Teddy Tutson | Modern Age Revolution

WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE – Volume II

Posted on February 7, 2013 by Teddy Tutson

In the fall of 2012, German-language publisher Steidel announced that it was working with The Gordon Parks Foundation to produce a series of five books that serve as a retrospective of Parks’ photographic career.

The book begins in 1942 with the first professional position Parks held at the Farm Security Administration under the guidance of the program’s director, Roy Stryker. The iconic photograph of Ella Watson from this period, known as “American Gothic,” remains one of Parks’ most important and recognizable images. Aiming to expose intolerance and to fight social injustice, Parks worked for the U.S. Office of War Information and Standard Oil of New Jersey before becoming the first African American photographer for LIFE magazine in 1948. Over the course of more than two decades, Parks produced photo-essays on an exceptionally broad range of topics, including gang wars in Harlem, fashion in Paris, and segregation in the American South, before embarking on his successful career as film director.

The images published in LIFE magazine illustrate in a visceral way what it means to live in a society where you are perpetually “separate but equal.”

Continue reading →

Posted in "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", Democracy Is Hard Work, I Can't Stand It, I Know You Planned It, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Sherman Should Have Finished The Job, Survivalism, The Tea Party Is A Historical Event, Not A Political Movement, These People Are Clowns, WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE., You're Always Up To No Good | Leave a comment

Republicans Cannot Accept That A Black President Was Just Re-Elected

Posted on January 31, 2013 by Teddy Tutson

These gentlemen have just been informed that the votes of people living in cities are indeed legitimate.

Republicans have been having substantial trouble processing the thumping they received at the hands of Barack Obama in the 2012 election. It started on Election Night, with Karl Rove literally refusing to accept that the state of Ohio had voted to re-elect President Obama:

And it’s been downhill ever since.

Public Policy Polling recently found that 49% of Republican voters believe “that the president did not legitimately win reelection because ACORN interfered with the vote. A full 50 percent of Republicans said Democrats engaged in some sort of voter fraud.” Of course, this is absolutely insane because ACORN was forced to shut down in 2010 after being falsely accused of stealing the 2008 election.

To reiterate: Republicans have become so unhinged from reality that almost half of the party’s voters believe an organization that has ceased to exist for years was involved with a diabolical conspiracy to rig the 2012 election.

But the madness doesn’t stop there. Top Republican donors are now publicly saying that votes from cities and urban areas should be flat out discounted:

In terms of sheer numbers, Obama won by five million votes. But [GOP megadonor Foster] Friess dismissed that margin, arguing that a 350,000 vote flip across four states (which he couldn’t name) would have given Romney the election.

“To me, 350,000 votes is not a huge mandate, even though the total numbers, which take into account a lot of those center cities, went for Obama.”

When I asked him if he was saying that votes from “center cities” should be discounted, his answer, in full, was: “Yes.”

I asked him why. His response:

“Because of the movement across the country in the state legislatures. Right now the Republicans have their tails between their legs. What I’m trying to say—there’s no reason for them to have their tails between their legs because the American people on balance, I believe, want free markets. They do not want to have a system where there’s more people riding the wagon than pulling the wagon. I believe the majority of the American people want to be wagon-pullers.”

As Robert Schlesinger of U.S News and World Report notes, “To hear it put so bluntly and unequivocally is still fairly breathtaking: The national popular vote doesn’t count because it takes into account city voters.”

It should come as no surprise, then, that Republicans are moving now to reshape the Electoral College to reflect their belief that the votes of people living in cities are worth less than those of their rural counterparts. It is, in essence, a natural evolution of the Southern Strategy.

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans.

The states where this is occurring are states that went for President Obama in both 2008 and 2012: Virginia, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Washington. And no, Republicans are not being subtle about their intentions. In Virginia, State Sen. Bill Carrico (R-Grayson County) shared the following lament:

“If it’s going to continue winner-take-all — it doesn’t matter which side is running — it’s going to all come down to how many people vote in the metropolitan areas and it doesn’t matter what the rural voters do,” Carrico said.

Sadly for Carrico, his Senate colleagues torpedoed the bill.

In Washington, Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) similarly mourned the rise of people in cities voting their preferences:

“A lot of voters in Eastern Washington feel disenfranchised. They feel their votes don’t count,” Shea said.

Washington has a law on the books to cast its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the state’s totals, if enough other states agree to do the same. That’s a bad plan, Shea said, because states have different voting laws and presidential ballots. It’s unworkable, and probably unconstitutional, he added, and HB 1091 would cancel that law.

Committee Chairman Sam Hunt, D-Olympia, asked Shea who would have been president right now if all the states had such a system in 2012.

“I don’t know,” Shea replied. “I’d have to do the math.”

“It would not be Barack Obama,” Hunt said.

Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford is one of the few Republicans to express major skepticism about the legitimacy of the idea:

“To me, that’s like saying in a football game, ‘We should have only three quarters, because we were winning after three quarters and the[y] beat us in the fourth,” Weatherford, a Republican, told the Herald/Times. “I don’t think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better.”

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker continues to send out mixed signals about his intentions for the state:

He called it “interesting” and “plausible” in an interview with the Journal Sentinel last month, but said he neither supported nor opposed it.

Talking to “Newsmax” on Saturday, Walker said we “have to be very careful in making changes like that,” but called the idea “worth looking at.”

But in a separate interview with the Journal Sentinel, Walker acknowledged major concerns.

