Archive for Deb Della Piana

Today I’m writing from a particularly personal perspective. On November 4, the United States took a great step forward by electing Barack Obama in a contest that - in the end - wasn’t even really close. We also took three steps backwards as a nation by adding same-sex marriage bans in Arizona, Florida and, most disturbingly, California. I’ll tell you why California is the most disturbing of all. It’s the most disturbing because the state supreme court had already declared that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is unconstitutional. Constitution be damned! The Roman Catholic church immediately jumped into action and appealed to their Mormon friends to help pass Proposition 8, designed to deny civil rights to one group of people by writing discrimination into the California State Constitution. That, my friends, is not only unconstitutional but also a grievous violation of the separation between church and state. So, the Mormons and Catholics should stop whining about being targeted. In case they do not ‘get it,’ they are being targeted by members of my community because they are the root of the problem. If they can’t take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen, as my mother would say.

Now that they’ve thrown themselves directly into a political firestorm, they should suck it up and prepare for the fight. Oh, and did I mention that they should also lose their no-tax status? Yep, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. Only, it will never happen because we have still have the spineless bunch in office. I am particularly angry about this issue because I happen to be gay (since the womb, according to my friends) and live in Massachusetts where the legislature and the people got it right. It just isn’t all that important and, contrary to the lies spread by the religious right, same-sex marriage has not caused the sky to fall in. Chicken Little doesn’t live here anymore. Didn’t you hear? He’s moved to California. I’m also angry because there are plenty of lies and misconceptions spread about us gay people. Let me tell you how perverse my family is.

My wife, yes - we live in Massachusetts - and I have been together for seventeen years. We had a commitment ceremony with many friends and extended family back in 1992 when we moved to Gloucester together. We also ‘registered’ in Provincetown when that city allowed gays to register as domestic partners. In 2002, we drove to Vermont and had an outdoor civil union in the pouring rain. We were legally married in Massachusetts in 2006. There were just four attendees. We have two children, an eleven-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy. The children are ours. We planned and had them together. Like everyone else, we have had good and bad times together. We’ve managed to keep it together and are very happy. Our children get up every morning and go to school. They come home and do homework (or not, sometimes). We have three rescued cats, but our son is driving us nuts lobbying for a dog. In other words, we are the same as all of you except people are either reminding us that we are abnormal and do not count as a family, or somehow the religious right and government has colluded to attempt to take our civil rights away. And you know what? We just don’t get it. What is the threat to all of you heterosexual couples?

Yes, we know that your divorce rate is just about 50%. However, we know that doesn’t have anything to do with us. You’re managing that one all on your own. And that whole thing about same-sex marriage being abnormal? If that’s the case, then why is it that I’m always reading about how a sordid sexual encounter helped some heterosexual couple save their marriage?

Targeting one group for discrimination

This isn’t rocket science. The right to marry whomever you want is guaranteed in the Constitution and, despite what the right-wing nuts want you to embrace, the Constitution is the cornerstone of American democracy, not the Bible. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the right to marry is guaranteed only to one man and one woman. That’s something that right-wing Christian conservatives want to write into the Constitution. In other words, they want to write Biblical Law into the secular US Constitution, the basis of a democracy that is supposed to serve all Americans - not just Christians. They want to continue to blur the separation between church and state because they want to move towards a theocratic form of government. And that’s not okay because that is never the way our forefathers intended it to be. Now, we’ve heard some right-wing spin around that, but that doesn’t make it so. (Believe me, it doesn’t just stop at same-sex marriage. The theocrats have a huge agenda that also targets women’s health and reproductive rights, stem cell research, and sex education.)

While we’re aware of the role the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches have played in the passage of Proposition 8, the third largest private donor - at a whopping $900,000 - has slipped below the media’s radar. His name is Howard F. Ahmanson, a recluse. He’s a recluse because he’s a Dominionist and they like to operate under the radar screen. In a 1985 interview with the Orange County Register he stated, “My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives.” The proponents of Prop 8 have come up with an interesting spin on their oppressive activity. They are not targeting gays, they are protecting marriage. They have targeted gays for discrimination by denying them - and only them - the right to marry based on Biblical law, not on secular law.

