Category Archives: Constitution

Separation Clause Doesn’t Apply To Contraceptive Mandate.

Posted on by

The current uproar over mandates that Catholic-owned businesses offer contraception to insured employees seems, at best, insincere.

Ignoring the fact that Catholic Charities receives $2.9 billion of taxpayer money, and that the Catholic Church and other religious organizations own billions of dollars worth of real estate and collect billions in donations without paying taxes, there’s a simple principle at stake. Regardless of its ownership and non-profit status, a hospital or retirement home is not legally a church. It’s a business and an employer. And in order to operate as a business, it must meet a variety of legal and government requirements. For example, it must pay half of FICA for its employees. It must meet OSHA requirements for a safe work environment. It must pay for unemployment insurance and workers compensation. It can’t discriminate. And if it offers health insurance, it can’t choose which procedures or pharmaceuticals it wants the insurance to provide.

Such requirements were put in place to protect employees and our society at large.

Interestingly, Catholic-owned enterprises have already complied with the contraception mandate in 20 states. The Church did not raise a fuss until the Obama administration issued the mandate. Only then did the Catholic Church claim that the mandate violates the separation of church and state. What next? Will the Church claim moral opposition to paying FICA? To paying for unemployment insurance? Will it decide that all pharmaceuticals and medical procedures interfere with God’s will?

If the Church is sincere about separation of church and state, will it stop its practice of campaigning for political candidates from the pulpit? Will it no longer allow its tax-free facilities to be used for political gatherings? Will it refuse to take a position on any political issues?

Some Catholic leaders and, of course, Fox Noise Channel claim the contraception mandate is further evidence of an attack on Christianity. Of course, what organization would recognize attacks more quickly than the church that inspired the Crusades? Or the church that attacked indiginous people in order to force them to accept Catholicism?  Or the church that slaughtered and tortured millions as part of the Inquisition?  Or the church that created an environment for sexual predators in its ranks to attack children?

Are We Now Officially Living In A Police State?

Posted on by

When the American public watched televised scenes of non-violent black marchers being attacked by baton-wielding police and their dogs in the 1950s south, the public’s disgust virtually assured the end of the Jim Crow era.

When students at Kent State University were shot by National Guard troops for demonstrating against the Vietnam War, public outrage made the end of the war inevitable.

So what are we to make of the general indifference our citizens have shown toward the police brutality at Occupy Wall Street demonstrations?

If you haven’t been paying attention, New York police have routinely emptied pepper spray containers in the faces of non-violent demonstrators before hauling them off to jail. During one example of police brutality, an Iraq veteran confronted officers by asking, “Why are you doing this? You are supposed to be serving our citizens.” He went on to explain that he was in the Military Police in Iraq, and the military never treated Iraqis this way.

On the other side of the country, witnesses say another Iraq veteran was critically injured by police as he was demonstrating against Wall Street and the 1%. The Oakland, California police claim they were merely breaking up the demonstration with the use of rubber bullets and tear gas canisters because of “unsafe sanitary conditions.”

In other words, we gassed and beat you to ensure your safety!

Despite these horrible incidents, most of our citizens (particularly Teapublicans) have reacted with a collective ho-hum. Why? Perhaps it’s because scenes of police abusing demonstrators have become common-place.

Our Constitution guarantees the right to assembly and free speech. Yet many in Congress, the media, and our increasingly militarized city police departments seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

Instead, they blame the protestors for police violence.

It’s time for all US citizens to look at the police violence and ask, “Is this the future of our country? Are we now willing to accept brutality from Kevlar helmeted police armed with tear gas, assault rifles and even tanks? Are we willing to concede that corporations have freedom of speech, but ordinary citizens do not? Is it okay for big corporate interests to bankrupt our economy, ask the government to bail them out then pay themselves millions in bonuses with taxpayer money? Are we okay with living in a police state?

And if the answers are yes, what can we expect in the future?  Scenes similar to the military crackdown in Syria? Threats by our own Gaddafis to kill protestors like rats? Or a US citizen blocking a column of US tanks in a futile attempt to stop a violent attack on peaceful protestors? Where does it stop?

How Did We Get Here?

Posted on by

Once upon a time, the most distinguishing characteristic between Republicans and Democrats was a difference in opinion on how to solve social problems and improve our nation.

For example, Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and presidential candidate Robert Dole all agreed to the need for universal healthcare. They simply offered different means of accomplishing it. Indeed, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law by President Obama was actually based upon ideas by Nixon, Dole and Mitt Romney – all Republicans.