“You concede it would have dramatic impact on the targeting of the state?” Walker was asked.

“Right. Exactly right. . . . That’s why I qualified (my earlier statements). . . . I just said I hadn’t ruled it out. I’m not embracing it,” Walker said.

“The most important thing to me long term as governor on that is what makes your voters be in play,” said Walker, voicing the concern that ending winner-take-all would make the state “irrelevant” in presidential campaigns.

“You would agree it would have that effect?” he was asked.

“Yeah. I think that’s a real concern,” he said.

But no one can compare with State Rep. Pete Lund (R-Shelby Township) of Michigan, who not only sobbed about being marginalized by people in cities, but also revealed just how unscrupulous he and his Republican cohorts are:

Rep. Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, confirmed this week he plans to reintroduce legislation that would award all but two of Michigan’s 16 Electoral College votes according to congressional district results. The remaining two would go to the candidate winning the statewide majority.

“I believe it’s more representative of the people — closer to the actual vote,” said Lund, who proposed a similar bill in 2012. “It got no traction last year. There were people convinced Romney was going to win and this might take (electoral) votes from him.”

After looking for every other option in the world, Republicans finally shoved Mitt Romney down the throats of the American public and saw his (and their party’s) reputation annihilated on a scale few people ever anticipated. Their response? Doubling down on Jim Crow policies and declaring that votes from urban areas are not “representative of the people.”

And so, The Long War continues.

Posted in "I don’t know why I’m surprised. I shouldn’t be. You’re a liar. You lie.", "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", Are We Just Making Shit Up Now? Is That What We Are Doing?, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Sherman Should Have Finished The Job, The Tea Party Is A Historical Event, Not A Political Movement, These People Are Clowns, WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE., Where Are Your Reganomics Now? | Tagged Electoral College, Jim Crow, Mitt Romney, President Obama, Republican Party, Republicans, voting | Leave a comment

Wayne LaPierre Is A Crazy Person

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Teddy Tutson

Crazy insane or insane crazy?

Since 1991, All-World crazy person Wayne LaPierre has been in charge of one of the most loathsome forces plaguing American politics: The National Rifle Association. For over 20 years, LaPierre (who pulls in a yearly salary of $970,000) has served as the NRA’s Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, as well as a thorn in the side of rational Americans everywhere. Following LaPierre’s unhinged press conference in response to the tragic killings in Newtown, Connecticut, many people are just now becoming familiar with LaPierre’s distinct brand of insanity, while also wondering how someone so clearly disturbed could manage to be a predominant force in American politics for so long.

This is the story of Wayne LaPierre, Crazy Person.

***

For awhile, Wayne LaPierre appeared to be your run-of-the-mill loon, making the standard issue delusional pronouncements about Big Government Coming For Your Guns:

According to the January 7, 1993 Miami Herald, he urged members, “Only with your direct input can we stop President Clinton and his anti-gun allies from RIPPING THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION.”

As time wore on, hints of the LaPierre lunacy we are now depressingly all too familiar with began peeking through the surface:

Much of the annual convention in Minneapolis was devoted to attacks on the press. “Our media has become the master over the very Constitution that created it,” said Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A. leader. “Forget Stalin’s Russia. Forget Hitler’s Germany. The mightiest propaganda machine the world has ever known is right here in 1994 America.” …

But when LaPierre addresses his constituency, he preaches nonaccommodation on guns. “The Final War Has Begun” was the message he delivered in The Rifleman after the House passage of the weapons ban.

But the first real taste of LaPierre lunacy the world at large experienced came on the heels of the Oklahoma City Bombing. LaPierre sent out a NRA fundraising letter describing federal agents as “jack-booted government thugs” who wear “Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms.”

The six-page NRA letter signed by LaPierre and sent earlier this month singles out lawmakers who are pressing for gun control legislation and says: “It doesn’t matter to them that the semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.”

It goes on: “Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.”

LaPierre was initially defiant once news of the fundraising letter became public, as you would expect a man fundamentally detached from reality to do:

The National Rifle Association’s top official defended the inflammatory language his organization has used about federal agents, saying yesterday that references to “jack-booted government thugs” are accurate.

“Those words are not far, in fact they are a pretty close description of what’s happening in the real world,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne La- Pierre said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The NRA’s attack on federal agents, made in a fund-raising letter, has been cited as an example of the kind of rhetoric that creates a climate for violent acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing. LaPierre insisted that is not the case.

“That’s like saying the weather report in Florida on the hurricane caused the damage, rather than the hurricane,” he said.

Former President George H.W. Bush was so infuriated by LaPierre’s statements that he resigned his NRA life membership and unleashed a devastating resignation letter that was a salvo against LaPierre and his radical vision for the NRA:

I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as “jack-booted thugs.” To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as “wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms” wanting to “attack law abiding citizens” is a vicious slander on good people.

Al Whicher, who served on my [ United States Secret Service ] detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country — and serve it well he did.

In 1993, I attended the wake for A.T.F. agent Steve Willis, another dedicated officer who did his duty. I can assure you that this honorable man, killed by weird cultists, was no Nazi.

John Magaw, who used to head the U.S.S.S. and now heads A.T.F., is one of the most principled, decent men I have ever known. He would be the last to condone the kind of illegal behavior your ugly letter charges. The same is true for the F.B.I.’s able Director Louis Freeh. I appointed Mr. Freeh to the Federal Bench. His integrity and honor are beyond question.

