Barack Obama spent the Fourth of July in Montana. A Red State. A state that few think he can win. A state that gave huge margins to George Bush the past two elections.

But here he was. On Independence Day. Marching in a parade. Hosting a picnic for hundreds. Trying to rally support for his Presidential run. Trying to show that he can appeal to voters of every political, social, and economic demographic. His web site tells us he “shook hands, kissed babies, signed autographs and posed for pictures.” Patriotism just oozed out of his every pore.

Barack Obama is now as patriotic as the electorate wants him to be. During most of the primaries, he didn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel. He didn’t think wearing pins makes one patriotic, or not wearing one makes someone unpatriotic. But, the right-wing lambasted him for that. Now he wears a flag pin.

And every speech he makes, he is now flanked by several American flags. Just in case anyone thinks he isn’t patriotic. Or is a foreigner. Or worse, a Muslim.

Barack Obama has changed in other ways. Once he said he would pull the U.S. out of Iraq. End that war. Now, he’s calling for a phased withdrawal.

Once, he opposed innumerable pieces of legislation sent to the Senate by the Bush-Cheney Administration—and which a Republican Congress rubber stamped. Now, as the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, he voted a bill that granted immunity to telephone companies that violated both established federal law and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution when they voluntarily gave personal data about subscribers to the government.

Once, he said he would accept government restrictions and decline the excessive private contributions that have muddied politics. Now, with a campaign war chest at least two or three times greater than John McCain’s, he changed his mind and is taking whatever he can get—and doesn’t have to report who gave what.

Barack Obama isn’t the only politician to forsake some of his principles for the greater principle—do whatever it takes to get elected. Hillary Clinton moved more to the center when she began to think she could be the next president, and even voted for the renewal of the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act. John McCain, by any standards a conservative, began playing even more to the right-wing when the evangelical Christians challenged some of his beliefs and voting record. Every politician, even the most maverick ones, say they need to get elected to do whatever it is they want to do. But, once in office they continue to do whatever is necessary to stay in office and get re-elected.

Barack Obama, like every other politician, needs to reflect upon the principles of what the Founding Fathers wanted. And maybe every politician should decide that on this Independence Day weekend, it is time to declare that once and forever they will follow their convictions, their beliefs, and declare themselves to be independent, now and forever, not only of special interests, but also of pandering for votes.

[Walter Brasch has covered politics and presidential campaigns more than 40 years. He is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University, a syndicated columnist, occasional contributor to ASZ, and author of 17 books. His latest book is Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available through amazon.com and other stores.]

From the Jersey Shore, July 5, 2008:

I don’t usually check in with ASZ while “downashore,” as they call it in Philly. Only something momentous could cuase me to do so, such as a casual meeting with Michael Smerconish at the ice cream shop, or with outgoing State Senator Vince Fumo on the beach (I’m not moved by Vince’s last speech in the State Senate.) Yeah, they both frequent this town, and I’ve written extensively about their lapses in the past. But we had momentous news this 4th of July, the death of Jesse Helms, and two comments by the Killer Bs, Greorge Bush and Pat Buchanon, have driven me to break out the laptop.

Jesse Helms has been retired since 2002, and, frankly, given what divisiveness and racist tactics have brought to the Republican Party, I expected few in public life to lend the press some kind words for their obituaries. Helms’ advertising campaign against Harvey Gantt in 1990 was a bald use of racism, and he kept his seat, not caring one whit for African American voters, while just a few years later the GOP was wondering why its stances are not attractive to African Americans. Perhaps they should have looked to North Carolina. Helms led the way in denying funds for AIDS research in an era when the main spread of AIDS moved from the gay community to the African American community, thereby insulting two groups of voters. (Helms wouldn’t even speak to Ryan White’s Mom.) Still the Republican establish stood in wonder at why some constituencies simply wouldn’t vote for them.

Wonder no more, Republicans, why so many constituencies in America have turned against you. Sure, the criminal involvement in the Iraq War is doing no good, but statements from President Bush yesterday, and from Pat Buchanon, show pretty conclusively why there’s just not much support nationwide for Republican leaders anymore. (Maybe there would be in North Carolina, though this year’s Presidential race might prove that worng.)

Without further ado, here’s President Bush’s words about Senator Jesse Helms, from this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

“Jesse Helms was a kind, decent and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called ‘the Miracle of America.’ So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the Fourth of July,” President Bush said in a statement.

I can find many words for Jesse Helms. Some of them might be complimentary. For instance, Mr. Helms was a staunch and reliable supporter of conservative causes, no matter how immoral and outdated. To be “staunch” is a good thing, no? But I could not use the word “kind,” given Helms’ treatment of the mother of Ryan White, an innocent young boy who suffered from AIDS, for it is clear Helms snubbed the boy as a political move so as not to show a chink in his anti-gay armour. A disgraceful move by Helms, that was one that should disqualify anyone from using the word “kind” in referring to him.