Ahmanson, along with another major contributor - Elsa Broekhuizen, whose son is the founder of the controversial and less-than-Christian Blackwater mercenary firm - has found common ground with the Roman Catholic and Mormon churches. Strange bedfellows indeed! So intent were they to deny us the right to marry that the Mormon Church raised millions of dollars and conducted phone banking from Utah, interfering in the democratic process of another state. The fact that the Roman Catholic archbishop from San Francisco approached the Mormon Church for help in denying the civil rights of one group of people places them in collusion. The Mormon Church invested roughly $20 million, while the Knights of Columbus and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops invested $1.25 million and $200,000 respectively. This attempt to subvert the California State Constitution should result in the revocation of their non-tax status.

To maintain a no-tax status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service code, an organization may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities. In addition, these organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. Clearly, $20 million later and after conducting phone banking across state lines, the Mormon church has shown flagrant disregard for the Section 501(c)(3) code. The Roman Catholic Church was part and parcel to this atrocity and deserves no break, having absolved themselves by funneling most of their financial support through the Knights of Columbus.

No longer content to be ’second class citizens’

Proposition 8 has prompted the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights to file suit against Proposition 8, stating it is unconstitutional because it will change the underlying principles of the California State Constitution and removes a protected right - the right to marry - from one group. Proposition 8 did something much more important, however. It galvanized a nationwide community to fight for its rights instead of sitting back and waiting for the government to do the right thing.

We (meaning the gay population) have reached the point where we are no longer content to be treated as second class American citizens. This message was sent loud and clear on Saturday, November 15, when gays and lesbians across the nation took to the streets in support of their brothers and sisters in California who deserve the right to marry whomever they choose. The battle has been officially joined. If we are good enough to pay taxes to this government and fight and die in the wars our nation creates, we are good enough to marry the partners of our choice. If, indeed, we are going to be denied rights and written out of the Constitution, then perhaps we should be absolved of financially supporting our government.

As for the Constitution, it has been amended over the years, but only to expand civil rights. It has never been amended to deny civil rights to one group of people. This is a precedent that we do not want to set. This despicable action does not ‘protect’ marriage. Rather, it subverts individual freedom. Where will it end? Today it’s gays and lesbians, but who will it be tomorrow? Who will be next to be denied their rights? Before people sign on in support of Proposition 8 or any other ballot measure that seeks to curtail personal freedoms, they should think long and hard about how setting such a precedent could adversely affect them some day.

In the first part of this article, I provided a basic overview of Dominionism and what it would mean for America. The Christian right has gained extensive control of the Republican party. It is now evident that no GOP candidate will be able to capture the presidency without its backing. That’s how pervasive its control has become. I also mentioned in the first part of the article that the Dominionists like to operate under the radar screen. Back in 1986, Pat Robertson - himself once a presidential candidate - distributed a memo to the Iowa Republican County Caucus entitled “How to Participate in a Political Party.” Here’s what it said:

“Rule the world for God.

“Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

“Hide your strength.

“Don’t flaunt your Christianity.

“Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions wherever possible, God willing.”

The goal was to be in control of the government by 2004. George Bush may not have been quite as rabid an idealogue as Sarah Palin, but he was close. Bush took care of those who helped get him elected by pushing faith-based initiatives. He stifled stem cell research. He held back funding for schools unless they taught abstinence-only sex education. George Bush actively sought a Constitutional ban on gay marriage more than once. Had George Bush not blown it in so many other areas, John McCain may well have been elected, bringing Sarah Palin with him. To be sure, Barack Obama’s election has thrown a monkey wrench into their time line, but do not believe for one minute that they are giving up the ghost.

The 2008 election

Although I’ve mentioned this before, I’ll mention it again because it’s that important. Sarah Palin was not John McCain’s first choice for the vice presidency. It has now been revealed that McCain and Palin barely spoke during the campaign. McCain himself was never the Christian rights first choice as president either. It was Mike Huckabee, a Dominionist who wanted to reclaim the land for Jesus, if you will remember. When it became evident that McCain was going to be the presumptive nominee, the Christians moved to Plan B, which was to control the game via the vice presidency. McCain was told that if he chose Joseph Lieberman (aka Benedict Arnold), he would not receive their support. The Council for National Policy vetted and chose Sarah Palin for him. She did what she was expected to do: She energized the Christian base and it’s an energy that will live on in anticipation of 2012 when they believe Sarah Palin with replace Barack Obama as president of the United States.