Contrary to current party ideologies, it was a Republican senator who authored the first anti-trust act. It was a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who most aggressively enforced it to break up large corporate monopolies such as Standard Oil. And contrary to the Republican Party’s conservative heritage, it was Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who created most of our national debt.

Similarly, it was a “liberal” Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who most aggressively controlled revenue and spending resulting in annual budget surpluses.

Unfortunately, the subtle gap between the ideologies has turned into an ever-expanding gulf.

Even as the Democratic Party has moved to the center right, the Republican Party has lept to the way-off-the-map extreme right. Republicans no longer talk about merely limiting government. They now talk about “starving the beast” and declare the government as the enemy. Indeed, they have set their sights on eliminating entire departments and agencies.

They demand an end to the intrusion of government into their lives. At the same time, they want to tell women what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.

They protect the incomes of millionaires and billionaires while rewarding corporations for sending middle class jobs overseas. They rail against class warfare as they continue to redistribute wealth upward. They approve of billionaires paying a lower percentage of their incomes than working people.

They praise the Founding Fathers while denying the very principles they fought for. Though the Founding Fathers declared that “all men are created equal,” Republicans deny equality to gays, blacks, latinos and anyone else who is different. Thanks to Republican appointments to the Supreme Court, corporations now have the rights of people. And since the same Republican-appointed members of the Court ruled that money equals free speech, large corporations have more rights than people.

The differences between the parties are abundantly clear. The question is how on Earth did we ever get here?

Teapublican Lie #15.

Posted on by

“The founding fathers intended the US to be a Christian nation.”

This is simply preposterous when you consider the backgrounds of those who were living in our nation at the time it was founded.  Many had been subjected to religious persecution and intolerance in the countries they left.  Does it then make any sense that they would intend to establish an official religion in the US? 

If they did, they would simply be creating an environment similar to what they left.

If that logic escapes you, consider this. From the Website www.Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence and one of the most influential founding fathers, “…was always reluctant to reveal his religious beliefs to the public… He was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury.”

Indeed, Jefferson made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

And, in Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson outlines the views which led to the separation of church and state: “The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.”

A Decade of Fear and Paranoia.

Posted on by

As the 10 year anniversary of 9/11 approached, the television networks were filled with programs about the event. The best was MSNBC’s special Day of Destruction: Decade of War, Part I with Rachel Maddow and Peter Engel. It presented stories and facts that were both enlightening and frightening.

For example, since 9/11 we have:

– Created Homeland Security, the third largest bureacracy in Washington, DC.
– Created the Transportation Security Administration, an $8.1 billion agency with more than 45,000 employees.
– Created enough office space for security, intelligence and counter-terrorism personnel to fill 22 US Capitols.
– Expanded military bases all over central Asia.
– Doubled our defense budget.
– Deployed more than 2 million coalition troops to Afghanistan and Iraq where more than 4,600 US troops have been killed and nearly 33,000 wounded.
– Turned much of our military over to mercenaries and private contractors.
– Militarized our police forces as never before.
– Created the “Patriot” Act which has allowed our government to suspend many of the provisions of the 4th Amendment to our Constitution and permits the police and military to intrude in our lives as never before.
– Intentionally fomented fear and paranoia among Americans for partisan political reasons.

During the past 10 years we have spent more than $1 trillion on defense and security; money that could have been used to rebuild our decaying infrastructure, to improve the  quality of life for our citizens or to reduce our national debt. We have learned that $60 billion of taxpayer money has gone unaccounted for in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decade. And, not surprisingly, we have learned that the US will abandon billions of dollars worth of equipment and military bases when we finally leave Iraq.

Has it been worthwhile?

Each person is likely to have a different answer to that question. But my own answer is a resounding NO! Actually, it’s HELL NO! Especially upon reflection that all of this is the result of 19 terrorists, many of whom were on no-fly lists, boarding airplanes with $5 box-cutters. The only attacks on US soil since 9/11 have come from the gang who couldn’t shoot straight; people who failed at attempts to explode an SUV, a shoe, and underwear!

Since 9/11, the US has dramatically changed for the worse.  And most of the damage has been self-inflicted.

Warring States, Part Two

Posted on by

Recently, I posted a list of wars fought by the US military.  What I didn’t include were the many more military threats intended to force trade with US corporations or to protect our corporate interests overseas.  That list would be many times longer.

