Honest to God?

Did McCain really say this?

From truthout.org:

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," declared John McCain back in September 2007.

If he did (and I'm guessing the writer didn't make it up,) then perhaps McCain should crack a few history books and delve into the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - the actual authors of the Constitution.

John Adams:

“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” - John Adams

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion” - John Adams (from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and unanimously endorsed by the Senate.)

Thomas Jefferson:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.


"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Sorry Mr. McCain. I'd feel a lot better about your candidacy if I thought you'd even read the Constitution. Clearly you have no grasp of its contents, or of the intentions of its authors.

This is not a 'Christian' country. This is a country that welcomes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans and anything else a person can dream up to worship. This is a nation founded on freedom of religion, and made up of a tapestry of religious beliefs.

Every first-grader learns this stuff.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) Condemns Police Attacks on Journalists

Dispatch from the Angry Middle:

Finally... someone from Congress weighs in. You'd think this would interest them - at least marginally - since they supposedly represent us huddled masses in this withering democracy.

Posted by now journalistic hero, Amy Goodman:

Amy Goodman: Democratic Congress member Keith Ellison of Minnesota has been back in the Twin Cities this week closely monitoring the treatment of protesters and journalists at the RNC. He joins me now here.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

Rep. Keith Ellison: Glad to be here, Amy.

Amy Goodman: And thanks for helping out last night. It's a very serious situation, of course. Hundreds of people remain in jail. This rule of thirty-six hours, can you explain how it works?

Rep. Keith Ellison: Well, first of all, the thirty-six hours doesn't count weekends. And so, if you get --

Amy Goodman: Or Labor Day, which was yesterday.

Rep. Keith Ellison: Or a holiday. So if you get arrested, say, on a Friday night, you could be getting out -- hopefully, if you can -- maybe Wednesday midday. So it really is something that can take quite a bit of your freedom away.

Amy Goodman: You're -- in addition to being a Congress member, you're a lawyer?

Rep. Keith Ellison: For about sixteen years, I practiced law right here in the courts of Minneapolis-St. Paul and all over Minnesota.

Amy Goodman: It was Minneapolis police, by the way, who arrested us, even though we're here in St. Paul. Why is that?

Rep. Keith Ellison: Well, because they brought in probably a number of jurisdictions to help their complement of officers who would try to do policing activity here for the RNC. So I wouldn't be surprised if they have other jurisdictions besides Minneapolis. Might have a number of suburban districts and maybe even some from further away than that.

Amy Goodman: And, of course, National Guard.

Rep. Keith Ellison: Yeah, no doubt about that. Secret Service.

Amy Goodman: And is there a fusion center here in the Twin Cities?

Rep. Keith Ellison: You mean, a coordinating center? Yeah, I'm quite certain there is. I can't give you details on that, because, quite frankly, I thought that it was going to be a relatively routine situation. But when you see some of the footage that I saw, it was anything but routine. It looked quite extraordinary, to tell you the truth.

And when you hear about journalists getting arrested, it's very disturbing. I mean, the news gatherers -- how can the people know, if they don't have news gatherers to gather the news and show them? But when those folks are being intimidated and even roughed up, it's pretty -- it actually is a threat to democracy and the First Amendment.

Amy Goodman: Right, we don't know if the Associated Press photographers have gotten out, if the Pepper spray videographers have gotten out. Even the New York Post guy, we don't know what happened to him at this moment. And, of course, there are many, many people who are on the streets who get rounded up just by virtue of being there. When they move in with such a fast pincer move from all corners and surround a block -- this was basically a parking lot -- there is nowhere to go.

Rep. Keith Ellison: Right. There's nowhere to go. And, of course, they know that, as well. It's not like they haven't mapped out the whole area and don't know exactly what forces are moving in which directions. They do know. And, of course, it's pretty clear that Nicole and Sharif were making their status as press widely known, and it was easy to hear it; you know, clearly on the tape, it was easy to hear. So that's pretty disturbing to me, and I'm actually pretty upset about it.

Amy Goodman: So you weighed in last night as they were in jail. You called the police commissioner.

Rep. Keith Ellison: I called and let them -- just provided the information. You know, this is who you have. This is the deal, stuff like that. So, you know, I just think it's important to make sure that when journalists are trying to do their work, that they are allowed to do it.

Amy Goodman: This is only the second day, and, in fact, the Republican convention was not in even full gear because of Hurricane Gustav yesterday, though the protests in the streets were. You've got a number more days. What is the plan for the city?

