The spokesman for American theofascism speaks

By Mel Seesholtz, Ph.D.Online Journal Contributing WriterJul 1, 2008,
Email this article Printer friendly page
James Dobson has a Ph.D. in child development. He advocates spanking. He was once known as “the Religious Right’s New Kingmaker.” The “king” he helped make was George W. Bush, who tops “the list when American voters pick the worst U.S. President in the last 61 years.”
As a prominent character in the Bush-Rove nightmare, Dobson, according to Brian Elroy McKinley, set "himself up as a religiously-based political dictator bent on getting us to support his personal view of legislated morality.
"And what’s even worse, Dobson goes to great length to use Scripture to support his view, and yet according to Time magazine he doesn’t even have any formal theological training. In short, Dobson, using his position as a radio psychologist, has set himself up as our moral authority and asks us all to blindly follow. [italics added]
His Focus on the Family empire is considerable, although not as powerful as it once was. A mid-September 2007 article from The Denver Channel.com reported, “Focus on the Family is laying off 30 employees and reassigning 15 others, due in part to a drop in projected revenue . . ."
Dobson and his organization have slowly but surely been losing power. Perhaps that’s why the chairman needed to make more outrageous statements to garner public attention and mobilize the sheeple “to blindly follow” and contribute to his cause.
Dobson used his June 24, 2008 radio broadcast to make preposterous claims and attack Barack Obama. The attack was the lead story on CNN.com:
A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.In comments to be aired on his radio show Tuesday, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson criticizes the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for comments he made in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.In the speech, Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.“Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?” Obama asked in the speech. “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount? . . . a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application.”
The first and most obvious question is “Why was this the lead story?” As Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out noted in his reaction to the story, “Dobson is not an ordained minister, nor is he a religious scholar.” Moreover, Dobson is notorious for twisting and misrepresenting legitimate research: "In the past two years, at least seven researchers have accused Dobson of manipulating or cherry picking their results to back his anti-gay teachings. Letters and videos documenting the concerns of these respected professors can be viewed at RespectMyResearch.org.
"The first researcher to step forward was New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, PhD. On Sept. 14, 2006 Gilligan wrote a letter to Dobson that stated: “I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine . . . What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.”
"The most recent scientist to claim Double-Talk Dobson distorted his work was University of Minnesota’s Gary Remafedi, M.D., M.P.H. In a letter to Dobson, dated April 28, 2008, he wrote, “I want to draw your attention to a gross misrepresentation of our research at the website of 'Focus on the Family.’”
"Other leading researchers who have taken issue with Dobson's use of their work include: Dr. Kyle Pruett, Professor of child psychiatry, the Yale University School of Medicine; Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University; Angela Phillips, Professor, Goldsmiths College in London; Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Associate Professor, school of nursing, University of British Columbia; and Dr. Judith Stacy, Professor of Sociology, New York University."
So the question remains: why would mainstream media give Dobson such front-page coverage without qualification? As Mr. Besen said in his follow-up article, "the wonderful 'liberal media' continues to treat this man as if he is a God-fearing grandfather. What disturbs me, is that the one time Dobson was truly exposed as a kook was when he suggested Sponge Bob Square Pants might be gay. This was worthy of laughs, but when some of the brightest minds in the world take Dobson to task for manipulating years of hard work, the media is largely MIA. Isn’t it time the media paint a full and accurate portrait of a man who has had the ear of many presidents? . . . We urge the media to report the facts and allow America to see the real James Dobson."
Dobson’s statements in his broadcast were nothing short of megalomaniacal: “it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture.” It seems Dobson thinks he alone knows THE “correct” interpretation of scripture and, therefore, he and he alone should decide what legislation is acceptable. Does this sound like the ranting of a theofascist dictator to you?
Dobson’s other statements and accusations are thoroughly addressed on a web site sponsored by “a coalition of pastors and other Christians, lead by Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell.” Appropriately, the site is titled JamesDobsonDoesNotSpeakForMe.com. Dobson’s statements are compared, point by point, with what Mr. Obama actually said in his 2006 speech which, by the way, warned against the dangers of America become a theocratic state.
Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners was both astute and eloquent in his reaction to Dobson’s radio broadcast. It was also based on first-hand knowledge. Rev. Wallis was present at the 2006 speech.
Indeed, Sojourners sponsored the event and reported, "The clear purpose of the show was to attack Barack Obama. On the show, Dobson says of himself, “I’m not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian. I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in child development.” Child psychologists don’t insert themselves into partisan politics in the regular way that James Dobson does and has over many years as one of the premier leaders of the Religious Right. He has spoken about how often he talked to Republican leaders – Karl Rove, administration strategists, and even President Bush himself. This year he tried to influence the outcome of the Republican primary by saying he would never vote for John McCain or the Republicans if they nominated him, then reversed himself and said he would vote after all but didn’t say for whom. But why should America care about how a child psychologist votes?
"James Dobson is insinuating himself into this presidential campaign, and his attacks against his fellow Christian, Barack Obama, should be seriously scrutinized. And because the basis for his attack on Obama is the speech the Illinois senator gave at our Sojourners/Call to Renewal event in 2006 (for the record, we also had Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sam Brownback speak that year), I have decided to respond to Dobson’s attacks. In most every case they are themselves clear distortions of what Obama said in that speech. I was there for the speech; Dobson was not."
