by Walter Brasch

Sarah Palin stood before an audience of 600 at the first Tea Party convention and in her twinkly home-spun rhetoric, declared we don’t need a professor of law but a commander-in-chief. As expected, she received roaring applause. And, as expected, she was wrong.

After Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, aided by a compliant Congress and a nation largely afraid to stand up for their rights, abused the Constitution for almost eight years, what the United States needs is a leader who understands constitutional law and who is unafraid of making sure all Americans understand that the fabric that became America should not be torn apart for political convenience.

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush established policies which violated:

● The First Amendment (freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances)

● The Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable searches)

● The Fifth Amendment (right of due process and to protect against self-incrimination)

● The Sixth Amendment (due process, the right to counsel, a speedy trial, and the right to a fair and public trial by an impartial jury)

● The Eighth Amendment (reasonable bail and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), and

● The Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection guarantee for both citizens and non-citizens)

Bush–Cheney Administration actions also violated provisions of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to petition the courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to require the government to produce a prisoner or suspect in order to determine the legality of the detention. Only Congress may order a suspension of habeas corpus, and then only in “Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.” Congress did not suspend this right; nothing during or subsequent to the 9/11 attack indicated either a rebellion or invasion under terms of the Constitution.

It wasn’t just liberals who argued about Constitutional violations. Many leading conservatives argued that the Bush–Cheney Administration overreached in its lame attempt to “keep America safe.” Among those conservatives who objected were Bob Barr, Grover Norquist, Alan Caruba, and William F. Buckley, the founder of modern conservative thought. Also objecting to the wide-reaching policies of the Bush–Cheney Administration were federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, which leans to the right.

In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who had been nominated for the Court by Ronald Reagan, was forceful in her majority opinion, which attacked Bush–Cheney Administration policies. According to O’Connor:

It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our Nation’s commitment to due process is most severely tested; and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. . . . (The imperative necessity for safeguarding these rights to procedural due process under the gravest of emergencies has existed throughout our constitutional history, for it is then, under the pressing exigencies of crisis, that there is the greatest temptation to dispense with guarantees which, it is feared, will inhibit government action.) . . . (It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties, which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.)

A large population of misinformed citizens—including leading politicians, pundits, and blowhards—claim even if everything else was true about protecting rights during times of war, the Constitution protects only American citizens and not foreigners. The Supreme Court has several times ruled otherwise. In 1886, the Supreme Court, in its Yick Wo v. Hopkins decision, reaffirmed the principle that the Constitution protects all persons, even foreigners, in U.S. jurisdiction. More than a century later, in Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the right of habeas corpus applies to all persons, even terrorists confined in Guantanamo Bay. Not one of the nine justices, or even the Bush–Cheney Administration itself, disagreed with that principle. The only dissent was that such prisoners were on foreign soil and outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution; the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base was on U.S., not Cuban, soil.

And now in an interesting twist of logic come the Teabaggers, who continue to claim that not only doesn’t the Constitution apply to foreigners but that they want to impeach President Obama because he violated Constitutional rights. Alas, they can’t provide specific instances that will hold up in any federal court. But, like much of what the Tea Party zealots say, it makes good rhetoric, and the mainstream media, often without challenge, publish and air their views to a mass audience.

But Sarah Palin and the party who loves her demand that this nation get rid of its professor of constitutional law and replace him with a man who is a true blue, 100 percent all-American commander-in-chief. You know, the kind who sends American forces into Iraq to chase mythical weapons that don’t exist, and then claims at least his invasion got rid of a dictator. The kind who costs more than 4,000 American deaths and more than 30,000 injuries, many of them permanent. The kind who doesn’t give the troops the armament and protection they need while in battle, and then the rehabilitation they need when they can no longer fight.

In case Sarah Palin didn’t read the Constitution, President Barack Obama is the president of the United States and the commander-in-chief of the nation’s military. The biggest difference is that this president and commander-in-chief is just as aggressive in protecting the principles of the Constitution as he is in protecting the safety of the American people.