Since Obama’s election, there have been stories about Sarah Palin becoming a rogue candidate, not adhering to the campaign’s strategy, giving unapproved interviews, and attacking Obama with the Ayers allegation without the McCain camp’s approval. That’s because Sarah Palin has her own agenda. The mainstream media has interpreted this as Sarah Palin’s own ambitiousness, and they are right to a certain point. She wants to be president in 2012 and the Christian right wants her to be president in 2012. What the mainstream media is missing is why she’s driven. She’s driven because she’s a Dominionist of the worst magnitude. This is a woman who believes that we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan because it’s God’s will. Sarah Palin, much like the Reverend John Hagee, believes that a preemptive strike on Iran (in concert with Israel) will fulfill Biblical prophesy.

Here’s what Palin had to say to Greta Van Susteren of FOX News when asked about a 2012 presidential run, “You know, I have - faith is a very big part of my life. And putting my life in my creator’s hands - this is what I always do. I’m like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door.”

In keeping with that theme, she also hasn’t ruled out a run for a Senate seat. When Larry King asked if she’d serve out her term as governor, Palin replied, “I will do what the people of Alaska want me to do.” Then she added, “if they call an audible on me, and if they say they want me in another position, I’m going to do it…My life is in God’s hands. If he’s got doors open for me, that I believe are in our state’s best interest, the nation’s best interest,I’m going to go through those doors.” Should Senator Ted Stevens retain his seat, he will almost certainly be ousted for his felony convictions. Palin could run for his seat in a special election. Or, she could challenge Republican incumbent Senator List Murkowski in 2010.

I’d like to say that Sarah Palin will be back, but the reality is that she has not gone away. Her mug is occupying every news show she can find, and you can be that this is by design. Some Republicans believe she is the future of the Republican party while others believe she will be its downfall. With the leverage the Christian right has in Republican party politics, many believe that Sarah Palin will be a big part of the GOP retooling.

As one watches Sarah Palin today, there is a marked difference. She references God and her faith much more than she did during the McCain campaign. She is no longer restricted by his campaign strategy.

Pre-Palin Dominionist politicians

Republicans have already elected Dominionist public servants, perhaps unwittingly. Sam Brownback, who ran for president for a short time in 2008, is a Dominionist, along with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo. Perhaps the most famous, however, is former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris - famous for helping George Bush win the presidency in 2000. She later went on to win a seat in the US House of Representatives.

In 2006, Harris went on a rambling, run-on explanation about how religion fits into government, “The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or lawyer, but in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.”

Amen, Katherine.

One thing is certain. Regardless of the fact that many of these Dominionist politicians lost their seats in the 2006 mid-term elections, it will be essential for all of us to be vigilant in order to protect the US Constitution and our way of life.

In the end, it wasn’t even close. I had spent the two days before the election glancing at headlines that read things like: ‘polls tightening,’ ‘McCain gains ground,’ ‘Obama’s lead shrinks,’ but refusing to read the verbiage attached to them. I really began to worry that John McCain might actually be our president, bringing with him the dreaded (and dreadful) Sarah Palin. But that is not what happened. On November 4, 2008, a new chapter in American history was written when we elected our first African-American president, Barack Obama. It was so easy to get caught up in the euphoria because the Obama voters crossed all ethnic and racial lines - it was clearly a mandate for change. Obama simply rolled to victory.

My vote was never in question because I’m a Democrat and I firmly believe that - between the two men left standing - Barack Obama is the best man for the job. The bitter remnants of the John McCain camp can blame Sarah Palin for his loss all they want, but let’s remember that McCain chose Palin as his running mate. It’s also time for the McCainiacs to face the fact that he could barely differentiate himself from George W. Bush, whose popularity is - to put it bluntly - in the toilet (and rightfully so). Yet, in spite of the fact that I believe Barack Obama can improve the dismal state of our nation, is he enough of a progressive? There are issues where I, well, have issues with his positions. I was recently asked by a friend who reads my blogs if I intended to “quiet down and give Obama a chance.” It took me about two seconds to answer, and my answer was “no.” If Barack Obama is everything he says he is, he will embrace the opinions of the American people.

Aside from the the economy, which should be Obama’s priority, there are other clear-cut issues he must address in his first 100 days. The Bush administration has done extensive damage to civil rights in the name of fighting the shadow ‘war on terror.’ The biggest blight on America’s reputation is the illegal and immoral Guantanamo Bay. This has been the Bush administration’s playground for creating a whole new system of cowboy justice that violates US Constitutional and international law. Obama himself has pledged to close this facility. In 2006 he stated, “I have faith in America’s courts and in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Military Code of Justice provide a framework for dealing with terrorists.”