In a missive dated “June 2008” and titled “Judicial Tyranny and California Lunacy,” Dobson demonstrated once again how he distorts facts, cherry-picks the Bible, relies on scare tactics, name-calling and irrationalities. For someone who claims to be a defender of and believer in the Bible, Dr. Dobson seems completely ignorant of Romans 13:1-2, NIV: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
The duly elected and/or appointed judges -- the judicial arm of the “governing authorities” -- who dared render a decision contrary to his wishes, Dobson calls “imperious courts,” “judicial tyranny,” “powermongers [sic] in black robes,” “judicial tyrants.” It would seem Dobson deserves nothing but condemnation, according to the Bible that is.
Aside from name-calling, in “Judicial Tyranny and California Lunacy” Dobson railed against two rulings by California courts: “The first of these unfortunate decisions was issued by the Los Angeles-based Second District Court of Appeal, which declared it illegal for parents without teaching licenses to home school their own flesh and blood.”
Teachers are professionals and as such they have had extensive training not only in pedagogy but in the subject matter they teach. They’ve had to pass certification examinations and be licensed by professional boards. To be sure, America’s public education system has its problems, but how many home-schooling parents have pedagogical training plus academic training and expertise in ALL the various subjects they must teach? Dobson favors home-schooling not because it aids in a child’s social, emotional and intellectual development, but because it affords a means for some to indoctrinate children into the “biblical worldview,” which includes such “facts” as the earth is about 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were real people, and dinosaurs played with human children in Eden. This clip from Jesus Camp makes the point, as does this response to it.
Dobson’s use of “their own flesh and blood” is a pretentious emotional appeal that excludes adopted children. Apparently he has little time and little concern for them. But he did have time to snipe at the judges of the Second District Court of Appeal: “They might not even be parents, or if they are, who knows how effectively they did the job when their children were young.” Such a statement is not only inappropriate, it shows how very small Dobson really is.
Not surprisingly, aside from again ignoring the Biblical directive in Romans 13:1-2 and attacking the judicial arm of the “governing authorities,” Dobson’s second subject was one of his favorites: advocacy of legal discrimination and bigotry. "The second decision handed down from on high a few weeks ago was even more egregious. The California Supreme Court, by a vote of 4 to 3, overturned an electoral decision supported by 4,618,673 voters in the year 2000. It concerned Proposition 22, which defined marriage exclusively as being between one man and one woman. . . . The Court sniffed, 'Not so fast, common people. We hold the trump card and you lose.'”
True, Proposition 22 -- like 1964’s Proposition 14 that allowed real estate agents and landlords in California to reject home buyers or tenants of their choice, even if their decision was based on racial discrimination -- was passed by popular vote, but both were declared unconstitutional by due process of law. It’s doubtful a Proposition 14 would ever be proposed today. Times and attitudes have changed in relation to many social issues. Dobson, however, remains sequestered in the past.
Attitudes toward gay people and their right to civil equality have also changed significantly since 2000. More and more people -- including a considerable number of evangelical Christians -- have grown weary of Christiantist leaders’ vituperative attacks on gay and lesbian Americans and their obsessive ranting about gay marriage, while ignoring virtually all other social concerns.
Over ninety percent of Fortune 500 companies now have anti-discrimination policies that protect gays. More and more companies, colleges and universities, states and municipalities are offering same-sex domestic partner benefits, despite challenges and litigation from the Christianist Right’s legal minions.
The Los Angeles Times conducted a poll after the state’s Supreme Court’s decision. The question posed was “Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision?” The results, as of May 18, reflect the changing times and attitudes. Of the 35,257 respondents 75.8 percent said “yes,” while only 24.2 percent said “no.” Other poll results sound the same note:
63 percent say gay marriage is a choiceJun. 3, 2008 04:46 PMUSA TodaySix in ten Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can wed the persons they choose, a new survey finds.As same-sex couples start lining up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found 63 percent of adults say same-sex marriage is “strictly a private decision” between two people.
Then there’s reality and basic common sense. Jonathan Rauch, senior writer with National Journal and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, made the case in his June 21 Wall Street Journal article “Gay Marriage Is Good for America”:
Marriage, remember, is not just a contract between two people. It is a contract that two people make, as a couple, with their community – which is why there is always a witness. Two people can't go into a room by themselves and come out legally married. The partners agree to take care of each other so the community doesn't have to. In exchange, the community deems them a family, binding them to each other and to society with a host of legal and social ties.This is a fantastically fruitful bargain. Marriage makes you, on average, healthier, happier and wealthier. If you are a couple raising kids, marrying is likely to make them healthier, happier and wealthier, too. Marriage is our first and best line of defense against financial, medical and emotional meltdown. It provides domesticity and a safe harbor for sex. It stabilizes communities by formalizing responsibilities and creating kin networks. And its absence can be calamitous, whether in inner cities or gay ghettos.In 2008, denying gay Americans the opportunity to marry is not only inhumane, it is unsustainable. History has turned a corner: Gay couples -- including gay parents -- live openly and for the most part comfortably in mainstream life. This will not change, ever.Because parents want happy children, communities want responsible neighbors, employers want productive workers, and governments want smaller welfare caseloads, society has a powerful interest in recognizing and supporting same-sex couples. It will either fold them into marriage or create alternatives to marriage, such as publicly recognized and subsidized cohabitation. Conservatives often say same-sex marriage should be prohibited because it does not exemplify the ideal form of family. They should consider how much less ideal an example gay couples will set by building families and raising children out of wedlock.