[Walter Brasch is the author of 17 books, including the national award-winning America's Unpatriotic Acts: The Federal Government's Violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights and Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush, available at amazon.com, bn.com, and numerous independent and chain stores. Dr. Brasch is professor of journalism at Bloomsburg University. You may contact him through his website, www.walterbrasch.com or by e-mail at brasch@bloomu.edu]

Will Phillips is a bright 10 year old boy from Arkansas. He’s been getting in trouble lately, but not like most other 10 year old get in trouble. He’s not respecting the Pledge of Allegiance in class, and that’s what is getting him in trouble. You see, Will doesn’t think gay and lesbian citizens are respected by the Pledge, and thus he thinks it rings hollow. Will got the teacher all angry at him. From the Arkansas Times:

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

OK, maybe Will shouldn’t have sassed his teacher, as ignorant as she was, but the whole thing is simply brilliant for a ten year old boy. That’s what I want for my son, that he understands principles, acts based on caring for others, and doesn’t overly weigh the consequences in terms of ridicule by peers. Will Phillips has done some great things here, and hopefully his whole school has some great discussions about the ethics of what he is doing.

Will didn’t just whine when he didn’t agree with the law and the way our country treats people. He took action. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is back to whining. In DC the Catholic Church is threatening to get out of the social services business if DC passes a sweeping anti-discrimination law protecting gay and lesbian citizens and recognizing gay marriages. Yes, the Catholic Church is willing to sweep good works under the rug because they don’t respect gay and lesbian rights. That’s a whiney ultimatum, more akin to a tantrum than to good works Catholic Charities has in the past been known for. Perhaps they should take Will Phillips as an example, since they evidently don’t have good examples of moral beahvior within the church.

The only question today after the Republican Party successfully engineered the loss of the New York 23rd House seat for the first time in 100 years is how much destruction in the GOP will follow. Surely the blame for this debacle for the GOP needs to be laid at the feet of the crazies on the extreme right, the Palins and Limbaughs, as the New York Daily News notes. It must also be laid at the feet of Glenn Beck, to whom the extremist right wing candidate Doug Hoffman owes fealty. Shall we throw in the extremist Club for Growth, the organization calling for fiscal responsibility that nonetheless wasted over $1MM in supporting Hoffman’s candidacy? Sure, why not.

The expected happened before the polls even closed with the Hoffman camp blaming ACORN for the defeat, despite zero evidence. They even claimed the sabotage of a campaign worker’s car, and had no comment when later it was found by Plattsburgh police that the worker had run over a bottle and blown his own tires. Whiney excuses are located near the soul of the Republican Party, right near the hate gene. And let’s not quibble that Doug Hoffman was a member of the Conservative Party. The Assistant Chair of the GOP, Michael Steele, was not ambiguous in celebrating and backing Doug Hoffman’s candidacy.

As Chris Kelly of Real Time with Bill Maher notes, this was a stunning loss for the teabaggers, for the 9/12ers, for Limbaugh and Giuliani and Fred Thompson and a whole raft of right wing crazies.

Doug Hoffman lost his election last night. He was supported by a plurality of talk radio entertainers, and a majority of former half-term governors of Alaska, but it wasn’t enough. An obscure quirk of constitutional law says you also need votes from voters. This is the same cruel hurdle that tripped up three of his other biggest supporters, Gary Bauer, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, all of whom ran for President of the United States, but failed the “getting votes” test, because everyone hates their guts.

With their help, and a million dollars from the Club for Growth, Doug Hoffman lost a part of New York State that had voted Republican since the best way to get from Albany to Buffalo was by canal.

Not bad for a first try.

Doug Hoffman didn’t just have money to burn and the staunch support of Facebooking frost bunnies, Fox News and the Ghosts of Vanity Campaigns Past. He also had coots on the ground; an army of volunteers from the tea bag movement, the 9/11 Project and the fanatic anti-choice fringe. The problem was, they could shout at the polling places as loud as they wanted, and they did, but they didn’t live there, so they weren’t allowed to vote.

There’s probably a lesson to that. Something about politics being local.

And beyond that, about the people who do live there resenting being told what to do.

Rush Limbaugh predicted that Hoffman would win. In fact, Hoffman’s victory was such a foregone conclusion yesterday that Rush had already moved on to mocking Democrats spinning their loss.

Oh, I will mourn the vote in Maine today, that good Americans have had their right to marry taken away. That will change for the good over time, though. I won’t mourn a bit for the governors in Virginia and New Jersey. Virginia reliably goes to the party other than that holding the White House and has for years. Big deal. And John Corzine was in real trouble in a state that’s in real trouble. Chris Christie will be a one-term Governor, though don’t be surprised if he tries to run for President in 2012, or is chosen as a GOP Veep nominee. The guy’s ego is as massive as his build.