Pat Buchanon went one better than President Bush with his line in the same article:

Commentator Patrick J. Buchanan, speaking on MSNBC, put Sen. Helms in the company of the late President Ronald Reagan, calling the former senator “the second most important conservative of the second half of the 20th century.”

I suppose Pat Buchanon believes in his statement, and I might agree with it if what he meant was that Helms helped lead to the ruin of the conservative movement in the Republican Party. That would make Helms “important,” surely. But let’s take Pat Buchanon at face value. Other than the Bush campaign smear campaign in South Carolina in 2000, one racist enough to match Helms’ life work, I’m thinking Republicans generally steer away from anything that could be thought to form Jesse Helms’ legacy. Isn’t that the notion of “important” you’d think Buchanon means, that Helms is a model to Republicans? Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m betting there is nobody, not even Mitch McConnell, who would say they model themselves after Jesse Helms. Indeed, while Republicans fall all over themselves to mention Ronald Reagan in their speeches, I’m betting none refer to Jesse Helms while campaigning. Buchanon thinks the most poisonous figure in American politics in the last 60 years is the second most important conservative? No wonder conservatism is rejecting Republicans.

Does this look familiar?

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…

(more…)

Controversial former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms has died at the age of 86. The following two quotes from Jesse Helms are not, on their surface, offensive…which is why they are so important.

I believe they provide insight into understanding the motivations behind all of the other reprehensible Jesse Helms quotations. You see, what you will find in the hearts of many who are outspoken is an unfortunate and misguided righteousness derived from their religious beliefs. He had every right to his beliefs. Unfortunately, some of his actions suggest he didn’t support the same for others.

“I want our government to encourage and protect freedom as well as our traditions of faith and family.”

“I have tried at every point to seek God’s wisdom on the decisions I made, and I made it my business to speak up on behalf of the things God tells us are important to Him.”

Note in the first quote how the protection of freedom is modified by the need to support traditions of faith and family. In other words, freedom should be available to those whose notions of faith and family comports with his own. The inference is that those who do not support his notion of faith and family may not deserve the same freedoms.

In the second quote, we see the certainty to enact the beliefs expressed in the first quote…and to do so unabashedly. Again, this Helms quote implies that God spoke to him…which entitled him to speak his mind…regardless of who it injured.

Further, I suspect he was convinced that it also granted him the authority to pass legislation to abridge the rights of those who didn’t follow his interpretation of God’s edicts or to block the passage of measures intended to grant equality to those he deemed inferior.

Helms’ legacy is therefore a testament to intolerance and intransigence. Rather than see himself as a cog in the wheel of humanity, he saw himself as the pilot designated to steer the course of his fellow man. In the end, his legacy is steeped in arrogance and wholly lacking in the ability to demonstrate the very humanity he must have believed his actions were upholding.

And now the quotes that the history books will undoubtedly use when defining Jesse Helms… (more…)

Paying a ransom for release of hostages is a concept that’s been around for a long time. When it was breathlessly announced in the media a couple of days ago that 15 hostages long held by a Colombian militant group had been freed by the Colombian military the day after John McCain visited, many people were curious about the timing of the release.

Apparently, the hostages were freed without a shot being fired in a coordinated raid. There’s never been any news on whether militants were captured during the raid - and it’s doubtful that any were detained - because they left the hostages right where the military knew to find them.

Was it an intelligence coup of some sort, aided by the Bush administration? It’s not looking that way. In fact, it’s looking like a standard payoff to kidnappers; a $20 million ransom.

Forbes has the story:

Leaders of the Colombian FARC rebel movement were paid millions of dollars to free Colombian politician Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages, Swiss radio said on Friday, quoting ‘a reliable source’.

The 15 hostages released on Wednesday by the Colombian army ‘were in reality ransomed for a high price, and the whole operation afterwards was a set-up,’ the radio’s French-language channel said.

Saying the United States, which had three of its citizens among those freed, was behind the deal, it put the price of the ransom at some $20 million…

Seems cheap to me, for 15 hostages. But maybe FARC didn’t think it was going to do any better, and needed some cash.

Again, it’s not the release of the hostages which is bothersome. That’s a good thing. $20 million was a small price to pay to secure their release. It’s the timing of the events and the accounts of the release that have been suspect.

No big essay here - just enjoy the video. I promise you’ll love it.

…and, on this day that the Founders declared their independence, it’s very appropriate to revisit the quaint little document that they produced.

I never liked clowns. In fact, growing up, clowns scared the shit out of me for some odd reason. Maybe it was a John Wayne Gacy thing. I never saw clowns as funny. For some reason, I viewed them as threatening. Maybe it’s the makeup. I dunno. More than likely that’s why I never enjoyed the circus as a kid.