Mr. Rauch’s statements are echoed by every legitimate medical and sociological association in America and are well summarized in this fact sheet from the American Psychological Association.
Dobson made two other statements in his June 2008 diatribe that attest to his being out of focus not only in relation to American families, but in relation to reality itself: "Has it occurred to Californians to consider what amounts to another 'recall election' for the four justices who have disregarded the institution of marriage? . . .
"Marriage is not simply a Judeo-Christian concept, although it finds its origins in the Garden of Eden. The Creator said to Adam and Eve, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.'" [Genesis 2:24, NIV]
Anyone who doesn’t agree with Dobson is wrong, immoral and anti-American -- sanctimonious megalomania at its darkest. To suggest judges who upheld constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens be “recalled” speaks to Dobson’s theofascist agenda.
Apparently Dr. Dobson is unaware of the fact that the civil institution of marriage is not a “Judeo-Christian concept” and existed long before Jehovah was created. But the truly scary part is that Dobson believes Adam and Eve were real people and lived in the Garden of Eden . . . no doubt along with Tyrannosaurs Rex.
Since he obviously takes the Bible as literal history and the final word on morality and living a truly “Christian” life, shouldn’t Dr. Dobson hear, honor and obey the words of Jesus before he claims to “stand up for Christ” again: “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” [Luke 18:22, NIV]
Dobson and the other leaders of the Christianist Right live large. One has to wonder how they justify that given Jesus’ explicit directive. Or maybe that’s one of those “outdated” Biblical edicts they feel so justified in ignoring when it suits their social-political purposes.
The Focus on the Family chairman ended his “passionate” June 2008 message with more irrationality: "let me remind you that California and the rest of the country would not be in the mess it is in if the U.S. Congress had not ignored and run from their duty to protect the institution of the family. All three presidential candidates voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment, and to my knowledge, not a one of them has uttered a word about the preservation of the traditional family. Honestly, we have to assume that they don’t give a hoot about marriage." [italics added]
“Protect the institution of the family?” If “the family” is in danger, it’s certainly not from same-sex couples who have fought so hard for the right to marry and have their families recognized. Perhaps Dobson has in mind a constitutional amendment making divorce illegal. Probably not though, since that would hurt his power-base as the 2004 Barna Group report, titled “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians,” documented: “among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.” Barna also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23%) get divorced two or more times.”
“Preservation of the traditional family.” Does Dobson really think that gay and lesbian Americans marrying will cause heterosexuals to stop marrying? Does Dobson really think that gay and lesbian Americans marrying will cause all existing “traditional families” to self-destruct? Can anyone really be that irrational, that delusional?
“We have to assume that they don’t give a hoot about marriage”: the ultimate non sequitur. How typical that a deceptive, deceiving charlatan prefaces such an absurdity with “honestly.”
Obviously Dobson wants to amend the U.S. Constitution so that it denies civil rights rather than protecting them. A new version of the Federal Marriage Amendment -- now dubbed the “Marriage Protection Amendment” -- has been introduced into the U.S. Senate. Two of the senators who “have named themselves as co-sponsors of S. J. RES. 43” are particularly noteworthy:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who was arrested June 11, 2007 on charges of lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport terminal, is co-sponsoring the amendment along with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA).Craig, who entered a guilty plea to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct, was detained and charged for attempting to engage in sexual activity with a male undercover police officer. His arrest and plea became public two months later. At that time, Craig attempted to withdraw his plea and enter a new plea of not guilty. To date, his efforts have been denied by the courts.In July of 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of a prostitution firm owned by the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, commonly known as The DC Madam.
Now that’s hypocrisy on a par with the antics of one of Dobson’s old buddies, Ted Haggard. It’s also akin to that of Rev. R. Albert Mohler, ninth president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the board of Focus on the Family who, not surprisingly, supported Dobson’s criticism of Mr. Obama. You remember Rev. Mohler, the “sanctity of life” guy who had no problem with eugenics as long as those exterminated were gays.
On March 2, 2007, Mohler published an article titled “Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?” In it he implicitly acknowledged that sexual orientation has a genetic component and/or is hormonally determined prior to birth, but looked forward to the day when medical science could change that: "If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin . . ."
Biblical literalists have always argued against any pre-natal meddling with a fetus, claiming that whatever the fetus was, was its God-given birthright. Funny how that thinking changes so radically when gay people are involved. Mohler’s pre-natal genetic cleansing proposal is nothing less than a 21st century theofascist program of eugenics.
The more they pontificate, the more the self-righteous leaders of the Christianist Right contradict themselves and expose their theofascist agenda. Yet a considerable number of Americans continue to support these bigots and hate-mongers who hide behind “religion.” Why? Could it be that they share the same Schadenfreude needs? Or has religion just made them too scared to think for themselves and see reality as it is?In memory of the late George Carlin and his reality-based thoughts about religion . . .
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