The real question mourning here should be among sane Republicans. There was an insurrection in the NY 23rd, and because of that insurrection from the extremists on the GOP right, they lost. I don’t think for a minute that the Limbaughs and the Palins and the teabaggers will consider that they are done, though. Wait until Iowa in 2012 and watch the support for a GOP whackjob. Watch the moderates continue to flee what has become a party of extremists. It’ll be fun for those of us who are progressive, these next few years, but for my friends who are sane Republicans, this one is going to hurt for a long, long time.

Glenn Stanton is a Research Fellow at Focus on the Family, that loving place once run by Dr. James “Daddy” Dobson (Dobson retired as their radio voice just yesterday), and was brought in by the Philadelphia Inquirer today, the first of November, to debate the gay marriage issue. (Gay marriage was supported in the Inquirer by David Boies, who argued using constitutional principles.) Stanton’s argument rests on the stance that children are owed an upbringing by their “natural” parents, one man and one woman. Stanton not only comes out against gay marriage and adoption, but in favor of children being raised by their birth parents. In making such a statement, here on the first day of National Adoption Awareness Month, Glenn Stanton offends heterosexual, homosexual and single adoptive parents, he offends all the children who love their adoptive parents, and he offends me.

I am particularly offended by the following line Mr. Stanton uses as “proof” that “natural” parents are the only kind worthy of parenting. The line can be found in Stanton’s diatribe against gay marriage in the Philadelphia Inquirer (that Stanton wanders from his subject to talk about adoption is the shame of the Inquirer, who know no editorial duidelines when it comes to right wing frothers, if also the lack of discipline of Stanton as a thinker):

I often tell my 15-year-old daughter as I drop her at school that she looks lovely today. She beams. Would these words have the same power if spoken by a mother’s lesbian partner? Any daughter knows the power of a father’s affirmation and the pain of its absence.

No, this is neither evidence about parenting nor about gay and lesbian parents. This is simply an example of Glenn Stanton crowing about his own fatherhood, using his 15 year old daughter to say a little something about his manhood. But this is also a narrow-minded statement from Stanton, one where he can’t imagine a child and how that child bonds with an adoptive parent, regardless of the gender. I’ve seen daughters preen for fathers who happen to be gay, I’ve seen daughters swim laps, straining to the utmost, for mothers who are lesbian. And if you saw my Jack this weekend, struggling to learn to walk, beaming when he got it and looking to me, his adoptive father, for emotional support when he struggled, there’s simply not a chance you could conclude anything about “natural” parents. No, I don’t have to dredge up the latest tragedy of a child destroyed by his or her birth parents to prove Glenn Stanton utterly wrong, nor does anyone. One just needs experience to know that adoptive parents, whether gay, lesbian or heterosexual, are fine parents kids to whom children fervently and lovingly cling.

Glenn Stanton closes his column by noting that no adoptive parent has the constitutional right to deny a child his or her “natural parent.” This is a paltry attempt to argue constitutional issues in a diatribe devoted to emotion, and not just in comparison to a real constitutional scholar such as David Boies. But Stanton’s attempt at constitutional discussion is on a topic that has no place in our constitution and is actually a straw man argument. Nobody is trying to deny any child his or her birth parent. No, there is no conspiracy going on here, Glenn Stanton. Adoption in this country only happens in cases where birth parents work towards an adoption plan that solves their needs and the needs of the child. What a stupid straw man this is. Stanton earlier had used the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child to underpin this stupid argument, though his gloss of the UN Declaration hides the fact that his is a warped interpretation. Oh yes, the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child does say that it is optimum that birth parents raise children, but the bottom line in those rights is about food, shelter, and loving caretakers. Stanton does what the UN does not, throwing out the good of adoption while presenting the ideal of birth parenting as the only acceptable option.

Perhaps what is most ludicrous about Glenn Stanton’s article is that he is a representative of Focus on the Family, extremist right wing organization that it is, and his diatribe against all things adoption is against one of the principles Focus uses as a plank in the abortion wars. They claim, at least, to favor adoption as a way to reduce the incidence of abortion. Search for the word “Adoption” on the Focus on Family webs site and you get hundred of hits. Without going into the notion of how this simply won’t work, it’s important to note that Focus on the Family strongly supports that which Glenn Stanton rails against, adoption. In his argument, adoptive children are disabled because they don’t have “natural parents,” after all.

As my final word on this subject, it is one more instance where the Philadelphia Inquirer fails its readers. Instead of putting up a scholar who argues against gay marriage on constitutional grounds, it chose instead to publish a man who argues from the particular, sprinkles in straw men and stupid rhetorical questions, and actually disparages the tens of thousands of adoptive parents in this country. Glenn Stanton proves himself to be just another garden variety right wing whackjob.