Both John Magaw and Judge Freeh were in office when I was President. They both now serve in the current administration. They both have badges. Neither of them would ever give the government’s “go ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law abiding citizens.” (Your words)

I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.’s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre’s unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list.

Sincerely,

George Bush

Eventually, LaPierre would apologize, saying, “If anyone thought the intention was to paint all federal law enforcement officials with the same broad brush, I’m sorry.” He even managed to survive an attempt by a rival and more extreme NRA official to oust him from power.

Naturally, it surprised no one when only a few years later, LaPierre again unleashed a deranged attack against the Clinton Administration, this time accusing President Clinton of enabling violence in America in order to pass his gun control agenda:

“I’ve come to believe he needs a certain level of violence in this country,” LaPierre told ABC News on the March 15, 2000 episode of Nightline. “He’s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda. And the vice president, too. I mean, how else can you explain this dishonesty we get out of the administration?”

Of course, if there is anyone who knows about accountability to the people, it’s Wayne LaPierre. Just check out the way he responded to the father of a student who was killed in the Columbine High School shootings:

A couple of years after his 15-year-old son Daniel was killed in the Columbine high school shooting in April 1999, Tom Mauser bumped into Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association, at a charity event.

It was a fortuitous meeting for Mauser. In the months after the massacre, in which 12 students and a teacher died, LaPierre had been seminal in lobbying against a Congressional bill that would have closed the gun show loophole that allows firearms to be sold by private sellers without any background check on the purchaser. The loophole was exploited by the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, to procure their weapons.

After the bill collapsed, Mauser had written to the NRA asking why it had so fiercely opposed such a sensible safeguard to prevent future tragedies. “I wrote: ‘Do you have any idea what it’s like to go through this, to lose your son in that way? Why are you doing this?’” Mauser says.

Mauser was surprised by the NRA’s response. Or lack of it. The NRA simply did not reply.

So he raised the matter with LaPierre when he happened upon him, and LaPierre, being the polite and affable character he is widely said to be, promised to find out what had happened to the letter. Months passed, and still Mauser received no reply, so in 2002 he presented a copy of the same letter to the Washington offices of the NRA and picketed outside the front door.

For his pains, the NRA called the police and Mauser was arrested. He repeated the action in 2005, and was arrested again. “It became clear to me, LaPierre would rather have me arrested than talk to me, reply to my letter or even acknowledge me as a human being.”

This is the man who stands between the United States of America being a land where mass killings are a routine part of everyday life or a country where people are free to live without fear that today is the day they become another innocent life extinguished. This is a man who told the Senate in 1999, “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone,” and now today says, “background checks will never be ‘universal’ — because criminals will never submit to them.”

It is time to end the radical and violent hold Wayne LaPierre has maintained on American culture and society. It is time to contact your elected representatives and tell them that Wayne LaPierre is a crazy person, and no decent human being could possibly support him. Or, to put it in a way even an unbalanced zealot like Wayne LaPierre can understand:

It is time to take our country back.

Posted in "I don’t know why I’m surprised. I shouldn’t be. You’re a liar. You lie.", "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", "This guy's a gangster? His real name is Clarence!", Democracy Is Hard Work, How Tiny Is Your Penis?, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Sherman Should Have Finished The Job, Survivalism, WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE., What Are You, An Ass?, You're Always Up To No Good | Tagged 2nd Amendment, gun control, NRA, politics, Wayne LaPierre | Leave a comment

WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE. – Volume I

Posted on July 1, 2012 by Teddy Tutson

As it is a fundamental fact that the Civil War is still very much alive in every aspect of culture and society within the United States of America, it behooves us to have clear terms and identities of the opposition the forces of equality are up against.

As a country, we have long had two identities locked in constant competition for the levers of power. On one side are individuals who believe that our nation should be a place where the long arc of the moral universe bending towards justice exists as a primary fixture in our advancement as a society, not just as an abstraction rarely manifesting itself in our daily lives.

The other side is inhabited by a people who believe that subordination of those without white skin is ordained by Providence and that the assumption of equality between races is principally, socially, morally, and politically wrong.

These people are known as Confederates.

They currently reside in the Republican Party. (ed. note: Many of them also hide in the Democratic Party under such names as “Blue Dog Democrat” and “being elected as a Democratic Senator in West Virginia.”)

This series will forever serve as a reminder of the Confederacy’s legacy of unleashing brutality and hostility when confronted with the idea of respecting democracy and basic human rights, and its mortal fear of progress and large-scale societal advancement.

WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE.

Posted in "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", Democracy Is Hard Work, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Sherman Should Have Finished The Job, Survivalism, The Tea Party Is A Historical Event, Not A Political Movement, These People Are Clowns, WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE., You're Always Up To No Good | Tagged Civil War, Confederacy, Confederates, John Boehner, Tea Party | Leave a comment

Why Did It Take Us This Long To Uncover That Memorial Day Originated With Former Slaves?

Posted on May 28, 2012 by Teddy Tutson

Via Professor David Blight of Yale University comes this amazing revelation regarding the history of Memorial Day, or as it was once known, “Decoration Day”:

After a long siege, a prolonged bombardment for months from all around the harbor, and numerous fires, the beautiful port city of Charleston, South Carolina, where the war had begun in April, 1861, lay in ruin by the spring of 1865. The city was largely abandoned by white residents by late February. Among the first troops to enter and march up Meeting Street singing liberation songs was the Twenty First U. S. Colored Infantry; their commander accepted the formal surrender of the city.