That being said, remember that this is a hot potato issue. Obama runs the risk of alienating some conservatives, but he must be held to his word. The inhabitants either have to be charged and sent to prisons to await trial or released. Those who are charged must also be given access to legal representation. There’s no question that some unsavory characters will be released. However, we cannot hold these so-called ‘enemy combatants’ for what they might do. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) believes that Obama will deal with the issue of Guantanamo fairly quickly. However, she intends to introduce legislation to close the facility early next year anyway.

There are other civil rights issues Obama must deal with. First and foremost, he must outlaw torture in all its forms and make sure that the United States abides by the rules of the Geneva Conventions. Then, there is the Patriot Act. President-elect Obama wants to rewrite it. There is no place for such an act in a free and open society. Nobody, neither the FBI nor the CIA, should be given unrestricted access to the financial and medical files of US citizens. The Patriot Act should not be rewritten. It should be abolished, repealed, and as soon as possible. The illegal wiretapping and Internet surveillance of American citizens must stop, and the retroactive immunity given to the telecoms who took part in this Bush fiasco must be revoked.

The issues of Iraq and Afghanistan are also areas where I have differing opinions from president-elect Obama. In 2003, Obama voted against the decision to invade Iraq, calling it a “dumb war.” In a February 2008 victory speech in Texas, Obama said he’d end the war in 2009 if elected, but what exactly does that mean? He has also said he will bring troops home over a sixteen- to eighteen-month period, meaning that troops will be in Iraq well past 2009. What is even more disturbing to me is that Barack Obama wants to redeploy troops to Afghanistan where, he says, the true cradle of terror lies. Afghanistan is a quagmire, and nobody really knows why were are there. We were supposed to be going after Osama bin Laden after the 9-11 attacks, but that turned out to be another Bush lie. Why are we in Afghanistan? And can we effectively fight terrorism by fighting a war?

In addition to getting out of Iraq, we must pay reparations for the harm we have done there. If Iraq did not have oil, it’s unlikely that we would have invaded. This was George Bush’s attempt to privatize Iraq’s oil supply. More than a million innocent Iraqis have died as a result of our occupation. Millions more have been displaced. We have left destruction and devastation in our wake. To add insult to injury, the contractors we have hired to ‘rebuild’ Iraq have fleeced our government out of billions of dollars and constructed buildings that are, in some cases, uninhabitable. Our reputation as a fair and just nation is at risk here, and Barack Obama must see that justice is done.

The separation between church and state has become totally blurred under eight years of Bush rule. In California, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2000 ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. Yet, somehow a Constitutional ban found its way onto the ballot in the 2008 election. The positions our
politicians take on gay marriage are clearly based on their religious ideology. This does not only refer to John McCain and Sarah Palin, but also to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton. While both Obama and Biden support equal rights for gay couples as well as civil unions, neither supports same-sex marriage. What is the difference? The difference is that the word ‘marriage’ is steeped in religion. That is the only difference.

The success of the discriminatory California initiative, as well as similar initiatives in Arizona and Florida, was bolstered by the very public positions that national politicians took on the issue. Regardless of the religious convictions these candidates hold, the issue of same-sex marriage is one of civil rights and upholding the basic tenets of the Constitution. That is the only position they should take on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who got this one right when asked, if elected, would he allow same-sex marriage. He replied, “The answer to your question is yes. And let me tell you why. Because if our Constitution really means what it says, that all are created equal, if it really means what it says, that there should be equality of opportunity before the law, then our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered should have the same rights accorded to them as anyone else, and that includes the ability to have a civil marriage ceremony.” Where in the Constitution does it state that marriage is between a man and a woman? It doesn’t.This is a question of basic civil rights and it does not belong on any state ballot. In fact, it should not be left to the states. This should be a non-issue. Furthermore, since the Mormon Church put up thousands of dollars in support of Proposition 8 in California and even allowed phone bank calls from church property, it clearly violated the separation between church and state, and should immediately lose its tax-exempt status.

Reversing the Bush effect is a huge task and these are certainly not the only issues progressives see as critical. Which issues the president-elect chooses to address and the order in which he addresses them remains to be seen. However, the American people need only look back on the past eight years to be reminded about the danger of becoming a silent partner to the Obama presidency. It appears that we have a president-elect who will listen to the American people. Whether or not this proves to be true, it is incumbent upon all of us to never be silent again.