The right wing crackpots are at it again. This time they are blaming The Golden Girls for creating a generation of homosexual men out of unsuspecting boys. No, I’m not making this up. Bea Arthur, Betty White, Estelle Geddes and Rue McClanahan were agents of the Homosexual Agenda before gay marriage was even a tinkerbell in Ru Paul’s eye. This according to a simply marvelous article on Christwire.org entitled “The Golden Girls: How One TV Show Turned A Generation Of American Boys Into Homosexuals.” I’m thinking Stephenson Billings, a fine name for a gay porn star, needs to get a life. Here’s a sample from the article:

It was only to be expected that our lonely boys exposed to these conflicted times would succumb to the nagging Golden Girls agenda. These were slender, unathletic children who were left out of the fun militarism of the Reagan years. Skyrocketing divorce rates ruined their faith in traditional relationships. Rock groups like Duran Duran and Styx encouraged big hair and overactive libidos. The show lit a match which enflamed their intense physical urges. With the utmost cruelty and immorality, The Golden Girls seized upon this opportunity to cross the hormonal wires of America’s lost generation.

The results were disastrous. Our horny, lonely boys sought out intimate comforts with likeminded Golden Girls addicts who didn’t mind each other’s theatrical voices and touch-feely hand gestures. Together, these clusters of awkward teens and twentysomethings bonded over their favorite episodes and characters, mimicking the voices and gowns of their tv friends. When the rush of cheesecake and gabfests wore thin, these hairless boys needed a harder thrill. They were so desperate for the next big trend they turned to same-sex sexual experimentation. What woman would have them now, anyway? This led to the worse excesses of early homosexual visibility– the most enormous of drag queens, the dirtiest of leather daddies, the most enticing of twinkie boys, androgyny, overeating, public sex and the birth of “camp.”

OK, Jonathan Turley rightly points to a bit of discussion as to whether Christwire.org is satire. If so, they catch oodles of right wing commenters who just eat this stuff up. And who am I to say Golden Girls isn’t the cause of so much homosexuality? Whether satire or earnest, or some combination thereof by Stephenson Billings, erstwhile antique soda bottle collector, this is a funny article.

By my count Rick Santorum will not be going up against his fellow Republicans in Iowa for the 2012 nomination for President for a couple years. But Rick sure knows the values those right wing Christians want to hear, that they are being marginalized by the evil liberals. In todays column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Santorum claims to be writing about freedoms of conscience and belief, but as usual he’s off the mark, instead arguing for special rights for Christians. First, Santorum thinks Catholics are being discriminated against, when the real story is they are whining about not being able to discriminate anymore. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption business after the organization refused to place children in the homes of same-sex “married” couples. Catholic pharmacists have lost their jobs in some states because of laws that would force them to violate their consciences by selling the morning-after pill.

Rick Santorum doesn’t understand that doing business means one has to follow regulations, whether one is Christian or Bhuddist. What Rick wants is a constitutional amendment or somesuch that allows Christians, Catholics in this case, to discriminate whenever they feel like it. But Rick Santorum, after a career of embracing the slippery slope, also includes such an argument in this article, claiming that a case in North Carolina proves that soon we’ll be seeing Catholics forced to support abortion.

What discrimination did the commission find that outweighs this orthodox Catholic college’s core religious convictions? Gender discrimination. You see, only women take oral contraceptives, so it’s gender discrimination not to provide them. Since only women get abortions, it’s not hard to see what’s coming for faith-based groups with moral objections to the Obama-Planned Parenthood agenda.

Why would Rick Santorum make Obama his focus in his unhinged rants suggesting there’s a “War on Christians” afoot in the nation? He’s running for President in 2012, and he wants everyone to think there’s big trouble in River City. Yeah, he’s a flim flam man without the heart. Or maybe Rick Santorum should get a lifetime achievement award as dumbest to ever serve in the Senate.

Well, Curt Schilling showed himself to be a bit of a whackjob himself by considering running for the senate seat vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Today it is being reported by ESPN that Schilling has taken himself out of the running. I’m thinking he didn’t want to associate himself with other whackjob Republicans, such as this couple in Ohio who put together a float for a parade. It depicted Barack Obama as a Nazi. The kicker is that they saw nothing wrong with their actions. Or maybe he didn’t want to associate with an anti-choice activist who called for public abortions. Hey, at least Schilling wasn’t going for a seat in the House where he would have served next to Peter King, who is boasting about his proudest vote, to deny aid to victims of hurricane Katrina.

