Ivory Dome

Read about it here.

The most telling line of the article being: “If reinstated by Hinchey’s bill, the Fairness Doctrine would govern all news programs on public airways, including networks as well as cable stations such as Fox or MSNBC, but would not apply to entertainment shows.”

Read the article and judge for yourself.  Is what Hinchey proposes fascism, socialism, or what?  Who is going to decide what the opposing viewpoint is?  The government?  Who is going to decide what entertainment is?  How is the government telling business what it has to do democratic?  Why can’t the people decide what they want to listen to and watch? How is democracy served by the government deciding what is best for people to be exposed to?

The sky certainly isn’t falling; the bill hasn’t even been introduced to either the house or the senate.  As it stands the best we can hope and pray for is for our leaders to realize that this action is wrong.  I would have confidence in Bush to veto this in the event it passes but given his most recent history cowering to the democrats I am afraid this may pass.

The bill has a bunch of rhetoric saying it is “anti-fascism” and to ensure the opposing viewpoint is heard by everyone, ie all presidential candidates getting fair chance at a debate.  Critics say this is the “Rush Hush” bill and it is true that a lot of what is in the linked article above talks about countering Limbaugh.  I can understand liberals being angry at Rush, but he isn’t where he is because of some fascist right wing conspiracy.  The free market put him there.  People want to hear what he says.  Air America had it’s chance and continues to do poorly.

Unfortunately I don’t have a solution to this problem.  One possible solution is judicial activism should this bill be passed.  I disagree with that because the people elected the democrats.  If the people want the fairness doctrine they should have it.  About the only thing I know to do right now is say, “I told you so” when the democrats take away more freedoms than the neo-cons ever dreamed of.  If the democrats think a suspected terrorist losing habeas corpus is bad wait until the state run media is dictating what can be on the radio or TV.

I was surprised to find this today on some pablum puking liberal website. I wonder why there was no or little publicity at the time? Could it be because the legislation coming from a Liberal Administration?  I voted for it before I voted against it. Boy, the liberal press must have been really conflicted on this one. See if it sound’s familiar? Read on——

“We can intensify the fight against terrorists and organized criminals at home and abroad, if Congress passes the anti-terrorism legislation I proposed after the Oklahoma City bombing — now.” – Bill Clinton, January 1996 State of the Union address.

Apparently, what the President was talking about in this extremely brief reference to one real scary piece of legislation is the Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act of 1995. The bill was not his response to the Oklahoma City bombing, although pretending it is will make it easier for many to swallow. In fact, this sweeping piece of legislation was in the works by the end of 1994.

In January of 1995, President Clinton declared 12 organizations to be terrorist and froze their assets. This act also authorized the Secretary of State to add others to the blacklist without review and to bar U.S. citizens from providing any aid to the designated organizations.

In February, 1995, the administration unveiled legislation in the form of the “Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995″ that will make such blacklisting by the executive branch a regular activity and will criminalize previously legal political association in the U.S.

The House and Senate considered separate versions of this so-called Counter-terrorism legislation during the summer and fall, after the Republicans presented their own, somewhat less restrictive version, and the various bills and amendments are now in committee.

All of the versions under consideration give the government official new powers to terrorize immigrants and citizens that mirror and codify the anti-communist crusades of the 1950s.

Here are some of the most dangerous provisions of the bills:

Sweeping power for the Executive branch to designate any organization as terrorist under an extremely broad definition and with no meaningful judicial review.

The definition of terrorist in the immigration provisions has two parts: 1. “Any unlawful use of fire arm or weapon with intent to endanger property or person.” 2. The group’s terrorism activities “threaten the national security, foreign policy or economy of the U.S.” This is so broad that it could only be applied selectively, and acts that could fall under this include spray-painting a federal building or shooting at a highway sign, or even conspiring to shoot at a highway sign.

One version does provide for appeal to DC district court, but a decision by such a court against the President is extremely unlikely.

Guilt by association. The bills authorize the deportation of immigrants and imprisonment of citizens based on their political association. Current law already outlaws support for terrorist activity, in the U.S. and abroad, but this law would make it a federal crime to donate money for humanitarian aid to any group associated with an organization the President has named as terrorist. What about donations to humanitarian efforts by groups the government has labeled “terrorist,” like money for medicine and food for Palestinians? Not allowed. The rationale is that money is fungible. Money donated to buy food and medical supplies could free up funds for the supposed “terrorist” activities. The only provision for such donations demands that the group and the individual donating money open their books to the US government and then get licensed. This constitutes prior restraint.

As lawyer David Cole pointed out in testimony against the legislation, if the President named the Girl Scouts as a terrorist organization, then buying Girl Scout cookies would become a federal crime.

Secret evidence. For immigrants, deportation hearings by a special 5-justice court would be carried out in secret and immigrants could be deported under this act for lawful political activity. Evidence against the person being charged and the source of that evidence could be secret. This puts the burden of proof on the accused AND eliminates the ability of the accused or the defense lawyer to mount a defense. There is no provision for suppression of evidence by the defense, the lawyer cannot participate in an appeal and the person charged is subject to immediate detention without bail. Secret evidence can also be used against citizens with penalties starting at 10 years imprisonment.

This type of judicial procedure is called an inquisition and is just what the current legal system here was developed to change.

Reinstatement of the Exclusionary Rule. This rule, overturned in the Immigration Act of 1990, provided for exclusion of immigrants from legal status in the U.S. based on their political beliefs. The earlier form of the exclusionary rule was aimed at keeping communists from entering the U.S.