The Coming Catastrophe?

The finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iran

Global Research Editor's note:
We bring to the attention of our readers David DeBatto's scenario as to what might occur if one of the several contingency plans to attack Iran, with the participation of Israel and NATO, were to be carried out. While one may disagree with certain elements of detail of the author's text, the thrust of this analysis must be taken seriously.


"Israel has said a strike on Iran will be "unavoidable" if the Islamic regime continues to press ahead with alleged plans for building an atom-bomb." (London Daily Telegraph, 6/11/2008)
"Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany joined President Bush on Wednesday in calling for further sanctions against Iran if it does not suspend its uranium enrichment program." Mr. Bush stressed again that "all options are on the table," which would include military force. (New York Times, 6/11/2008)

We are fast approaching the final six months of the Bush administration. The quagmire in Iraq is in its sixth painful year with no real end in sight and the forgotten war in Afghanistan is well into its seventh year. The "dead enders" and other armed factions are still alive and well in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan again controls most of that country. Gas prices have now reached an average of $4.00 a gallon nationally and several analysts predict the price will rise to $5.00-$6.00 dollars per gallon at the pump by Labor Day. This, despite assurances by some major supporters of the decision to invade Iraq that the Iraq war "will pay for itself" (Paul Wolfowitz) or that we will see "$20.00 per barrel" oil prices if we invade Iraq (Rupert Murdoch).