Of course, none of this gets Curt Schilling off the hook as a major whackjob himself.

No, E in MD, it is not because the Eagles lost badly. Indeed, they did lose, but Jack got to meet all sorts of people in the stadium, and I think I even caught Wilma McNabb looking on admiringly.

No, the world is going to end, according to teh stupid. I think this is a puzzle, and the only way one comes out of it alive tomorrow is to find Waldo in that web page. Personally, I gave up, and am going out to get some BBQ sauce with which to celebrate the end tomorrow.

Operation Rescue of Wichita, KS, fresh off a summer when George Tiller was assassinated by an anti-abortion terrorist in that city, is having trouble raising money. I can almost hear the tears falling in the letter Operation Rescue President Troy Newman sent to supporters, which can be found here at Mike Hendricks’ column in the Kansas City Star. A more thorough news piece about Operation Rescue’s financial woes is here at NPR:

The group’s president, Troy Newman, blamed the economic downturn for its money woes in a desperate plea e-mailed Monday night to donors. But the Wichita-based organization has also been under attack from both fringe anti-abortion militants and abortion rights supporters since the May 31 shooting death of Dr. George Tiller.

“We’re now so broke (as the saying goes), we can’t even pay attention,” Newman wrote.

Newman told The Associated Press in an interview after the mailing that the group has only four paid employees left, compared to nine a year ago. The group typically has an annual budget of $600,000, but donations this year have been down 30 to 40 percent. Newman, who earns $60,000 annually, said he hasn’t been paid in two months.

“You put a need in front of people and say, ‘Here is where we are at,’” Newman said. “I have always seen people respond faithfully.”

Scott Roeder, 51, of Kansas City, Mo., faces charges of murder and aggravated assault in the slaying of Tiller as the Wichita abortion provider ushered at a Sunday morning church service.

Tiller’s killing has also been a public relations nightmare for the group — despite its public condemnation of the slaying — since the name and phone number of the group’s senior policy adviser was found in Roeder’s car when he was arrested. A television crew zoomed in on the scrawled note inside the car in images that made their way to the Internet.

“You see, this summer has been brutal for Operation Rescue,” Newman wrote. “Not only did George Tiller’s death throw everybody in the pro-life movement for a loop (and especially us), but the economic crisis our nation is suffering has brought our financial support to nearly a halt.”

Newman told AP that the decline in the group’s donations actually began last year, and he insisted there was no correlation between the drop and Tiller’s shooting.

I don’t buy what Newman is trying to sell. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion terrorist who assassinated Dr. Tiller, was connected to convicted domestic terrorist Cheryl Sullenger, who worked at Operation Rescue at the time. According to their web site, Sullenger still works for Operation Rescue and makes speeches for them. Sullenger’s bio on the Operation Rescue web site still fails to mention her conviction for terroristic acts. Given that Scott Roeder was caught with Sullenger’s phone number in his vehicle, it is beyond me why Operation Rescue has not been charged as an accessory in the terrorist murder of Dr. Tiller. But perhaps there is justice in their financial troubles. Who knows, maybe the free market works, and people simply don’t wish to invest their hard-earned money in a terrorist operation.

No word as yet on whether Newman and Operation Rescue will be reaching out to Osama bin Laden for funding.

Sure, The Hill is getting on the bandwagon with the news, finally, citing a speech given to US Catholic leaders on September 11th, an opportunity for Rick Santorum to froth at the mouth about Islamofascists and throw his hat in the ring all at the same time. This should be a right wing whack job wet dream. Here’s a bit of Santorum’s comments about running for the Presidency in 2012, from LifeSiteNews:

“When you stand up for the things I do and say the things I say, they brutalize you and they won’t stop at you.”

Those are the things, he explained that “as a father I’ve got to think about.”

“On the other side,” he added, “as a father, I’ve got to think about whether they are going to have a country to live in … Are they going to be able to practice their faith in a way that’s consistent with what the Church teaches.”

The last consideration in favor of his run was on the practical level. He said: “Six months ago I would not have spent ten seconds on your question, but it’s not six months ago. I see that, I hate to be calculating, but I see that 2012 is not just throwing somebody out to be eaten, but it’s a real opportunity for success.”

In closing he said that while he was “thinking about it”, it is the first time his ambition which is, as he said, “in his DNA” was checked by a resistance saying, “no, I’m not sure.”

Yes, Santorum is honing his victimhood credentials already, so I’d say this running for President thing is probably a go. But, hey, I wrote about Santorum’s higher calling a little over a month ago. I am not surprised.