Thousands of black Charlestonians, most former slaves, remained in the city and conducted a series of commemorations to declare their sense of the meaning of the war. The largest of these events, and unknown until some extraordinary luck in my recent research, took place on May 1, 1865. During the final year of the war, the Confederates had converted the planters’ horse track, the Washington Race Course and Jockey Club, into an outdoor prison. Union soldiers were kept in horrible conditions in the interior of the track; at least 257 died of exposure and disease and were hastily buried in a mass grave behind the grandstand. Some twenty-eight black workmen went to the site, re-buried the Union dead properly, and built a high fence around the cemetery. They whitewashed the fence and built an archway over an entrance on which they inscribed the words, “Martyrs of the Race Course.”

Yes, that’s right, a contingent of black Americans–most of them former slaves–”conducted a series of commemorations to declare their sense of the meaning of the war.” And what did those commemorations include exactly?

At 9 am on May 1, the procession stepped off led by three thousand black schoolchildren carrying arm loads of roses and singing “John Brown’s Body.” The children were followed by several hundred black women with baskets of flowers, wreaths and crosses. Then came black men marching in cadence, followed by contingents of Union infantry and other black and white citizens. As many as possible gathering in the cemetery enclosure; a childrens’ choir sang “We’ll Rally around the Flag,” the “Star-Spangled Banner,” and several spirituals before several black ministers read from scripture.
[...]

Following the solemn dedication the crowd dispersed into the infield and did what many of us do on Memorial Day: they enjoyed picnics, listened to speeches, and watched soldiers drill. Among the full brigade of Union infantry participating was the famous 54th Massachusetts and the 34th and 104th U.S. Colored Troops, who performed a special double-columned march around the gravesite. The war was over, and Decoration Day had been founded by African Americans in a ritual of remembrance and consecration. The war, they had boldly announced, had been all about the triumph of their emancipation over a slaveholders’ republic, and not about state rights, defense of home, nor merely soldiers’ valor and sacrifice.

Now…how is it even remotely possible that such a remarkable aspect of the United States of America’s history could be lost for such an incredible length of time? Would you believe the answer has something to do with institutionalized white supremacy? (Ed. note: Yes. You would.)

According to a reminiscence written long after the fact, “several slight disturbances” occurred during the ceremonies on this first Decoration Day, as well as “much harsh talk about the event locally afterward.” But a measure of how white Charlestonians suppressed from memory this founding in favor of their own creation of the practice later came fifty-one years afterward, when the president of the Ladies Memorial Association of Charleston received an inquiry about the May 1, 1865 parade. A United Daughters of the Confederacy official from New Orleans wanted to know if it was true that blacks had engaged in such a burial rite. Mrs. S. C. Beckwith responded tersely: “I regret that I was unable to gather any official information in answer to this.” In the struggle over memory and meaning in any society, some stories just get lost while others attain mainstream dominance.

The reason Mrs. Beckwith “was unable to gather any official information” is that she was desperately trying to prevent her worldview of institutionalized white supremacy from being destroyed.

On this Memorial Day, let us all strive to make amends for the Mrs. Beckwiths of the world. It is the least we can do to honor the many and varied sacrifices of all those who came before us.

Regardless of their skin color.

Posted in "I don’t know why I’m surprised. I shouldn’t be. You’re a liar. You lie.", "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", Democracy Is Hard Work, I Can't Stand It, I Know You Planned It, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Sherman Should Have Finished The Job | Tagged Civil War, David Blight, former slaves, Memorial Day, South Carolina | Leave a comment

The 2012 Condoleezza Rice “Probably The Most Important Essay Maybe Written This Year” Award – Nominee #1

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Teddy Tutson

Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine has composed a fantastic dissection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin), one of the greatest frauds in the history of American politics. Chait’s piece seeks to answer the mystery of how “Ryan managed to occupy these two roles in our national life—Fiscy award-winning spokesman for those Americans demanding a bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit, and slayer of bipartisan deficit agreements—simultaneously?”

Here is one of the best explanations I have seen to date of the intellectual sham that is Paul Ryan’s political career:

After Obama assailed Ryan’s budget, [New York Times business columnist James] Stewart wrote a second column insisting that Ryan’s plans were just the sort of goals liberals shared. He quoted Ryan as writing, in his manifesto, “The social safety net is failing society’s most vulnerable citizens.” Stewart is flabbergasted that Democrats could be so partisan as to attack a figure who believes something so uncontroversial. “Does anyone,” Stewart wrote in his follow-up, “Democrat or Republican, seriously disagree?”

The disagreement, I suggested to Stewart, is that Ryan believes the social safety net is failing society’s most vulnerable citizens by spending too much money on them. As Ryan has said, “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency”—which is to say, plying the poor with such inducements as food stamps and health insurance for their children has sapped their desire to achieve, a problem Ryan proposes to solve by targeting them for the lion’s share of deficit reduction. Stewart waves away the distinction. “I was pointing out that, at least rhetorically, you can find some common ground,” he says. Stewart, explaining his evaluation of Ryan to me, repeatedly cited the missing details in his plan as a hopeful sign of Ryan’s accommodating aims. “He seems very straightforward,” he tells me. “He doesn’t seem cunning. He seems very genuine.”