Rep. Keith Ellison: Well, you know, that's what I'm trying to find out right now. I mean, before, quite frankly, I was perfectly content to allow the police to do the work they were doing, and I'm just going to go do the work I do. But now, I do have a new -- an urgent curiosity to find out what the plan is. When are massive uses of force going to be deployed? What circumstances will trigger them? Have we looked -- have we recognized the fact that we can actually cause more trouble than what would otherwise happen, when we bring forth this massive use of force as we saw on the tape? And so, I'm concerned about it. I think overreaction is as bad as under-reaction, and what I saw on that tape was pretty disturbing.

I still find it intriguing that it was a Secret Service officer who ripped the press credentials off of Amy Goodman and her producers, while they were already in police custody.

The Secret Service get their orders from... the President, don't they? Either the President or the Vice.

It is interesting to note that the same attacks on journalists have been happening in Iraq for the entire duration of the war; well, at least since the journalists stopped 'embedding' with the Army. More journalists have been targeted and killed in the Iraq war than in any previous war.

I guess Bush doesn't like journalists. To his way of thinking, their job is to spread pro-Bush propaganda. If they happen to stray off of their 'talking points,' he cracks down hard.

For the most part, the corporate media stays on (Bush) message quite nicely. Only foreign or independent (a.k.a. actual investigative) journalists are routinely and often permanently silenced.

Truth is a dangerous thing... if you have something to hide.

Ultimate Irony: 2 Fox reporters detained by police at RNC protests

Dispatch from the Angry Middle:

If this isn't the ultimate irony. Yes I'm laughing as I type.

This from Lubbock Texas:

Media Arrested With Protesters on RNC's Final Night
2 MyFox Journalists Detained, 1 Arrested

ST.PAUL, Minn. (MyFox National) -- Two MyFox journalists were among several media professionals detained or arrested Thursday night on a bridge where about 200 protesters were taken into custody enroute to the site of this year's Republican National Convention finale.

MyFox national editor John P. Wise and MyFoxDFW.com editor Alice Kalthoff were reporting on the protests. Police set off smoke bombs to disperse the crowd after which protesters were directed to head toward the bridge. That's when the protesters, along with the journalists, were stopped by police on the bridge and told that they were all under arrest.

It turns out that 19 news media journalists were detained and/or arrested while covering the RNC protests, including journalists from FOX, the AP, and Minneapolis' own KARE-TV. Many said that their press credentials were ripped off or ignored.

Local coverage from Minneapolis/St. Paul's KARE11:

ST. PAUL -- Police in St. Paul and Minneapolis made more than 800 convention related arrests during the four-day run of the Republican National Convention.

Nearly 400 of the arrests came on Thursday - the convention's last day. A large share of those took place Thursday evening on the Marion Street Bridge, several blocks west of the Xcel Energy Center.

Police used flash-bang grenades, smoke, pepper spray and tear gas to herd scores of protesters and several journalists onto the bridge.

Dressed in riot gear, police then blocked both ends of the bridge before ordering protesters and journalists to drop to the ground and place their hands on their heads.

My favorite part of the local coverage was the link embedded in the middle of the story:

Click here: Was hosting the RNC worth it?

Press statement from Democracy Now!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 1, 2008

Contact:
Mike Burke: mike@democracynow.org

**UPDATE**

Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman, Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar Released After Illegal Arrest at RNC

Goodman Charged with Obstruction; Felony Riot Charges Pending Against Kouddous and Salazar

ST. PAUL--Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar have all been released from police custody in St. Paul following their illegal arrest by Minneapolis Police on Monday afternoon.

All three were violently manhandled by law enforcement officers. Abdel Kouddous was slammed against a wall and the ground, leaving his arms scraped and bloodied. He sustained other injuries to his chest and back. Salazar's violent arrest by baton-wielding officers, during which she was slammed to the ground while yelling, "I'm Press! Press!," resulted in her nose bleeding, as well as causing facial pain. Goodman's arm was violently yanked by police as she was arrested.

On Tuesday, Democracy Now! will broadcast video of these arrests, as well as the broader police action. These will also be available on: www.democracynow.org

Goodman was arrested while questioning police about the unlawful detention of Kouddous and Salazar who were arrested while they carried out their journalistic duties in covering street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. Goodman's crime appears to have been defending her colleagues and the freedom of the press.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher told Democracy Now! that Kouddous and Salazar were arrested on suspicion of rioting, a felony. While the three have been released, they all still face charges stemming from their unlawful arrest. Kouddous and Salazar face pending charges of suspicion of felony riot, while Goodman has been officially charged with obstruction of a legal process and interference with a "peace officer."