While everyone’s preoccupied with the election (and with good reason), George Bush is going about his usual business of taking care of business. A George Bush full-frontal assault in the name of cronyism usually means bad things for the general populace. This time is no exception. It appears that the Bush administration is poised to enact a number of federal regulations that will weaken protections for the environment and potentially compromise public safety. Some of these regulations will ease rules for or lift constraints on private industry (such as power plants, mines and farms).

For example, one rule (proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service) would eliminate the requirement that environmental impact studies be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions. According to PEW research, this proposed new rule is “wildly unpopular,” inspiring 194,000 public comments, as well as protests from 80 members of Congress and 160 conservation groups. In spite of this, unnamed sources have reported that the administration has promised to have this rule enacted by the end of November.

Another rule showing blatant disregard for the public health would (get ready) allow current emissions from a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is opposed to this rule because it worses global warming by allowing millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As if this isn’t enough, two additional rules would continue to weaken air quality standards.

One would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants located near national parks. Another rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations. What exactly are complex manufacturing operations, and who makes those judgments? That sounds pretty broad to me. Continuing the environmental assault, the Bush administration is considering a new federal regulation that would ease rules designed to keep coal slurry waste from finding its way into Appalachian streams. Still others could compromise the safety of the general public.

It’s a good thing for George Bush that his everyday actions have become pretty irrelevant in the publics eye. That’s what he’s counting on. He talks tough about terrorism and continuously reiterates our need to be vigilant. George Bush uses the shadow ‘war on terror’ to justify every vile action he’s approved during his term of service. In the meantime, he’s busy behind the scenes supporting new regulations that compromise our safety by relaxing counter-terrorism rules requiring customs brokers to provide shipping data in advance. So much for the Bush administration’s commitment to securing our ports. This is one president who has absolutely no scruples. There hasn’t been one president like him since Tricky occupied the oval office. George W. Bush could care less about being a sell out. He could care less about his reputation. He’s only concerned with accomplishing as much as he can for his business friends before his term is up. He knows damned right well that the American people have a short memory. After all, Richard Nixon - once remembered in infamy - practically died at the top of the respectability meter. It’s an amazing phenomenon.

Unfortunately, a new administration will not easily be able to roll back these regulations once they have taken effect. This requires labor-intensive regulatory proceedings, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting of new regulations and (mandated) reanalysis. In summary, President Bush is taking a parting shot at the American people by guaranteeing them dirtier air and water for years to come. Did we really expect anything else from a president who has consistently shown a blatant disregard for the welfare of the American people and the law of the land?

You betcha. It gets worse every time Sarah Palin opens her mouth. That’s the stage we are at right now. She continues to be an embarrassment to John McCain and the Republican party. Palin also should, by now, have frightened a number of Americans. Friday evening (October 24) on the NBC News with Brian Williams she proved just how big a right-wing extremist she truly is. Here’s the exchange:

Williams: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?

Sarah Palin: [Sighs] There’s no question Bill Ayres, under his own admittance, was, um, one who sought to destroy, er, our US Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities, that, uh, er, that would be unacceptable. Uh, I don’t know if you’re going to use the word “terrorist” there, but it’s unacceptable and, uh, um, it, er, would not be condoned, of course, on, on our watch, but [sigh] I don’t know what you’re asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayres as an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I don’t regret characterizing him as that.

Sarah Palin did her usual amount of stumbling around the English language, but it’s pretty clear that she operates on pretzel logic. She’s truly twisted. In other words, if someone is going to bomb or destroy a government building, the definition of ‘terrorist’ fits. If, however, they are only going to destroy unimportant facilities (like, say, an abortion clinic) or harm innocent Americans, she doesn’t know if the term ‘terrorist’ fits. In her mind, the difference between William Ayers (a terrorist) and Eric Robert Rudolph (not a terrorist) is the choice of buildings and causes. Sarah Palin needs a dose of reality. The Eric Robert Rudolphs of the world are terrorists. Period. Perhaps a quick review would help, so I went and researched the definitions from a number of sources. In order to define the word ‘terrorist,’ one has to define ‘terrorism.’

Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Terrorist: A person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Based on these definitions, the only conclusion a reasonable person could come away with is that abortion clinic bombers, or even better - anti-abortion violence advocates - are terrorists. There’s no gray area here; seems pretty clear. However, since her triumphant debut at the the Republican Convention, Palin has proven herself to be anything but reasonable. That a candidate for public office did not immediately label these despicable creatures ‘terrorists’ is despicable in itself. It’s an outrage. I just cannot figure out what the difference is between radical Muslim bombers and radical Christian bombers. There isn’t any difference. What does this suggest about our GOP vice presidential candidate? It suggests that Sarah Palin is a right-wing extremist. She basically just put the good hockey mom seal of approval on those who perpetrate anti-abortion violence.

Where does the ‘terrorist’ hair splitting start for Sarah Palin? Is it simply that she defines terrorists as only those individuals who hate the US government and want to destroy government buildings? Or is it that anti-abortion violence is being committed in the service of God so, therefore, it is not terrorism? By now, everyone knows that logic. Say you kill an abortion doctor or destroy an abortion facility. So what? Look how many innocent babies you’re going to save! It’s what God would want. Haven’t we heard that rhetoric over and over again when it comes time for domestic anti-abortion terrorists to justify their deeds? It’s a shame she wasn’t allowed to expand and expound on her position. Then we could have seen how far up the line on the hypocrisy scale she placed. John McCain came to her rescue and redirected the interview. Of course, Senator McCain doesn’t much want to talk about the issue either, given his voting record.

In both 1993 and 1994, John McCain voted against making “bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence” federal crimes. He also opposed Colorado’s “bubble law.” This law prohibits abortion protesters from coming within 8 feet of women entering abortion clinics. McCain also voted to allow those who have committed violent acts at or harassment of women who go to reproductive-health clinics to avoid paying fines assessed against them by declaring bankruptcy.

Time is running short for John McCain, so the looneys are out enmasse. The latest Republican figure to walk off the deep end is Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn) who appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews this past Friday. Her latest allegation is that Barack and Michelle Obama are anti-American and cannot be trusted in the White House. Sound McCarthyesque to you? I’d suggest she rethink that and be one of the party faithful who shows up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to count the silverware after W leaves office. If anybody is anti-American it’s our present imperial ruler, who has just about gutted the US Constitution, spied on his own citizens, and has slaughtered literally millions in Iraq and Afghanistan all on this shadow “war on terror.”

She referred to Obama’s friendships with William Ayers (which Senator Obama explained sufficiently during the third and final debate) and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Isn’t it funny that John McCain is never called upon to explain his friendships, like the one he has with G. Gordon Liddy. As recently as March of this year, McCain referred to Liddy as someone who upholds the ideals that make our country great. Really? Someone who served time for the Watergate break-in, plotted murder, kidnappings and terrorist bombings upholds the American ideal? So, why are we worried about Obama’s friends? Or perhaps we should talk about the fact that McCain has allied his campaign with the Cuban Liberty Council, some of whose members have committed terrorist attacks. In fact, Senator Joseph Lieberman met with the wife of convicted serial bomber Eduardo Arocena on July 20th of this year prior to speaking at a McCain event. Lieberman promised to pursue a presidential pardon for her husband.

Or perhaps we should talk about the fact that Sarah Palin has actively courted the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist group whose leader, Joe Vogler, is decidedly anti-American. Vogler stated, “My government is my worst enemy. I’m going to fight them with any means at hand.” This is the group that the “first dude,” Todd Palin, belonged to for seven years. Sarah Palin spoke at their convention in 2008, telling them, “Keep up the good work. And God bless you.” While Palin criticizes Obama for wanting to engage Iran in conversation and negotiation, let’s remember that in 1993 Joe Vogler persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American efforts.

Oh, and by the way, in spite of the fact that Sarah Palin lives with the illusion that the Troopergate report exonerated her, did I mention that Mr. and Mrs. Palin will be deposed this week by investigators determining whether or not she violated state ethics laws? I suggest that abuse of power might be considered un-American as well.

So, the next time Michelle Bachmann wants to raise the issue of un-American activities, I suggest she investigate her own party. Or keep her mouth shut.

I hate to disappoint Pit Bull Palin, but I’m taking one day off the campaign trail today to take a look back. (You will remember, of course, that she reprimanded Joe Biden for looking back instead of looking forward.) At the time of this posting, there are 98 days, 16 hours, 45 minutes, and 11.5 seconds left in George Bush’s disastrous turn. That’s plenty of time to do more harm to this country. Nevertheless, it’s not too soon to outline the events that make George Bush the worst president in American history. While there are many, many reasons to label Bush the worst, there are four watershed moments in his administration that cement his place in infamy: The 9-11 terrorist attacks, the ill-advised wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the government’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, and the economic meltdown presently taking place in America (and spreading around the world).