Seeming genuine is something Ryan does extraordinarily well. And here is where something deeper is at play, more than Ryan’s charm and winning personality, something that gets at the intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary Washington. The Ryan brand is rooted in his ostentatious wonkery. Because, unlike the Bushes and the Palins, he grounds his position in facts and figures, he seems like an encouraging candidate to strike a bargain. But the thing to keep in mind about Ryan is that he was trained in the world of Washington Republican think tanks. These were created out of a belief that mainstream economists were hopelessly biased to the left, and crafted an alternative intellectual ecosystem in which conservative beliefs—the planet is not getting warmer, the economy is not growing more unequal—can flourish, undisturbed by skepticism. Ryan is intimately versed in the blend of fact, pseudo-fact, and pure imagination inhabiting this realm.

Go check out the full piece. It’s essential reading in preparation for the next phase of the general election.

(An explanation of the award’s name can be found here.)

Posted in "I don’t know why I’m surprised. I shouldn’t be. You’re a liar. You lie.", "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", "This guy's a gangster? His real name is Clarence!", The Condoleezza Rice "Probably The Most Important Essay Maybe Written This Year" Award | Leave a comment

Only Crazy People Are Running For The 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination – Volume III

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Teddy Tutson

“Hey, I’m shocked I still have a chance too!”

Rick Santorum is feeling pretty good about himself right now. A few days ago, Santorum beat Mittens by nearly 30 points in Minnesota, 5 points in Colorado (Mittens won both states in 2008), and even managed to put up a 30 spot margin of victory in the meaningless Missouri primary. And now, Ricky is riding a surging wave of momentum into the next round of Republican primary battles.

But here’s what you need to always remember about Rick Santorum: he is fucking insane.

Take, for example, Ricky’s reaction to the news that the Pentagon plans to ease restrictions on women in some combat roles.

“I don’t — look, I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country. And they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. And they’re a great addition to the — and have been for a long time, to the armed services of our country.

But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat. I think that can be a very compromising situation where — where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that’s probably — you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat.

But it’s — but it’s — I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. And I think that’s probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

I think it’s important to note two things right now:

#1 – The current Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is known for his tendency to sob uncontrollably when discussing anything and everything. Basically, the most powerful legislator in the United States of America has the emotional stability of a kid being dropped off at their first day of school.

#2 – Current Republican presidential candidate and disgraced former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, once shut down the federal government because he was told to exit from the back of Air Force One.

“However, those were totally rational decisions because no vaginas were involved.” – Rick Santorum, probably

There is nothing serious about these people.

Posted in "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", Human Disaster, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Lord of the Flies in this bitch!, Sherman Should Have Finished The Job, Silly Woman, You're Not A Real Human Being, The Tea Party Is A Historical Event, Not A Political Movement, These People Are Clowns, WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE., What Are You, An Ass? | Leave a comment

Maybe We Should Talk A Little Bit More About The War on Women That Is Happening In This Country…

Posted on February 2, 2012 by Teddy Tutson

“If there is one thing we know, it’s what is best for women. Am I right, fellas?”

It was very obvious what was going to happen to the state of women’s health care and reproductive freedom in the United States of America when Republicans took control of not only the House of Representatives, but also a slew of statehouses and governor’s mansions following the 2010 midterms. Nick Baumann of Mother Jones wrote the following on December 2, 2010:

If you thought the abortion battle during the health care debate was fierce, just wait until Republicans take over the House in January. Strengthened by congressional victories in the midterm elections, Republican abortion foes plan to push hard in the new year. Their top goals: enshrine tough restrictions on abortion funding into federal law and defund Planned Parenthood. And they’ll have Democratic help to do it.

Once inaugurated, it was full speed ahead in the assault on women’s reproductive freedom, at the state and federal level. On the national front, House Republicans got things started with the galling “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act”:

Just one day after Republican leaders pushed through the House a measure to repeal the entire health law, a measure unlikely to even be considered by the Senate, they were back before the cameras, introducing legislation that would permanently bar any taxpayer subsidies for abortion.

“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the people, and it ought to be the will of the land,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said.

The legislation, called the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” is sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), the longtime chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus.

Smith says the bill would write into permanent law existing abortion restrictions that Congress has to currently renew every year.

“Our new bill is designed to permanently end any U.S. government financial support for abortion, whether it be direct funding or by tax credits or any other subsidy,” he said.

No big deal, just your standard extremist anti-choice legislation. Well, except for that provision about redefining rape:

For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape.” This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith’s spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Thankfully, they removed that provision when people rightfully called them out for being insane.

And then they came back and passed the “Protect Life Act”:

Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.

Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy. This provision would apply to the more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions.

When asked about the “Protect Life Act”, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) responded by saying, “I can’t even describe to you the logic of what it is that they are doing.”

And this was just on the national front.

At the state level, Ohio has been busy trying to push through a law that would “outlaw abortions at the first detectable fetal heartbeat”:

An Ohio lawmaker on Wednesday touted the importance of the fetal heartbeat as an indicator of life as he urged a legislative panel to support a bill that would impose the nation’s most stringent abortion limit.

The measure would outlaw abortions at the first detectable fetal heartbeat. That’s sometimes as early as six weeks into pregnancy.

State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, the bill’s sponsor, told the Ohio Senate’s health committee that doctors and nurses closely monitor patients’ heartbeats and emergency responders check for pulses.

“Why, then, should we ignore this critical indicator of life when it comes to the very young?” asked Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, as testimony began on the bill.

Texas got busy with a law that required women to experience a sonogram viewing 24 hours before having an abortion, until a federal judge told them to pump the breaks.