Expanded powers for the FBI. The legislation turns a lot of currently legal political activity into a federal crime. Over $1.8 billion would be allotted to enforce this legislation and it not only opens the way for a COINTELPRO-style operation, but demands the maintenance of this type of government activity. It authorizes the hiring of 1,000 new federal agents, prosecutors, and other law enforcement personnel, repeals all older provisions barring the U.S. military from civilian law enforcement and expands the government’s legal access to phone taps, phone company records, credit records, etc.

Restriction of current Habeus Corpus laws. Prisoners sent to death row in state courts would have one (1) year to appeal and could only appeal at the federal level. This apparently unrelated provision comes at a time when the death penalty is being revived as a solution to crime and several recent death penalty cases have revealed years of wrongful imprisonment for some owing to misconduct on the part of the courts and the cops. Could this be applied retroactively? It COULD be.

What does it Mean?

The first target of this legislation is support in the U.S. for liberation struggles abroad, which often takes the form of donations to humanitarian efforts. The ANC of South Africa was once considered by the U.S. government to be a “terrorist” organization and, under this bill, donations to Nelson Mandela’s tour of the U.S. a few years ago would have been illegal.

Of course, this bill targets immigrants first. The U.S. deported more than 51,000 people last year. Immigrants are the new scapegoats for politicians and open racists and there are already “detention” centers in many parts of the U.S. holding people who have no access to lawyers, their families or their allies among the people of the U.S.

And the bill also opens the way for much more. Blacklisting of groups and prosecution using secret evidence would create a situation where pretty much all political association can be suspect. Will some political groups resist working with others for fear of labels the government might apply to them? Will individuals fear being associated with political groups, since they will never know all of the affiliations of other members of the groups or what the government will target next under this legislation? This is a real application of “terrorism.”

So far, we have not heard much publicity for the “Counter-Terrorism” bill, and, because of its name, people are unlikely to think it ever COULD apply to them. It has to be exposed and fought now.

This hapened in Washington on Oct. 18 2006

U.S. House of Representatives Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer has apologized for saying a black Senate candidate “slavishly” supported the Republican Party.

Hoyer, D-Md., said no offense was intended in his remarks about Republican Senate candidate and current Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, CNN reported Wednesday.

“I should not have used those words,” Hoyer said in a statement.

Doug Heye, a spokesman for Steele, said Hoyer’s comments were “insensitive and pretty stupid.”

“This is nothing new for Steny Hoyer,” said Heye. Heye referred back to 2002, when Hoyer was quoted as calling Steele a “token” candidate. Hoyer insisted at the time that the quote was out of context.

Hoyer’s apology Tuesday continued to criticize Steele politically.

“If Mr. Steele did in fact take offense, let me assure him that none was intended,” Hoyer said. “But Mr. Steele continuously tries to divert attention from the fact that he is an unwavering supporter of the Republican agenda and of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.”

Followed by this on Nov. 25,2006

Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who becomes House Majority Leader in January, said Saturday that Democrats will restore civility to Congress.

Delivering the Democratic Party response to President George W. Bush’s weekly radio address, Hoyer said Democrats would work with Bush to “forge a new direction in Iraq.”

“On Nov. 7, millions of Americans, in every region of our country, voted their hopes — not their fears,” Hoyer said. “And, they sent a resounding message: They want change and a new direction for our nation.”

Sounds like the same old crap to me.

In the Senate yesterday a roll call vote was called to strike a provision from, “a bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process” that would require “political bloggers with a readership of over 500 who comment on policy matters or hope to incite ‘grassroots’ action amongst their readers would be forced to register with the Federal Government as lobbyists.”

Forty eight Republicans and 7 democrats voted to strike the above mentioned provision while 43 democrats voted to keep the provision.

Before you whack job liberals scream “omg jackbooted thugs gonna knock down my door and read my mail” take good long look in the mirror and look down at the “jackboots” you are wearing.

Also, I am no apologist for Republican malfeasance on civil liberties.  I may have been in the past but have since modified my position on the issue.  While I do think something needs to be done to protect American citizens at home I think all proper channels as required by the constitution should be exhausted, ie get a warrant as per “domestic spying.”  If there is anything else republican’s have done as far as restrict civil liberties for Americans and you want me to comment on it, let me know.

Earlier today I was reading over a tired conversation that has to do with the “mission accomplished” banner.  Of course the discussion devolved quickly and somewhere along the line some fool passed the talking point that, “Hitler was democratically elected.” 

This line is usually brought up in reference to GWB.  Someone says, “Well we can’t live in a dictatorship because GWB was democratically elected and will be out of office in 2008.”  To which the response is, “Well…Hitler was democratically elected.”

Idiocy such as this makes me sick to my stomach.  Before I continue let me say that though I despise this behavior I don’t wish statements like this to be shut out.  Far from it.  People such as this should be put on pedestals for all of the citizenry to behold their vast ignorance.

To further expound, I do despise liberals and what they stand for, but I also recognize their place in our society.  Though lunatic in my view we need these opinions not only to observe their ignorance/idiocy, but also to remain a fair and balanced society.   I think of it as political competition, such as businesses competing against each other. 

What got me thinking about this was reading about the history that lead up to Hitler taking power.  During the course of those events Hitler and the Nazi party abolished other political parties and labor unions and the ones that were abolished were the ones who resisted; a majority openly capitulated.

While I understand the concern expressed by those who disagree with the USA PATRIOT Act I believe it is quite over board to equate Bush to Hitler given the history regarding Hitler’s rise to power that took place in Germany prior to WWII. 

Hitler’s rise to power can be read about on wikipedia.