September 11, 2001

First, the 9-11 attacks. No matter how Bush tries to blame the Clinton administration, this attack happened on his watch. George Bush assumed the presidency on January 20, 2000 and the terrorist attacks happened on September 11, 2001. The Clinton administration had left the Bush administration a comprehensive report on the subject of al Qaeda, including a plan to thwart its efforts. George Bush ignored it. It’s now common knowledge that he also ignored repeated warnings between April and September of 2001. Not only was he warned of potential terrorist attacks taking place on our soil, but he was warned that the terrorists might use airplanes as weapons. The administration was warned by Israel’s Mossad, as well as by Jordan and Moroccan intelligence. How did he spin his administration’s failure to act? Bush and Cheney stated that, had the domestic wiretapping authorization been given in 2001 instead of 2002, it would have prevented the terrorist attacks. As usual, this is a bald-faced lie. The memo he received a month before the attacks warned that Bin Laden was determined to hit targets inside the United States. He didn’t need wiretapping. If the memo could not move him to action, there is no way that wiretapping would have prevented the attacks. You simply have to question why he ignored it. In fact, you simply have to question the official version of 9-11 being fed us by the Bush administration.

You have to wonder why the US military was on “stand down” that day. Why were 140 Saudis safely flown out of the United States during the week after 9-11, when even Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both out of the country at the time of the attack, were not even allowed to fly back home? Many were members of the royal House of Saud, and at least 24 were direct members of bin Ladens family. Why weren’t they detained for questioning instead? This would have been a logical step, given the fact that 14 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and it was Saudi money backing al Qaeda? In fact, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi national.

The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars

Then, we have two ill-advised, ill-planned wars, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. The justification for these two wars, of course, was to fight terror. In fact, the 9-11 terrorist attacks became the excuse for just about every crime the Bush administration has committed. According to our truth-challenged leader, we were going to take the war to the terrorists by invading Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden. In fact, George Bush vowed we would get him “dead or alive” during one of his post 9-11 speeches. New information from former US officials, however, shows that George W. Bush never had any intention of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. The only question that remains is why? Is this because of the close business ties between the Bush and bin Laden families? Or is it because bin Laden had nothing to do with the attacks at all? According to sources, George Bush was more interested in attacking Iraq than finding Osama bin Laden. Of course, President Bush justified the invasion of Iraq by lying to Congress and the American people about Saddam Hussein being involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. We now know that was a lie and that George Bush invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses.

The president landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 and announced that the Iraq war was over. There was a huge ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner behind him. It is now 2008 and there’s no end to the war in sight. In fact, our Republican presidential wannabe (John McCain) says he’ll stay in Iraq for 100 years if that’s what it takes to win the war (whatever ‘win’ means). At the five-year mark, we have lost 4,180 US troops. More than 1.2 million innocent Iraqis have died. At a cost of $12 billion per month, the mission is anything but accomplished. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it remains a black hole for the mainstream media. Nobody even talks about it. Estimates from one web site provide these numbers: 8,587 Afghan troops killed; 3,485 Afghan civilians killed; 513 US troops killed; and 433 other coalition troops killed. Either way, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predict a gloomy future for the Afghanistan war: Next year will even be worse than this year.

Hurricane Katrina, August 29, 2005

The third watershed event was Hurricane Katrina and our government’s disgustingly feeble efforts both before and after the storm. Katrina first made landfall at 7 a.m. on August 29 as a category 4 hurricane. At 7:30 a.m., the White House was warned that the levees were failing. In fact, before the storm was over, nearly all of the levees would be breached. Documents show that the White House had ample warning about the severity of Katrina, even though George Bush went on Good Morning America on September 1, 2005, to state, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.” There’s yet another outright lie. While still on a month-long vacation in Crawford, Texas, George Bush was told about the levees and then some. He had a report that predicted that the levees would be breached and that Katrina could potentially destroy 90% of the city structures. It also described the depth and breadth of the search and rescue effort that would be required, and predicted the displacement of more than 1 million residents. The president asked no questions. Instead, he told New Orleans officials, “We are fully prepared.” That, too, was a lie.