The law, which had been due to go into effect on Thursday, was a major part of Republican Governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry’s agenda in this year’s Texas legislative session.

But the judge, in a victory for abortion rights activists, ruled in a preliminary injunction that there was cause to believe such a requirement was an unconstitutional burden on doctors.

“The act compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity, and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen,” U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks said in the ruling.

It should be noted at this point that Rick “Governor Goodhair” Perry fast-tracked the legislation through the Republican-controlled legislature, proclaiming it to be an “emergency priority.”

Before getting smacked down with outrage, South Dakota thought it would be nifty to alter their “justifiable homicide” language to allow the following:

A law under consideration in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to include killings that are intended to prevent harm to a fetus—a move that could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. The Republican-backed legislation, House Bill 1171, has passed out of committee on a nine-to-three party-line vote, and is expected to face a floor vote in the state’s GOP-dominated House of Representatives soon.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Phil Jensen, a committed foe of abortion rights, alters the state’s legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person “while resisting an attempt to harm” that person’s unborn child or the unborn child of that person’s spouse, partner, parent, or child. If the bill passes, it could in theory allow a woman’s father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion—even if she wanted one.

Up in Indiana, Governor Mitch Daniels went from saying in June 2010 that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues,” to making Indiana the first state to pull federal funding from Planned Parenthood in April 2011:

“I supported this bill from the outset, and the recent addition of language guarding against the spending of tax dollars to support abortions creates no reason to alter my position.” Daniels said in a statement. “The principle involved commands the support of an overwhelming majority of Hoosiers.”

The bill would cut $3 million in federal money the state currently allocates to the women’s health group. It also would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy unless the woman’s life is significantly threatened, require women seeking abortions to be informed that life starts at conception, and require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital.

But the bill also puts Indiana in a financial tight spot as it risks losing $4 million a year in federal family-planning money that would be eliminated because of the state legislation.

And hey, why not show a little love to Kansas while we’re at it?

Kansas seemed to be one of the more extreme states: it passed laws banning abortion after 20 weeks, requiring written parental consent for abortions on minors, and revising its “partial birth” abortion ban. It also passed a law requiring pre-abortion counseling, mandating that medical staff tell women that abortion ends the life of a “whole, separate, unique, living human being” and provide information on the father’s liability for child support and copious lists of adoption and parenting resources.

Again, it bears repeating: The real tragedy of the 2010 midterms is that they were a launching pad for the next great escalation in the war on women’s reproductive freedom:

In 1982, there were 2,908 providers nationwide. As of 2008, there were only 1,793. In 97 percent of the counties that are outside metropolitan areas there are no abortion providers at all.

One powerful strategy of the anti-abortion forces has been to portray abortion as outside the mainstream and cast women who have abortions as immoral outliers. In reality, abortion is one of the safest and most common of medical procedures, one that about one-third of American women undergo during their lifetime.

It is a travesty that Susan G. Komen For The Cure decided to cut their funding for Planned Parenthood. But it is far from a surprise and it damn sure is not a mistake:

Now, apparently seeking to flesh out the GOP’s social agenda, [Speaker of the House, John] Boehner has invited another influential voice to the table: the far right Christian activist Randall Terry.

As the founder of the extremist, pro-life group Operation Rescue, Terry turned rabid fanaticism into a high-profile career. Known for his outlandish antics and incendiary rhetoric, Terry earns the scorn of most respectable lawmakers. But, according to an email alert obtained by Right Wing Watch, Terry’s extremism has now secured him a spot in Beohner’s inner circle. Meeting with Boehner’s staff, Terry apparently demanded the GOP “hasten the end of legalized child killing in America” and that “unless the Republicans do something concrete to save babies from murder, then they are collaborators with child killers, and we must treat them as such.”

Maybe we should talk a little bit more about the war on women that is happening in this country.

Posted in "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", I Can't Stand It, I Know You Planned It, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Silly Woman, You're Not A Real Human Being, These People Are Clowns, WE.WILL NOT.LOSE.TO THESE.PEOPLE., What Are You, An Ass?, You're Always Up To No Good | Leave a comment

Mitt Romney Is A Shameless Liar

Posted on January 28, 2012 by Teddy Tutson

“And in return, I shall lie directly to your face.”

When you wake up in the morning, there are two things that you can absolutely bank on: the sun will rise in the East, and Mitt Romney will shamelessly lie about anything and everything. Pick a subject, any subject, and you will be able to find scores of lies and falsehoods from Willard Mittens Romney in his craven pursuit of The White House.

What makes the shameless and serial lying of Mittens so special is his acknowledgement, and subsequent blatant disregard, of the fact that he is engaged in a crass display of pandering to the worst elements of human existence. The team assembled by Mittens shows not a smidgen of care for the fact that they are employed on a crusade of egregious untruths.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s first ad of the 2012 presidential campaign quotes President Obama out of context in what the Romney campaign is calling a deliberate attempt to show that Mr. Obama “doesn’t want to talk about the economy.”

In the ad, which goes up Tuesday in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama is heard saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

But when Mr. Obama made that statement, he was actually quoting an aide to John McCain, his 2008 rival for the presidency. “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose,” Mr. Obama said.
[...]

“We used that quote intentionally to show that President Obama is doing exactly what he criticized McCain of doing four years ago,” said Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom. “Obama doesn’t want to talk about the economy because of his failed record.”

When pressed further about the inherent absurdity of their initial explanation, Romney senior New Hampshire adviser Tom Rath was reduced to telling CBS News, “He did say the words. That’s his voice.”