Democracy Now! forcefully rejects all of these charges as false and an attempt at intimidation of these journalists. We demand that the charges be immediately and completely dropped.

Democracy Now! stands by Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and condemns this action by Twin Cities' law enforcement as a clear violation of the freedom of the press and the First Amendment rights of these journalists.

During the demonstration in which the Democracy Now! team was arrested, law enforcement officers used pepper spray, rubber bullets, concussion grenades and excessive force against protesters and journalists. Several dozen demonstrators were also arrested during this action, including a photographer for the Associated Press.

Amy Goodman is one of the most well-known and well-respected journalists in the United States. She has received journalism's top honors for her reporting and has a distinguished reputation of bravery and courage. The arrest of Goodman, Kouddous and Salazar and the subsequent criminal charges and threat of charges are a transparent attempt to intimidate journalists.

Democracy Now! is a nationally-syndicated public TV and radio program that airs on over 700 radio and TV stations across the US and the globe.

Footage of Democracy Now! Producer Nicole Salazar being brutally assaulted by police and arrested:



If you have any trouble with this video - sound or otherwise - please click here.

SCOTUS: 1st Amendment double standard

I was reading USA today for a quick update on the recent controversial rulings handed down yesterday; most especially the two that affect the First Amendment (free speech.)

First, I noticed that they cut into the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law by deciding to allow big corporations and special interest groups to flood the television airwaves with massive ad campaigns just before the 2008 election.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said, and I quote: "Where the First Amendment implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

USA Today:

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a 5-4 Supreme Court majority, provided an answer Monday that changes the rules of the nation's tawdry political game. "Where the First Amendment is implicated," he said, "the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

In other words, free speech, particularly political speech, is so important that it must be protected, even when there's a huge downside. Money spent on a political message, whether by an individual or an interest group, is free speech.

Really.

Now - onto the next decision, where the court, in a 5-4 vote decided that high school senior Joseph Frederick, who was suspended for unfurling a giant sign in 2002 as the Olympic torch passed by (the now famous 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus' sign,) was not entitled to his own right to free speech, and apparently... the right of the school to censor him over-ruled the right of the speaker:

In Monday's ruling, all nine justices clearly sympathized with the harried principal. They agreed she could take the banner down. But on the core question of whether she violated the student's free speech rights by suspending him, the court split 5-4. The majority held that he merited no First Amendment protection because the banner was an obvious invitation to illegal drug use, which school rules banned.

While there is something comic about the nation's highest court conducting a high-minded textual analysis of the "bong hits" banner, the effects of this ruling aren't amusing. In the schools where it will be put into practice, the interpretations are likely to be as varied as the explanations for the banner's meaning. The decision is an invitation for school officials to ban or punish any student speech they can reasonably interpret as promoting illegal drug use or perhaps other activities. Some of the justices who supported the ruling seemed to realize the dangerous latitude that it gives schools, noting that the ruling shouldn't be construed to limit comment on "any political or social issue," such as the war on drugs or medicinal marijuana.

Since a landmark 1969 ruling that permited students to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam war, the high court has repeatedly held that students don't shed their free-speech rights at the schoolhouse door, within certain limits: They can't be clearly disruptive or obviously lewd and inappropriate. Monday's ruling adds a new, open-ended limit.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, correctly notes that illegal drug use is a scourge in the nation's schools. But the danger he sees in the "bong hits" banner seems wildly overblown. As Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissenting opinion, "The notion that the message on this banner would actually persuade either the average student or even the dumbest one to change his or her behavior is most implausible."

USA Today seemed to notice the same incongruity that I immediately noticed between these two cases:

Roberts' restrictive view of free speech in the bong hits case contrasts with the court's far more permissive action Monday in the campaign finance case discussed in the editorial above this one. In that dispute, the chief justice broke a 4-4 tie by ruling that in free speech cases, ties should go to the speaker. If only he had shown the same solicitude for students' free-speech rights as for those of moneyed interests that asked the court to increase the size of their megaphones.

Ah, that pesky double standard.

Nice going, Judge Roberts. In the course of one day you have managed to prove to everyone, without a shadow of a doubt, that you have one set of standards for big corporations -- ie MONEY INTERESTS -- and an entirely different standard for us 'little people.' That would be right in line with your conservative 'values' no doubt. Unfortunately, it has very little to do with justice or the rule of law.