One thing the Pentagon routinely does (and does very well) is conduct war games. Top brass there are constantly developing strategies for conducting any number of theoretical missions based on real or perceived threats to our national security or vital interests. This was also done prior to the invasion of Iraq, but the Bush administration chose not to listen to the dire warnings about that mission given to him by Pentagon leaders, or for that matter, by his own senior intelligence officials. Nevertheless, war gaming is in full swing again right now with the bullseye just to the right of our current mess – Iran.

It’s no secret that the U.S. is currently putting the finishing touches on several contingency plans for attacking Iranian nuclear and military facilities. With our ground forces stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of the most likely scenarios involve a ground invasion. Not that this administration wouldn’t prefer to march into the seat of Shiite Islam behind a solid, moving line of M1 Abrams tanks and proclaim the country for democracy. The fact is that even the President knows we can’t pull that off any more so he and the neo-cons will have to settle for Shock and Awe Lite.

If we invade Iran this year it will be done using hundreds of sorties by carrier based aircraft already stationed in the Persian Gulf and from land based aircraft located in Iraq and Qatar. They will strike the known nuclear facilities located in and around Tehran and the rest of the country as well as bases containing major units of the Iranian military, anti-aircraft installations and units of the Revolutionary Guard (a separate and potent Iranian para-military organization).

Will this military action stop Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons? Probably not. It will probably not even destroy all of their nuclear research facilities, the most sensitive of which are known to be underground, protected by tons of earth and reinforced concrete and steel designed to survive almost all attacks using conventional munitions. The Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard will most likely survive as well, although they will suffer significant casualties and major bases and command centers will undoubtedly be destroyed. However, since Iran has both a functioning Air Force, Navy (including submarines) and modern anti-aircraft capabilities, U.S. fighter-bombers will suffer casualties as well. This will not be a "Cake Walk" as with the U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the Iraqi Army simply melted away and the Iraqi Air Force never even launched a single aircraft.

Not even close.

If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War II.

That’s just the opening act.

Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated and large scale effort. Widespread and grisly casualties effectively paralyze the nation, a notion once thought impossible. Iran’s newest ally in the region, Syria, then unleashes a barrage of over 200 Scud B, C and D missiles at Israel, each armed with VX gas. Since all of Israel is within range of these Russian built weapons, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and virtually all major civilian centers and several military bases are struck, often with a result of massive casualties.

The Israeli Air Force orders all three squadrons of their F-16I Sufa fighter/bombers into the air with orders to bomb Tehran and as many military and nuclear bases as they can before they are either shot down or run out of fuel. It is a one way trip for some of these pilots. Their ancient homeland lies in ruins. Many have family that is already dead or dying. They do not wait for permission from Washington, DC or U.S. regional military commanders. The Israeli aircraft are carrying the majority of their country’s nuclear arsenal under their wings.

Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties.

The day after the invasion Wall Street (and to a lesser extent, Tokyo, London and Frankfurt) acts as it always does in an international crisis – irrational speculative and spot buying reaches fever pitch and sends the cost of oil skyrocketing. In the immediate aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iran, the price of oil goes to $200.00 - $300.00 dollars a barrel on the open market. If the war is not resolved in a few weeks, that price could rise even higher. This will send the price of gasoline at the pump in this country to $8.00-$10.00 per gallon immediately and subsequently to even higher unthinkable levels.

If that happens, this country shuts down. Most Americans are not be able to afford gas to go to work. Truckers pull their big rigs to the side of the road and simply walk away. Food, medicine and other critical products are not be brought to stores. Gas and electricity (what is left of the short supply) are too expensive for most people to afford. Children, the sick and elderly die from lack of air-conditioned homes and hospitals in the summer. Children, the sick and elderly die in the winter for lack of heat. There are food riots across the country. A barter system takes the place of currency and credit as the economy dissolves and banks close or limit withdrawals. Civil unrest builds.

The police are unable to contain the violence and are themselves victims of the same crisis as the rest of the population. Civilian rule dissolves and Martial Law is declared under provisions approved under the Patriot Act. Regular U.S. Army and Marine troops patrol the streets. The federal government apparatus is moved to an unknown but secure location. The United States descends into chaos and becomes a third world country. Its time as the lone superpower is over.