But you would expect Mittens to lie frequently and flagrantly about President Obama’s record; ’tis the nature of the beast he is attempting to tame. You have to take a moment to really consider what it means when individuals who worked with Romney during his “moderate” days as Governor of Massachusetts come out and declare that he is a straight up liar. And not just any random individual, mind you, but the man whose ideas were instrumental in the landmark overhaul of health care in Massachusetts, Romney’s only real signature achievement as an elected public official. You know, the legislation that also served as the blueprint for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”; aka “The Crown Jewel of Socialism”):

[Jonathan] Gruber said he understands the political motivation for Republicans to be trying to dismantle the bill.

“Look, if this succeeds, then Obama becomes F.D.R. This is the most important social policy accomplishment since the 1960s. And if this succeeds, this could be the kind of benefit to the Democratic Party that Social Security was. So if I was the Republicans, I’d be screaming and kicking and scratching to kill it too, on purely political grounds,” he said.
[...]

He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.

“The problem is there is no way to say that,” Gruber said. “Because they’re the same fucking bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”

And suddenly, you realize that if Mittens is lying about one signature achievement, he surely can be lying about others. Perhaps even the number of jobs he created while working at his beloved, Bain Capital. At a September 2011 debate at the Ronald Reagan presidential library, Romney stated:

“We added tens of thousands of jobs through the businesses we helped support. That experience — succeeding, failing, competing around the world — is what gives me the capacity to help get this economy going again.”

By January 3, 2012, the number skyrocketed to six figures, with Mittens crowing about his success on Fox News:

“And I’m very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the president wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.”

By January 13, 2012, the number plummeted to “thousands of jobs” in a campaign ad Romney released in South Carolina.

The point here is that it is irresponsible not to ask how the number of jobs created by the accomplishment that defines why a person is running for President of the United States could so wildly fluctuate in 10 days.

Because if that person is now on record as lying about the two achievements that distinguish their merit to attain the office of Leader of the Free World, then it only makes sense that they would run away from the truth that their tax plan is an open buffet for robber barons.

Or that he would say with a straight face:

“We’ve got a president in office three years, and he does not have a jobs plan yet. I’ve got one out there already and I’m not even president, yet.”

It only makes sense that he could claim,

“the Massachusetts Pro-Life Family Association supported my record as governor, endorsed my record as governor,”

when in fact, he forcefully rejected their endorsement while running for governor in 2002.

And the only reason it makes sense is that Mitt Romney believes you aren’t paying attention while he plays you like a fool.

“So we went to the company, and we said, ‘Look, you can’t have any illegals working on our property. I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake! I can’t have illegals!’”

This is how Mitt Romney views the world. Never forget that.

Posted in "I don’t know why I’m surprised. I shouldn’t be. You’re a liar. You lie.", "I hate so much about the things you choose to be.", "This guy's a gangster? His real name is Clarence!", Are We Just Making Shit Up Now? Is That What We Are Doing?, I Can't Stand It, I Know You Planned It, Just Stop Being Such Terrible Human Beings, Survivalism, The Fourth Estate Are American Traitors, These People Are Clowns, You're Always Up To No Good | Tagged Affordable Care Act, Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney | Leave a comment

Clarification On The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Posted on December 21, 2011 by Teddy Tutson

On Wednesday, December 14, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed into law by President Obama after passing both houses of Congress. The Defense Authorization Act is the name of a defense spending bill that has been enacted for each of the past 48 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense. The Obama Administration initially came out against the National Defense Authorization Act with a veto threat, out of concern regarding provisions included in early versions of the bill that included the following:

The detention provisions in the Senate version of the defense spending bill authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, and requires that any non-citizen terrorism suspect be held in military custody. It also forces the Secretary of Defense to personally approve transfers of detainees out of Gitmo*. When the bill was introduced, it created a rare moment of consensus between former Bush administration officials and civil liberties advocates who warned against constraining the president’s “flexibility” in counterterrorism operations.

After changes were made to the legislation regarding the indefinite detention language, the White House backed off its veto threat. The nature of the changes to the bill have become a point of great contention, which is entirely justified. Adam Serwer of Mother Jones has been doing tremendous work in terms of researching the language of the bill and determining what it actually says:

So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.

So it’s simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill “allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.” When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would “strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military,” or that the “legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” they’re simply wrong.

In spite of these efforts, there still exists a great discrepancy in terms of the public’s understanding of the effects of the National Defense Authorization Act. A dear friend of mine and soon to be contributor to this site, Sam Sero, has done a yeoman’s job of working to better understand exactly what is contained in the National Defense Authorization Act. Thanks to his efforts, we now have responses on the record from two United States Senators, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), explaining the contents of the bill. The responses from both senators are published in their entirety below, in an effort to further the dialogue regarding the National Defense Authorization Act.

A few important things to note related to the National Defense Authorization Act is that the bill apparently contains a pay raise for the troops requested by President Obama, important improvements to military health care benefits, and that the Senate is currently working on a piece of legislation entitled the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, which would “clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

First, the response from Sen. Barbara Boxer:

Dear Mr. Sero:

Thank you for writing to me about provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) concerning the military detention of enemy combatants. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I was deeply disappointed that the final version of the NDAA did not include important language authored by Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) regarding detainees that would have protected civil liberties while helping to keep us safe. During floor consideration of the NDAA, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Udall that would have replaced the detainee provisions in the bill with a requirement for the Administration to report to Congress on detention authorities. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 38-60.