In search of resources and markets for our corporate products, we have forced our way into nations all over the world – from Aregentina to Zaire.  And now that we have created the so-called global marketplace, we use the threat of military action to protect our corporate investments anywhere in the world.

That being the case, next time you hear the media refer to a foreign policy or a military deployment as necessary to protect American interests, ask yourself the following questions: 

When did we amend the US Constitution to require our military to protect greedy corporations?  What is the real reason behind the Teapublican push to replace government agencies with for-profit corporations under the label of “privatization”?  Who is really running our government?

Arizona Leads U.S.

Posted on by

It’s true.  The state of Arizona is leading the nation.  Just not in a good way.

For example, we have one of the nation’s worst economies.  Our schools, home prices, and poverty rank among the nation’s worst.  Our gun shows lead the nation in exporting weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.  And, based on the actions of our state legislature, we must have more non-institutionalized lunatics than any other state in the union.  (Of course, if said legislators have their way, we may not be part of the union much longer.)

To elaborate, just consider the bills currently pending in a legislature that is overwhelmingly dominated by Republicans:

SB1433 would set up a committee of 12 lawmakers (of course, they would be mostly Republican) to review federal laws and regulations to determine which are “outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.”  If passed, the legislation would directly challenge federal supremacy as written in Article 1, Sections 8 & 10 of said Constitution.

SB1308 and HB2562 would limit federal authority setting up interstate compacts to honor each others’ birth certificates segregating children who are considered U.S. citizens from those who are not.

SB1309 and HB2561 would redefine Arizona citizenship in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

SB1328 would make it legal for Arizonans to defy any federal law or rule if federal employees or members of Congress do not have to comply.

SB1391 would create an interstate firearms freedoms act guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms free of federal regulation.

SB1393 declares that the state has the exclusive right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions within the state boundaries while SB1394 protects the right to emit carbon dioxide from human-caused activity.

SB 1545 would allow the production of nuclear fuel in Arizona free from federal regulation.  (It’s unknown if that also includes the production of nuclear weapons.)

SCR1016 would require the approval of the legislatures of half the states in order for Congress to increase the federal debt.

HB2077 requires any federal agency coming into an AZ county to first register with the county sheriff before conducting official business.

HB2471 would bar the appropriation of any state funds to comply with a federal mandate unless the federal government provides a report to show the mandate is constitutional.

HB2472 would allow the state to acquire federal property by eminent domain unless the federal government first receives permission of the state legislature.

HB2537 permits the AZ house speaker and senate president to defend last year’s SB1070 immigration law by lawsuit if necessary.

HB2544 requires U.S. presidential candidates to provide certain proof of citizenship before they can appear on the ballot in Arizona.

HCR2015 calls for a constitutional convention to adopt an amendment to require the consent of three-fourths of the states to increase federal debt.

HCR2022 proposes a constitutional convention to require a balanced federal budget.

On top of all this, the state attorney general has just announced that he is suing the federal government for not defending the border against illegal immigrants and drug smugglers.  (I guess more than 10 border agents per mile doesn’t qualify as a defense.)  Amazingly, it seems that Arizona Republicans are more interested in attacking the U.S. government than dealing with the very real problems in our own state!  Can’t you just picture Nero fiddling while Rome is burning?

It’s Time For A We Party!

Posted on by

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union…” Those are the opening words of the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet our two major political parties seem to have forgotten them. Instead of representing the citizens of this nation, the two parties – especially the Republican Party – seem to pander to the interests of the powerful, the well-to-do and the well-connected.

For years I was an independent, voting for the candidates I felt would best serve the nation’s interests. Finally, the Republican Party moved so far to the lunatic right, I could no longer envision myself voting for a Republican candidate. Now the Democratic Party has shown itself to be rudderless and gutless.

No, I’m not jumping on the “Blame It on Obama” bandwagon (although he’s at least partially to blame). I’m simply stating the obvious. The Democratic Party is filled with great candidates and great supporters. Unfortunately, it also has many self-serving candidates whose sole focus seems to be getting re-elected. And it is populated by impractical elitists who refuse to deal with the realities of working Americans. Moreover, the party is aimless. It has no concrete direction. No strategy to accomplish its agenda. And, when it comes to communications, the Democratic Party is utterly incompetent.

It’s time for a change!