Washington was anything but prepared. Why is that? Because, our government officials were all on vacation when Katrina hit. George Bush, in spite of the warnings, stayed on vacation in Crawford, Texas. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney stayed on vacation in Jackson, Wyoming. Condoleeza Rice went to New York during the storm to see a Broadway play and buy herself some expensive new shoes. In spite of the devastation overwhelming the Gulf states on August 29, President Bush did not rush back to Washington. Instead, he spent his Tuesday playing golf. After that, he played guitar with some country and western singers. Think Progress has put together an incredible time line documenting Katrina’s devastation and our president’s response. It’s clear that Bush had other business on his mind.

Unfortunately, President George W. Bush showed no greater leadership after the disaster than he did before and during the disaster. Two weeks after the storm, Bush pledged a homesteading plan to help residents of New Orleans. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a complete plan and left many homeless people without assistance. The Baker Plan (named for its Republican sponsor Representative Richard Baker) was a much more complete plan, and it received the backing of Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat.. It would provide compensation to victims right away and give them a choice of how to rebuild their homes. It even allowed people to walk away with compensation without rebuilding if they wished. The White House, of course, opposed the plan, mostly because it made George Bush’s plan look as anemic as it actually was. The most decisive action President Bush took was to make sure he helped businesses profit from the Katrina disaster. First, he suspended federal rules and authorized FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers to extend no-bid contracts to corporations participating in the rebuilding. He also suspended the federal Davis-Bacon Act which requires contractors utilizing federal funds to play local prevailing wages on construction projects. You’ve just got to love those compassionate conservatives.

The Economic Meltdown of 2008

George Bush isn’t the only Republican proponent of deregulation. Our ‘deregulation nation’ was actually launched during the Reagan Administration. However, it was carried to new heights under the Bush administration. Over the last eight years, corporations of all types have been given unprecedented powers to police themselves. Take a look at Wall Street. It’s much more than a ‘free market’ playground. It is synonymous with corruption, deception and greed. How does the Bush administration respond? By giving the perpetrators a $700 billion infusion of new monopoly money to play with, ignoring Americans facing foreclosure and fleecing the American taxpayer. The White House employed its usual fear-mongering and strong-arm tactics to get the bail-out package passed, telling members of Congress that the stock market would suffer a devastating drop. When that didn’t work, several Senators were threatened with martial law, the final step of our descent into fascism.

The package has finally passed, and Wall Street continued its free fall. Credit is pretty much frozen. People are losing their homes and their jobs at an alarming rate. According to Robert Reich, former secretary of labor under Bill Clinton, and now at UC Berkeley, the US has lost 1 million jobs since last year. In the meantime, some of the bail-out money has been used for, of all things, pleasure junkets. The AIG sales force, for example, took a trip to a resort in California where they spent $120,000 alone on spa treatments. Another $150,000 was spent on food. This is what happens when there is no oversight, a little detail left out of the plan. In the meantime, state governments are trying to get financial help from the federal treasury just to meet payroll. What’s wrong with this picture?

It Doesn’t Stop Here

I’m mystified by those who consider George W. Bush a good president. I’m wondering what channel they’ve been watching for the past eight years. The four events featured in this article are huge, but there are so many more that have been left out. For example, the Bush administration has turned the United States into a torture state. Condoleeza Rice recently revealed that ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ (a polite term for ‘torture’), including waterboarding, were discussed at the White House among the highest officials of the Bush administration. Bush has approved the imprisonment of scores of ‘enemy combatants’ for years without bringing specific charges or allowing prisoners access to lawyers. He has sent others to countries where torture is routinely practiced under his ‘extraordinary rendition’ program. In short, he has violated articles of the Geneva Convention and he has broken both US and international laws.

George Bush has run roughshod over the US Constitution. Many view the illegal wiretapping of American citizens as his most egregious Constitutional violation. However, he also took advantage of a nation in shock from the 9-11 terrorist attacks to rush through passage of the USA Patriot Act, specifically designed to diminish our rights and expand the powers of the executive branch.

I could go on and on, but this article would become a tome. I’ll save the fine points for my online George Bush Library. In closing, do not to get comfortable just because his reign is coming to an end. With just slightly more than three months left to go in this regime, there’s plenty of time to do more damage. George Bush isn’t just any lame duck president. He wants his name to go down in history, even if it is as the worst president this nation has ever seen.