I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have clarified that mandatory military detention would apply only to terrorist suspects captured outside the United States. This amendment also failed by a vote of 45-55.
I have now agreed to be a co-sponsor of S.2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act. This important bipartisan legislation would protect American citizens arrested within the United States from being held indefinitely by the U.S. military.
I strongly oppose any expansion of military detention authority that erodes our civil liberties. However, I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act because it includes a number of provisions for our troops and their families, including a pay raise requested by President Obama and important health care benefits.

Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact me again about this or other issues of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

And the response from Sen. Bob Casey:

Dear Mr. Sero:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes policy and annual expenditures for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives and the Senate recently passed the final version of the 2012 NDAA with broad bipartisan support. It is currently awaiting the President’s signature before it becomes law.

The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the United States Armed Forces and ensuring that our Nation is able to effectively respond to threats. It is critical that Congress provides the Department of Defense with sufficient funding to protect American lives, defend our Nation and support our servicemembers and their families. While our overseas military engagements continue, it is particularly important to provide the resources our servicemembers need to successfully conduct operations and ensure their own safety.

As your United States Senator, I am committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Americans. Since 2001, United States counterterrorism efforts have helped to ensure our national security. Our brave servicemembers and intelligence personnel work tirelessly to protect our nation against the threat of terrorism. However, it is essential that the executive branch operate with transparency and ensure that our counterterrorism efforts do not infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not sacrifice our fundamental values and ideals in the face of this critical threat.

The custody and detention provisions in the NDAA are the result of thorough consideration and bipartisan agreement. These provisions, including Sections 1021 and 1022, will allow the United States to deal effectively with the threat posed by al Qaeda, a terrorist group that has inflicted devastating harm on our Nation and continues to seek to attack our citizens, our allies, and our interests both here at home and around the world.

Section 1021 of the NDAA does not expand the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists. This section states explicitly that it is not intended to limit or expand the authority that Congress granted the President in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The definition of a “covered person” in this section is “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” This is the position that has been adopted by the Obama Administration and upheld in U.S. courts since 2001. In addition, it requires the executive branch to brief Congress regularly on the individuals and groups to whom this authority is being applied.

It is important to note that Section 1021 does not create any “new” or “unprecedented” presidential power, nor does it create any “permanent” detention power. The legislation explicitly states that Section 1021 shall not “affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Section 1022 of the NDAA requires that persons who are members of al Qaeda and have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the United States or its allies be held in military custody. However, the executive branch can exercise a waiver of this requirement if the President certifies to Congress that holding a particular suspect in civilian custody will better serve U.S. national security interests. In addition, this provision applies only to non-US citizens and non-lawful resident aliens who are al Qaeda operatives and who plan or carry out attacks against the United States. It explicitly does not apply to American citizens and those who reside here lawfully.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected terrorists captured abroad. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. I voted against this amendment because the waiver provision provides flexibility to the executive branch to determine whether a suspected al Qaeda operative captured on U.S. soil should be transferred to civilian custody.

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado offered an amendment to remove the detention provisions in Section 1021 from the bill altogether. This amendment would have essentially allowed the executive branch to continue to engage in existing detention practices without codification in law. By codifying the detention practices already in use, Congress is exercising its critical responsibility to oversee and create a legal framework for executive branch action. For this reason, I joined a majority of Senators in voting against this amendment.

Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens. I voted in favor of this amendment out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. Finally, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” I also voted for this measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 and was included in the final version of the bill.

On December 15, 2011, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This legislation would clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. S. 2003 would also require Congress to make a “clear statement” about the limitations on authority to detain U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will examine this legislation closely.

Nothing in the NDAA authorizes the U.S. military to patrol our streets, detain ordinary Americans in their homes or conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States. Section 1022 says only that a specific group of persons, narrowly defined as those who are “a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” should be subject to military custody, unless the executive branch determines that civilian custody is more appropriate in a particular case. The NDAA does not address when or where a person may be captured, and does not authorize the military to exercise unprecedented powers on U.S. soil.

In addition, the NDAA will not disrupt ongoing interrogations, intelligence gathering functions and surveillance activities, and it does not require military commissions in terrorist prosecutions. The administration raised concerns that certain provisions would limit its ability to collect vital information and limit its prosecutorial options. In response, the Senate Armed Services Committee clarified that no such limitations would be placed on the President’s authority.

The NDAA absolutely does not authorize torture of detainees, irrespective of citizenship. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire proposed S. Amdt. 1068 to the NDAA to authorize certain enhanced interrogation techniques. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments,” and we must not tolerate the use of torture under any circumstances. I believe strongly that the United States has a moral obligation to uphold its commitments under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. We must, therefore, hold all executive branch officials accountable for alleged violations of these commitments. I am pleased that S. Amdt. 1068 was not included the final version of the NDAA that passed the Senate. Please be assured that I support efforts to prohibit the use of “enhanced interrogation” practices, and that no such practices have been endorsed in this bill.

The NDAA also does not change the fundamental, constitutional right of habeas corpus review. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to challenge their detention in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly provides this right to American citizens, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability, even with respect to suspected terrorists. Any American citizen or lawful permanent resident held in U.S. custody will have the right to habeas corpus review. Similarly, the courts have established that persons detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to such review. Nothing in the NDAA undermines this critical right.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Modern Age Revolution

It's already here and you don't even know it.