I humbly propose that Democrats form a movement of practical progressives who are motivated to leave this nation in better shape than what we inherited from our parents. A group of committed individuals who refuse to accept what is and strive to create what can be. A group determined to change our government to better represent working families by improving education, improving the environment, making health care affordable for all Americans, bringing jobs back to the U.S., breaking our dependence on foreign oil, reducing the deficit, and reasserting control over the military-industrial complex.

We don’t even have to leave the Democratic Party. We simply must create enough of a groundswell to garner attention and force the Party to re-examine its direction and, hopefully, reinvent itself.

If a few thousand greedy, racist and mean-spirited teabaggers can impact the Republican Party, imagine what the millions of frustrated progressives can do for the Democratic Party. If you agree, please pass this message along to your family and friends. Perhaps you even know some individuals who are capable of leading the effort and organizing those of us who have had enough of the status quo.

Together, we can make a difference!

America, Right or Wrong?

Posted on by

When I was in college at the height of the Vietnam “War”, I was considered an unpatriotic “Commie” for simply questioning U.S. military involvement in a land on the other side of the globe that had not attacked or threatened our nation. I was told, even by my parents, that it shouldn’t matter to me; that I should be proud to fight for our flag no matter how I personally felt about our nation’s actions. Ironically, the only family members who seemed to understand my point of view were those who had served heroically in WWII.

Remembering that ugly period in our nation’s history (and in my life) recently caused me to look at today’s political debate in a new way. I realized that there are many issues that separate liberals from conservatives – education, taxes, greed, religion and the circumstances of our childhoods, to name a few. But the notion of so-called American “Exceptionalism” may be the most divisive of all of the issues that separate us.

Most often, those on the political right believe that patriotism can only be demonstrated by supporting our nation’s every action (of course, the exception is whenever a Democratic President is in office). They could care less about how our nation is viewed globally. They despise the United Nations. They take offense at criticism from other nations. And they’re even more angered by criticism from within. They believe America’s Founding Fathers were Christian saints, and that the Constitution was obviously created through divine providence.

On the other hand, those on the political left are more likely to think globally. We find it difficult to accept bullying, dishonesty and greed – from our nation or any other. We despise poverty. We cherish education. We care about human rights. We’re willing to admit when our nation and its corporations are wrong. Instead of being angered by criticism, we try to understand the opposing viewpoint and change our own if necessary. We believe that it’s the duty of a patriot to call attention to our nation’s errors; to speak truth to power. We understand that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that was flawed (given its denial of voting rights to women and African-Americans) and can be improved. And we believe the Founding Fathers were generous, caring, insightful and prophetic men. But we accept the fact that they were mortals nonetheless.

These contradictions, I believe, are at the very heart of most of our political disagreements. Unfortunately, these beliefs are so firmly entrenched, there’s little we can do to change them. All we can do is to try to understand them and, as progressives, try to frame our arguments keeping these differences in mind.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

Corporate “Citizens”

Posted on by

Anyone who has ever founded a corporation knows that the entity exists only on paper. It’s a legal agreement between the shareholders and the government. Incorporation is designed to encourage the creation of jobs by offering legal protection to the shareholders in the event the corporation defaults on its financial liabilities. That’s it. It’s a legal “veil” of financial protection. Yet the current Supreme Court has disregarded long-established legal precedents to give corporations the same rights as individuals with regard to freedom of speech.

For the Court to make this ruling, it had to re-write the Consitution in two regards. One is that, according to the Court, money is now the equivalent of free speech. Two is that corporations are equal to individual citizens. If protecting a woman’s right to make decisions with respect to her own body is evidence of “activist” justices, what do these rulings represent? Super activism?

But now that conservatives on the Court have created this quagmire, I suggest they take it a step farther.

Why not rule that corporate “citizens” are subject to the same criminal codes as individuals? After all, aren’t conservatives always reminding us that rights must be accompanied by responsibilities?

So if a young male is sentenced to 5-10 years for robbing a convenience store, why shouldn’t the CEO of a corporate giant get at least that many years if that corporation defrauds millions from customers? If an undocumented immigrant is jailed and deported when found working in a meat-packing house, doesn’t it stand to reason that the corporation’s CEO be subject to penalties, including jail time, for hiring that immigrant? If a teenager is imprisoned for vandalizing public property, why shouldn’t BP executives get a prison sentence for causing the Gulf catastrophe?

Wouldn’t it be satisfying to see BP executives (and their government regulators) handcuffed and forced to do a perp walk in front of the national media? And once they’ve been imprisoned, maybe we should put them on a diet of water and seafood from the Gulf.