My antipathy toward clowns has mellowed over the years, though, and I suppose that’s why I really enjoy any Simpson’s episodes in which Krusty the Klown plays a prominent role. (I’m sure that a shrink could dissect the whole thing for me.)

Anyway, Bozo died today.

There’s not much of a personal need for me to mark the passing of a clown. I had no ties to or fond memories of Bozo, even though he was a cultural icon during my formative years. Then again, maybe that’s the only reason that Larry Harmon’s death resonates with me just a bit.

I lost my own mother and father within six months of each other. The anchors from our childhood years leave us faster than we’d like. From a melancholia perspective, it’s probably more of a sense that with each passing, I’m closer to my own mortality. So even though I have no direct connection to Bozo, in a sense, I do. Everyone in my generation does.

For the most part, those of us in my age demographic are now the next in line for the grim reaper’s scythe.

It’s depressing sometimes. At other times, it’s liberating. All in all, I try not to dwell on it too much.

While I despise the efforts of fundies to push their ideology, I have to give them credit for being so persistent. When the Bible speaks of a great pestilence, who new it could have its origin in the pews of the pious. Yes, I know that’s a harsh assessment of those who believe they are simply pursuing their beliefs…but when those beliefs are in direct opposition to scientific evidence, they can be nothing less than a menacing manifestation.

The following video discusses the latest efforts to promote intelligent design as a scientific theory, which is frankly little more than deliberate deception…and that seems to me to be contradictory to fundamental Christian values. Unfortunately, many of these zealots believe the end justifies the means. I doubt their creator sees it that way. Then again, I’m of the opinion that they created god in their own likeness so I’m sure they can give him any of the attributes they need to justify their actions.

Funny how that works…when they need a compassionate god, they cite the good works and kindness of Jesus…and when they need fire and brimstone, they conveniently pull from the Old Testament. Perhaps that’s the beauty of the Bible…it’s malleable enough such that most actions can be justified.

Anyway, the latest effort is a two pronged attack. The first, as discussed in the video is to argue that the academic freedoms of instructors are impinged when they are prohibited from teaching “the controversy”. In other words, since science, by its construct, is rarely offered as an absolute certainty, the creationists argue that the debate remains open as to the origins of the universe and should therefore be a legitimate component of science education. The following excerpt is an explanation of the issue from the religious perspective.

(more…)

Wearing a pith helmet and brandishing a blunderbuss, Marshbaum burst into my office and ordered me to the floor. I looked at my faux friend and media foil, about to ask him what his latest scheme was. With Marshbaum, who was fed “Honeymooners” episodes by IV when he was a child, everything is a scheme to make money. But, in the fraction of time I had before he yelled for me to get under my desk and cover my head, I quickly determined he was serious.

“We’re at war!” he shouted, hyper-kinetically upset.

“Of course we’re at war,” I said. “Bush diverted resources from Afghanistan to invade Iraq. Been at war five years.”

“Not that war,” said Marshbaum. “This is bigger. China invaded our homeland. We’re under attack. And thanks to a 5–4 decision by the Supremes, me and Ole Betsy will defend my home from the Commie invaders.”

“You been watching too many recycled Cold War films?” I asked. “China is our trading partner. They loaned us billions to reduce our exorbitant unbalanced budget. Their factories are producing goods for the American consumer almost as fast as Washington politicians have been producing verbal diarrhea.”

“The Chinese have launched rockets at us. We don’t have much time.”

“I didn’t see anything on the 24/7 news channels about an invasion.”

“Of course not,” said Marshbaum, “they’re too busy tracking celebrity weddings, break-ups, and drunk driving arrests.”

“Even the worst journalist would pick up on an invasion of the U.S,” I said.

“Yeah,” he replied sarcastically, “like they picked up on the PATRIOT Act violating a half-dozen constitutional amendments? Like they figured out the Bush–Cheney Oil and Screw Corp. lied to them about Iraq, the environment, the housing crisis, the economy, and how to make barbecued burritos?”

“But war with China?” I asked skeptically…

(more…)

The Chief Judge in the Northern District of California has struck a blow at the Bus Administration flaunting of the FISA laws. This judge, at least, thinks spying on a nonprofit for reasons the Bush Administration will not come forward with, are illegal. Oh, this has been happening all along with the Bushies. Their record of abusing civil liberties will go down in history as an episode that will make most of us cringe with shame, but will make none of the Bushies feel one bit of shame. They’ve zero regard for the constitution unless it is for protecting the ability for anti-abortion activists showing pictures of bloody fetuses to grade school kids. What an awful record they have.

Here’s a bit of the story from the New York Times:

A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”

Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court.

I’m no expert on constitutional law, but this looks to be a case that could challenge the immunity many Senators are trying to give telecom companies for bending over backwards to the Bush Administration spying on ordinary Americans. Sure, a court in California allowed free speech for people who were talking very ugly. It seems to me appropriate that they should protect citizens from being spied upon at the same time.