State officials claim that the penalties were assessed because of the location, not the message. That is complete bullshit. If that were the case then the jails would be full of advertising executives. Hopefully the judge in this case uses some common sense, but then you never know when you get one of those 'activist' judges appointed by George Bush and his kind.

You Think You Have Rights?

Welcome to 1930s Germany America in the 21st century. Our rights as Americans are being torn asunder by the people claiming to keep us safe. When our country was just forming, Patrick Henry famously said "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death," but Dick Cheney would rather put you in jail for trying to use those liberties.

From Cliff Schecter:

A man walked up to Dick Cheney, calmly told him he thought his Iraq policy was reprehensible, and walked away. A few minutes later he was arrested by the Secret Service, in front of his 8-year-old son, for "assault".

When he asked what would happen to his child, the Secret Service said, "He can be sent to Child Services." Luckily, the boy found his mother and was safe.

But the citizen who practiced his free speech spent a few hours in jail before he was released.

The only assault committed was by the Vice-President. It is an assault on our constitution and our way of life that is supposed to be one of the hallmarks of the United States. People have come here in droves in search of a better life and to escape from repressive governments.

My own family feared the Cossacks and the Nazis in Eastern Europe, some made it here and many did not. A few generations down the line, I am looking at a nation that is being dragged into the depths of authoritarianism and dictatorship. This must not stand!

509,000 Terrorists To Watch Out For

Watching suspected terrorists is a hard job for the FBI these days. It is especially difficult when you have over 509,000 names to keep track of. The Interagency National Counterterrorism Center has a combined total that is even higher than the FBI when you add in the other groups that look out for bad guys. So how do they keep track of a segment of society roughly equal to the size of a medium American city? And why do some talk numbers while others are silent?

From The Blotter:

While the NCTC has made no secret of its terrorist tally, the FBI has consistently declined to tell the public how many names are on its list. Because the number is classified, an FBI spokesman told the Blotter on ABCNews.com, he was unable to comment for this story.

"It grows seemingly without control or limitation," said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani of the terrorism watch list. Sparapani called the 509,000 figure "stunning."

"If we have 509,000 names on that list, the watch list is virtually useless," he told ABC News. "You'll be capturing innocent individuals with no connection to crime or terror."

Now to be fair to the FBI, a few of those names are aliases of actual terrorists, both dead and alove. Even Saddam Hussein is up there post-mortem. Nevertheless, what is the point of having all of those people being watched? There is no way that the government can keep track of all those people with any kind of effective policy that stops one of them in the act.

And not only terrorists made the list, even American legislators have been stopped before for being on the list. Speaking of elected officials, I want to know why George Bush isn't the most dangerous domestic terrorists on that list. He has created more terror all over the world than Nixon and Kissinger could ever dreamed of. It is time to start updating that list, taking most names off and just a few back on.

NYC Fights Against Civil Liberties

In a heavily Democratic town such as ours, you would think that the laws of New York would reflect a population that prefers liberty over tyranny, freedom over oppression and the right to public assembly (as stated in the Bill of Rights). Even if a majority of New Yorkers feel this way, it is apparent that the lawyers for the city of New York do not.

Recently a federal judge issued a ruling for the police department to stop videotaping public gatherings and protests so that people who went out on the streets would not feel intimidated by those that are charged to protect and serve, not protect and spy.

On February 15th, Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. resolved a 35 year class-action lawsuit by threatening to hold the city in contempt if the random videotapings occurred again. Nearly a month later the city's attorneys have started an appeal that claims the judge over-stepped his authority in limiting the police's activities. Their assertion is that in 2003 the city agreed to less restrictive rules because “the N.Y.P.D. never had any intention of agreeing to the incorporation of detailed operational guidelines into the consent decree subjecting itself to contempt for a plethora of potential violations.” Basically they find his ruling "an impermissable" order.

As the NY Times points out, the plantiffs disagree:

But the class-action lawyers said yesterday that the city was misstating the facts when it characterized the implementation of the weakened rules in 2003 as a negotiation the city had won. They cited a passage of Judge Haight’s ruling last month.

He wrote that he made those new rules part of a court order in 2003 because he was concerned that improper investigative techniques were being used against people involved in political activity.

He made the new rules part of his 2003 order, he wrote last month, “after senior N.Y.P.D. officers misbehaved themselves by ordering that arrested protesters held in precinct station houses be interrogated in inappropriate ways before being released.”

The city argues that these restrictions limit the police from effectively dealing with threats of terrorism. According to them, asking for permission is too much for cops to be 'vigiliant' on the streets to look for terrorists. This logic is shaky at best. When the police videotape peaceful protests without any good reason to do so, they are blatantly violating the First Amendment. Recording citizens engaged in political activism for the sake of intimidation is simply wrong.

Fighting terrorism is a laudable act and it can be done within the limits that Judge Haight set in his ruling. The city needs to learn that this is still America and their actions need to be curtailed. Too many abuses of power have taken place in the last few years (including the Critical Mass bike ride) and it is unfortunate that a federal judge had to be involved in order to make the police force respect the constitution. Nevertheless it had to be done and the lawyers for the city should just sit there and take it. Hopefully the appellate court sees it the same way.

Boston Goes Beserk

Two men were arrested in conjunction with the melee that brought Boston to it's knees yesterday. The chaos was caused by Boston authorities over-reacting to an ad campaign promoting a cartoon show. During the 'news conference' where the media tried to portray them as playing a hoax, the two young guys made fools of the press that have helped the city of Boston make this event into a serious matter.

The only thing that is serious about yesterday was that the police and the press in Boston 'blew' a cartoon promo way out of proportion. Perhaps they should see how we handled the advertisements here in New York and several other cities. Another serious matter to be discussed are the hair-styles of the 1970s, watch below to join in.