It doesn’t get any worse than this.

Then the first Israeli bomber drops its nuclear payload on Tehran.

David DeBatto is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, Iraqi war veteran and co-author the "CI" series from Warner Books and the upcoming "Counter to Intelligence" from Praeger Security International.


Global Research Articles by David DeBatto

Bush Arrested

Special Comments, G. Bush Shut the Hell Up

Click Here

Dave Barry on the Economic Stimulus Payment

I hope this wasn't a real interview

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: pers-656058113@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-04-25, 11:40AM PDT

"This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.

"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. Only a smidgen.

"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?
"A. Shut up."


it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests

PostingID: 656058113

Put Impeachment Back on the Table

An Open Letter to John Conyers

By RALPH NADER

Chairman John Conyers
House Judiciary Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Conyers:

Prominent Constitutional law experts believe President Bush has engaged in at least, five categories of repeated, defiant "high crimes and misdemeanors", which separately or together would allow Congress to subject the President to impeachment under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. The sworn oath of members of Congress is to uphold the Constitution. Failure of the members of Congress to pursue impeachment of President Bush is an affront to the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the people of the United States.

In addition to a criminal war of aggression in Iraq, in violation of our constitution, statutes and treaties, there are the arrests of thousands of Americans and their imprisonment without charges, the spying on Americans without juridical warrant, systematic torture, and the unprecedented wholesale, defiant signing statements declaring that the President, in his unbridled discretion, is the law.

In 2005, a plurality of the American people polled declared that they would favor impeachment of President Bush if it was shown that he did not tell the truth about the reasons for going to War in Iraq. Congress should use its authority under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution to officially determine what President Bush knew before going to war in Iraq.

Your files and retrieval systems are bulging with over-whelming evidence behind all these five categories. When constitutional duty combines with the available evidence, inaction amounts to a suppression of that evidence from constitutional implementation.

When the Democrats were heading for a net election gain in 2006 in the House of Representatives, many observers of presidential accountability entertained the hope that the Judiciary Committee, with its new chairman, would hold hearings on an impeachment resolution. No way! The next backup was the belief that there would an impeachment inquiry (fortified by your own op-ed in the The Washington Post) No way! The next lowered expectation backup was just a hearing on impeachment urged by several of your present and former Congressional colleagues. So far, no way!

The fourth fallback was simply a hearing on the criminal and constitutional violations of Bush-Cheney by your Committee, as urged in a letter sent to you earlier this year by, among others, several of your former Congressional colleagues, including Senators George McGovern and James Abourezk, and Representatives Andy Jacobs and Paul Findley, along with Rocky Anderson, former mayor of Salt Lake City, and the undersigned. So far, no progress.

There is another option: do nothing. Since January 2007 - the politically expedient option of doing nothing has triumphed. Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and their colleagues had just these kinds of monarchical abuses and violations in their framework of anticipation.

Declarations by Bush on the somber occasion of the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this past March 20, 2008 demonstrated his criminal, unconstitutional arrogance and his confidence that this Democratic Congress will continue to be cowed, continue its historic cowardliness, and continue to leave the American people without representation. Even should he unilaterally attack Iran. The Democratic Party has abandoned its critical role as an opposition Party in this and other serious matters.

In a January 6, 2008 op-ed in The Washington Post, former Senator George McGovern wrote an eloquently reasoned plea for the impeachment of George W. Bush. More than two out of three polled Americans want out of Iraq, believing it was a costly mistake.

Repeatedly during the past seven years, Mr. Bush has lectured the American people about "responsibility" and that actions with consequences must incur responsibility.

It is never too late to enforce the Constitution. It is never too late to uphold the rule of law. It is never too late to awaken the Congress to its sworn duties under the Constitution. But it will soon be too late to avoid the searing verdict of history when on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush becomes a fugitive from a justice that was never invoked by those in Congress so solely authorized to hold the President accountable.

Is this the massive Bush precedent you and your colleagues wish to convey to presidential successors who may be similarly tempted to establish themselves above and beyond the rule of law?

Is this the way you and your colleagues wish to be remembered by the American people?

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader