Archive for category Civil liberties Infringement
Glenn Beck vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Posted by Richard Warnick in Activist groups, American History, Bigotry, Civil liberties Infringement, Conservative, Glenn Beck, Human Rights, Hypocrisy, Martin Luther King, National Politics, Racism, Tea Bag Party on August 26, 2010
Glenn Beck is Not Martin Luther King, Jr.
On Saturday, Glenn Beck wants to “reclaim the civil rights movement” for right-wingers. Huh? The right was always against equality, and still is.
August 28th is an important day in American history. On that day, forty-seven years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream Speech” at the Lincoln Memorial. His message gave voice to the voiceless and his vision promoted a just, equal, diverse and compassionate country.
This year, a very different message is going to be spread from the very ground on which King once stood. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will hold a rally at the Lincoln Memorial.
The racist, raging and hate-filled tenor of Beck, Palin and the Tea Party movement is in direct contrast to the noble vision of Dr. King. We cannot sit idly by and let King’s vision and legacy be hijacked for political purposes.
Dr. King once declared that “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
We will not be silent on this matter. Honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s struggle for a just and equal America.
It’s almost impossible to think of two well-known Americans who could be more opposite than Glenn Beck and Martin Luther King, Jr. Unlike the 1963 March on Washington, Beck’s event is a purely partisan affair (how did he get a National Park Service permit for a political event?) Unlike MLK, Beck says he won’t have a prepared speech. He says he’ll be channeling The Almighty. God speaks to Beck, Beck tells the people!
More info:
Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have a Dream” from American Rhetoric.
UPDATE: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) will also speak along with Beck and Sarah Palin at Saturday’s all-Republican “non-political” event. Which is technically being sponsored by a veterans’ charity to get around National Park Service rules.
UPDATE: JM Bell: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Glenn Beck – A Comparison
UPDATE: REPORT: Glenn Beck’s Philosophy Is Opposed To Everything Martin Luther King, Jr. Stood For
It’s difficult to find two people whose philosophies are so distinctly different than Glenn Beck and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. While King fought for all people to be able to live a decent life, championed a compassionate version of Christianity that sought to create a better world, and established dialogue with those who disagreed with him, Beck shows little compassion for those worse off, has derided the social gospel, and has viciously smeared and attacked his political opponents. As Media Matters writes, “Martin Luther King would have been on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.”
UPDATE: John Nichols: No, Glenn Beck Is Not a Civil Rights Icon
Tea Partyers Say Net Neutrality Hurts Freedom
Posted by Richard Warnick in Activist groups, Civil liberties Infringement, Conservative, National Politics, Tea Bag Party, The Constitution, This Blog, the Internet on August 16, 2010
Via TPM, one more addition to the growing collection of hilarious headlines that begin with “Tea Partyers Say…”
The tea party, a movement whose success on the grassroots level is in many ways attributable to the power of free and open Internet communications, is joining the growing conservative crusade against the FCC’s plan to enforce net neutrality on internet service providers. According to one tea partier involved in the effort, the movement is opposing net neutrality because “it’s an affront to free speech and free markets.”
To sum up, the Tea Party is all in favor of Freedom and Equality — except for the freedoms and equality guaranteed by the Constitution in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the 14th Amendment.
On HuffPo, Robert Creamer tries to explain what’s up with the Tea Party extremists. They’re making the mistake of going public with the GOP policy agenda (emphasis added).
The main difference is the willingness of the Tea Party gang to say what they believe out loud. This, of course, is driving Republican political consultants crazy. Republicans have never gotten elected by laying out to the voters the core components of their economic agenda. When they have been successful it has generally been by soft-pedaling or sugar-coating the things that mattered most to their corporate backers and playing instead to the fears and anxieties of their rank and file voters.
Who’s in favor of net neutrality? Everybody who believes in free speech. Who’s opposed? ADC, Alcatel-Lucent, AT&T, Cisco, Comcast, Qwest, Time Warner, and Verizon. Google seems to be switching sides from good to evil, despite their corporate motto.
What would happen if the corporations were allowed to take away net neutrality? The Internet would become more like cable TV, with corporate control over how different types of content can be accessed.
UPDATE: AT&T claims net neutrality is oppressive
UPDATE: House Dems: FCC Must Reject Google-Verizon Deal To Ensure Net Neutrality
UPDATE: Tea Party Groups Out AGAINST Net Neutrality
UPDATE: Four Dem members of Congress stand up for net neutrality.
Sandstrom: My Anti-Immigrant Bill is Tougher Than Arizona’s
Posted by Richard Warnick in Civil liberties Infringement, Immigration, National Politics, Racism, Tea Bag Party, The Constitution, This Blog, Utah Legislature, Utah Politics on August 13, 2010
“Patrick Henry Caucus” founder Rep. Steven Sandstrom unveiled his anti-immigrant bill today, at a raucous press conference in the Utah State Capitol.
Similar to the Arizona “Papers Please” law, Sandstrom’s bill is intended to crack down in illegal immigration by forcing police to determine the citizenship of people they pull over and allowing Utahns to sue agencies that don’t pursue illegal immigrants to the full extent of the law.
Surrounded by protesters, Sandstrom said his bill goes further than Arizona’s SB 1070. Others call the new bill “SB 1070 lite.”
(Provo Daily Herald video)
Sandstrom’s anti-immigrant bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives during the 2011 legislative session that begins in January. Just what we needed — another right-wing “message bill” that’s unconstitutional on its face.
More info:
KSL-TV: Rep. Sandstrom unveils Utah immigration law
Provo Daily Herald: Sandstrom: My bill is tougher than Arizona’s
Related One Utah posts:
A Special Message to the Utah Patrick Henry Caucus (July 28)
Show Us Your Papers! (May 19)
AZ ‘Papers Please’ Law Unconstitutional and Un-American (May 17)
Your Papers, Please… (April 27)
“The gibberish of diversity, equality, tolerance, pluralism or multiculturalism has rendered you irrelevant”
Posted by Cliff Lyon in Bigotry, Civil liberties Infringement, Equality, GLBT issues, Homophobia, Hypocrisy, Religious Fundamentalism, Sex, Tea Bag Party, Tribalism & Blind Obedience to Authority, Utah Politics, utah on August 6, 2010
I saw this comment on Bagley’s latest and I just had to post it. If you live in Utah, this is par for the course. But for our wider audience (the rest of the modern world), this is REAL!
Yep, its true, there are very serious, not legally insane people who really DO say AND BELIEVE this:
etb says:
In a society that has abolished all boundaries, the only boundary left is to abolish that society.That’s the endgame in this “race to the bottom” scenario. Your allegiance to “moral relativism” under the guise of “honoring” the gibberish of diversity, equality, tolerance, pluralism or multiculturalism has rendered you irrelevant in any discussion about the state of the culture.
You are the fruit of a mass media educated population. All the self-esteem in the world, but you can’t think, or argue, your way out of a wet paper-bag. You are the type of people who have been groomed to welcome the economic and cultural calamities all around us. Your life mantra hasn’t changed since the 60s, if it feels good…do it!
These latest rounds of various court rulings are more of the circus of the absurd, only important in chronicling the speed of the decline and debauchery of reason. That being said, I’ve done what I can do. I’m going out dancing, not sitting in a cave. You enjoy the affects of the blue pill as long as the ride lasts.
Copyright 2010 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved.
Hope is Fading Away
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Civil liberties Infringement, Democrats, Disaster, Economy, Health Care, National Politics, Party Politics, This Blog, Unemployment on July 16, 2010
John Harris and Jim VandeHei yesterday wrote a Politico article in which unnamed White House functionaries complain that the administration isn’t getting enough credit for bringing the change promised in the 2008 campaign.
Digby offers a few thoughts that are obvious to those of us outside the Beltway:
First of all, the central premise seems to be that liberals should be happy that Obama has “gotten something done” without regard to what that “something” is. But the fact is that professional politicians always rattle off a legislative laundry list while activists care about process, politics and policy — and average voters only care about the results.
…Therefore, his political advisers should know that when the country is still reeling from unemployment and foreclosures after nearly two years, the passage of an inadequate stimulus bill, which unrealistic benchmarks and a giddy victory party ensured would be the only chance they got, the only people who will consider that a “success” would be beltway insiders. They should have realized that a health care bill that nobody in their right minds would have designed from scratch, the worst aspects of which liberals will be asked to defend for years to come, would be met with dampened enthusiasm by those who watched the process devolve from a sense of progressive purpose to an exhausting farce. They are expected to be able to predict that financial reform without accountability for what’s gone before, combined with the administration’s unwillingness to confront the civil liberties abuses of the last administration — indeed expanding on them in some cases — would show a lack of fundamental concern for justice among those who care about such things.
Since the Village is essentially a Republican town perhaps they assumed that liberals were all going to be the same dead-enders the Bush cultists were, defending their man until the day he was out of office (and then insisting they never liked him in the first place). That’s what “little people” (and paid political hacks) are supposed to do. But liberals are not known for cultlike devotion to their leaders — ask Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter.
Like I said, some things are obvious outside the Beltway.
Matheson Ducks My Question
Posted by Larry Bergan in Civil liberties Infringement, Corruption, Democracy, Iraq, JIm Matheson, The Constitution, This Blog, congress on June 20, 2010
Did you know Jim Matheson used to hold actual town meetings. I have proof because I recorded one of them on September 1st 2005. It was a pretty good turn out too; I estimate between 150 to 200 people showed up. In retrospect, I think the recording of my question to Matheson is revealing. The recording is not of great quality, but you can hear what was said here:matheson and me.
I hated to even post this because I know congresspeople have to deal with things I could never imagine in relation to the harm, political or otherwise, which could be thrown at somebody who gave the wrong answer to a hot question like this one.
To exclaim that illegal wiretapping or invasion of other countries was planned before 911 is simply something that is not talked about. Period; exclamation point!
I just have a couple of points here.
An inaudible portion of the audio was after I congratulated congressman Matheson for voting against what became known as the “Patriot Act II.” He got more applause for that then anything in the first 30 minutes of the meeting and jokingly said something like: “OK, good day! We’re done here, we’re going home now!” Here’s what makes me angry about this. This was an open meeting in “red state” Utah where Matheson always says he has to vote with his constituents. I’ve always believed that Utahn’s of any stripe never liked the “Patriot Act” and this is the best proof of that I can offer, but here’s the kicker: although Matheson voted against THAT particular bill, shortly after that meeting he voted FOR another bill which included some of the worst provisions of the first one AND eventually voted for the terribly unconstitutional bill called “The Military Commissions Act of 2006.”
Concerning my question which Matheson didn’t and couldn’t answer, he did actually bring up a very good point about the phony “weapons of mass destruction” ploy which got us into the war. What makes me angry about that answer was Matheson’s saying the democrats don’t have any power in congress and gave that as the reason why nothing could be done about it.
Which party has been in power for years now Mr. Matheson? When is the “party of the people” going to let up on pushing the little guy around and get tough on the REAL crimes happening in the “greatest democracy on the face of the earth.”
I say it’s time for a change!
What’s Up With This?
Posted by Larry Bergan in American People, Civil liberties Infringement, Society on May 21, 2010
Note: The embed code won’t take here so I’m hoping the link code will, otherwise this post is toast.
Sometimes I don’t want to be tracked.
What if an employee of Microsoft wanted an iPad and now has to worry Mr. Bill will be onto him? Why can’t I just delete something from my computer and just have it deleted so that when I sell the damn thing, I won’t have to worry somebody might HAVE something on me? Why were the Telecoms given retroactive immunity from illegally spying on me by the congress? Why won’t Apple comment on this?
In other words: what the hey!
Funny picture:
That’s Gonna Leave a Mark: Rachel Maddow’s Interview of Rand Paul
Posted by Glenden Brown in Activist groups, American History, American People, Civil liberties Infringement, Conservative, Liberal, This Blog on May 21, 2010
Rachel Maddow’s devastating interview with Rand Paul was painful to watch; I’m sure for Paul it was even more painful for Paul as a participant. Maddow often comes across as very soft-spoken and gentle but she possesses a first rate intellect and an iron will; without being belligerent, rude, or pounding her first on the table, she insistently and firmly pushed Paul to answer a question he did not want to answer on the record.
Ta Neheisi Coates shrewdly observed:
That interview would have went a lot better for Rand Paul if Maddow had have just thrown her notes in the air and accused him of being a bigot, and a covert member of the Klan. That’s what they want. And I don’t simply mean conservatives–I mean people you disagree with. I know I’ve won a debate when my adversary says, “What the fuck type of name is Ta-Nuh-hah-see, anyway?” It translates to “I’ve got nothing.” Much scarier is the opponent who takes your argument, with whatever nuances it may or may not possess, and politely disagrees with the argument as it is.
Show Us Your Papers!
Posted by Richard Warnick in Barack Obama, Civil liberties Infringement, Equality, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, National Politics, Racism, The Constitution, This Blog on May 19, 2010
Thanks ACLU. Tell it like it is.
Arizona’s new racial profiling law is as outrageous as it is unconstitutional. In this ACLU video, the people of Arizona show us the only papers they need in the United States: the Constitution.
First Lady Michelle Obama learned about this issue first-hand today from a second-grader in Silver Spring, Maryland. Via Think Progress:
ABC News’ Karen Travers reports:
The student shyly raised her hand and said, “My mom … she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers.”
Mrs. Obama replied: “Yeah, well that’s something that we have to work on, right? To make sure that people can be here with the right kind of papers, right? That’s exactly right.”
The girl then said quietly, “But my mom doesn’t have any …” and trailed off.
Mrs. Obama replied: “Well, we have to work on that. We have to fix that, and everybody’s got to work together in Congress to make sure that happens. That’s right.”
We need a court injunction to stop Arizona’s racist immigration law NOW. Where is the Obama Department of Justice on this?
UPDATE: Dan Froomkin: The second-grader’s mother has a good reason to be worried because the Obama administration has stepped up deportations, particularly of “non-criminal aliens.”
AZ ‘Papers, Please’ Law Unconstitutional and Un-American
Posted by Richard Warnick in Civil liberties Infringement, Equality, Foreign Policy, Hypocrisy, Immigration, National Politics, Racism, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Tea Bag Party, The Constitution, This Blog, Utah Politics on May 17, 2010
On a lonely Phoenix street in April, a police officer pulled behind Jim Shee’s parked BMW and asked to see his “papers.” Shee, 70, who had pulled over to the side of the road to check text messages on his cell phone, responded, “I hope you mean my registration and license.”
The police officer said Shee was being questioned because he was “suspicious.” It’s typical… in April, he was pulled over twice in less than two weeks.
“DWB,” said Shee, who is of Chinese and Spanish descent. “It’s ‘driving while brown’ … when he saw me all he saw was brown.”
The new Arizona immigration law is probably never going to be enforced. States have no power over immigration because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either. Over the past few weeks, we’ve been treated to the spectacle of all the putative Constitution-defenders on the right rallying to support this patently unconstitutional law.
Predictably, former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has joined in.
This pretty much cancels out all the “we’re not racists” claims of the Tea Party movement too.
Announcing a lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix on Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union and other rights group described the law as “un-American” and an invitation to racially profile individuals.
“Arizona’s law is quintessentially un-American: we are not a ’show me your papers’ country, nor one that believes in subjecting people to harassment, investigation and arrest simply because others may perceive them as foreign,” said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This law violates the Constitution and interferes with federal law, and we are confident that we will prevent it from ever taking effect.”
Here, for the benefit of some people who have asked me to explain why the Arizona law is unconstitutional, is the cite (emphasis added):
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Arizona law would criminalize not only undocumented immigrants, but anybody who helps them or who fails to carry paperwork proving legal status at all times. It would be impossible for the police to carry out a mandate to check anybody who they have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally, without engaging in profiling or violating our basic civil rights.
If this law is allowed to take effect, people with brown skin – regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens or legal residents – will be forced to prove their legal status to law enforcement officers over and over. One-third of Arizona’s population – those who are Latino – will be designated as second-class citizens.
Perhaps encouraged by recent polls, Utah Rep. Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem) is already drafting a bill just as unconstitutional and oppressive as the Arizona law. Governor Herbert had to cancel a special session of the Utah legislature to avoid a repeat of the Arizona fiasco.
It’s up to the courts to put a stop to this immediately. Our fundamental rights as Americans are at stake. Again. Thanks to the pseudo-patriots who don’t understand our Constitution.
Related One Utah posts:
Your Papers, Please… (April 27, 2010)
Jim Crow in Arizona (April 27, 2010)
killed
wounded
Recent Comments