Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Israel's War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity As it Bombs Gaza

"Our self-righteous celebration of ourselves and our supposed virtue is as false as that of Israel. We have become monsters, militarized bullies, heartless and savage. We are a party to human slaughter, a flagrant war crime, and do nothing. We forget that the innocents who suffer and die in Gaza are a reflection of ourselves, of how we might have been should fate and time and geography have made the circumstances of our birth different."

Chris Hedges in his article about Israel "Party To Murder"

Or as Robert Fisk comments on current & past conflicts in the Middle East:

"Robert Fisk: The self delusion that plagues both sides in this bloody conflict ",The,31 December 2008

Israel has never won a war in a built-up city, that's why threats of 'war to the bitter end' are nonsense

...One common feature of Middle East wars is the ability of all the antagonists to suffer from massive self-delusion. Israel's promise to "root out terror" – be it of the PLO, Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Iranian or any other kind – has always turned out to be false. "War to the bitter end," the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, has promised in Gaza. Nonsense. Just like the PLO's boast – and Hamas' boast and Hizbollah's boast – to "liberate" Jerusalem. Eyewash. But the Israelis have usually shown a dangerous propensity to believe their own propaganda. Calling up more than 6,000 reservists and sitting them round the Gaza fence is one thing; sending them into the hovels of Gaza will be quite another. In 2006, Israel claimed it was sending 30,000 troops into Lebanon. In reality, it sent about 3,000 – and the moment they crossed the border, they were faced down by the Hizbollah. In some cases, Israeli soldiers actually ran back to their own frontier...

UPDATE: 1:45 PM & 4:08 PM, Dec.31,2008

Anyway Israel is at it again as it attempts to destroy Hamas and turn Gaza into a pile of dust littered with as many dead Palestinians as they can before the world shames Israel into stopping the attacks or Israel accomplishes its basic goals in these attacks which Israel had been planing for months in advance. All Israel needed was a pretext for its attacks on Gaza which is just what they did two years ago in their attack on Lebanon.

Meanwhile the US administration & Mainstream Media insist on defending Israel unconditionally . In America it is common practice to chastise anyone who dares criticize the policies of the Israeli government. Such critics are characterized as being anti-Israel and anti-Semitic. This the way in which the propagandists for Israel then go about shutting down any reasonable dialogue or discourse about Israeli policies and actions. Being critical of a particular Israeli policy is not the same as being anti-Israel no matter what the Israeli government does.
Such characterizations of Israeli critics is similar to the notion common to American Conservatives who believe any American who questions the policies for instance of President George W. Bush is deemed anti-American or UnAmerican or not a Real American. We saw this notion promulgated by the Republicans during the American Presidential election campaign . To question Bush's policies in the War on Terror is considered by the Republicans and Conservatives and the New Liberals as being tantamount to " Treason ".

Even now President Elect Obama has to be extremely careful in the way he approaches Bush's policies on the War on Terror or the unnecessary and illegal Invasion & occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan or on Bush's policies towards those captured and imprisoned since 9/11 i.e. the abuse and torture of detainees.

The accepted practice in the United States is that in order to have a realistic chance at becoming President candidates must show and prove their unconditional support of Israel. This has become part of the political paradigm in the United States. So chances are in this regard Obama may feel that he must tow the party line or it may be that he too is a true believer when it comes to Israel. At the end of the day he is an American who like many Americans may not be able to question certain basic American beliefs and values.

Israel and the West Xmas gift to Gaza Strip
Hundreds dead after Israeli attacks on Hamas

Israel v Gaza

Israel Renews Air Strikes on Gaza Dec. 28, 2008,by BBC News

Israeli jets have launched a second day of air attacks on the Gaza Strip, amid warnings that operations will continue until Hamas ends rocket fire from Gaza.

Palestinians now say at least 280 people have died, while Israel is said to be considering a ground assault and has authorised the call-up of reserves.
At the UN, the Security Council called for an end to all violence in Gaza, including rocket attacks from Gaza.

Israel says militants have fired 110 rockets into Israel since Saturday.
The country's cabinet has authorised the call-up of reserve soldiers, with unconfirmed reports saying as many as 6,500 could be summoned for duty.
The air strikes were launched on Saturday against Hamas targets in the densely-populated coastal territory, less than a week after the expiry of a six-month-long ceasefire deal with the militant group.

Note that immediately the UN Security Council attempted to intervene but a resolution was defeated by the United States which has been America's policy almost every time the UN attempts to take action which might be seen as a criticism of Israel.

Meanwhile the United Nations attempts to intervene but is prevented from doing so by the United States use of its veto.

"UN Security Council Urges End to Gaza Violence"Mail & Guardian Online Dec. 28, 2008 by Patrick Worsnip

The UN Security Council called early on Sunday for an immediate end to all violence in Gaza after the death toll climbed past 270 on the second day of Israeli air strikes in retaliation for rocket and mortar fire by Gaza militants.

"The members of the Security Council expressed serious concern at the escalation of the situation in Gaza and called for an immediate halt to all violence," said a statement read out by council president Neven Jurica, Croatia's ambassador.

"The members called on the parties to stop immediately all military activities."

and :

US Veto Blocks UN Anti-Israel Resolution Dec. 28, 2008

"Press TV" -- -The UN Security Council has been unable to force an end to Israeli attacks against Gaza due to the intervention of the United States.Washington once again used its veto powers on Sunday to block a resolution calling for an end to the massive ongoing Israeli attacks against the Gaza Strip.
The council has only been able to issue a 'non-binding' statement that calls on Israel to voluntarily bring all its military activities in the besieged region to an immediate end.

Anyway Israel has stepped up its grip on Gaza as it moved from sanctions and an embargo which amounted to a state of siege to an all out shooting war as of Saturday Dec. 27. Once again the current Israeli government has shown it is not really interested in brokering a peaceful settlement but prefers to crush not just Hamas but to mete out a collective punishment on all of the citizens of Gaza. The issue of a peaceful resolution is complicated when other countries especially the United States gives whole-hearted support to Israel besides supplying Israel with the arms which it uses against a nearly defenseless people.

Yes Hamas is guilty of antagonizing Israel and has launched rockets into Israel in the past week killing 3 Israelis while the Israelis massive aerial bombardment has killed over 350 people in Gaza. So it appears the Israelis believe that they have a right and a duty to kill at least 100 individuals for each Israeli killed by Hamas. But one can't expect any reasonable response on the part of the United States since in its unjustified illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq cost the lives of over 1,000,000 Iraqis and some 4,300 Americans.

So the United States is not really in a position at the moment to criticize let alone condemn the actions of Israel. And we should remember the attacks made on Lebanon in which the country was left a smoking ruin just as Lebanon was beginning to prosper once again. The American administration did nothing to stop that illegal and immoral attack on Lebanon or the attacks on Syria so why would one expect America to care about a few hundred dead in Gaza.

After all as far as the Bush Regime is concerned Lebanon , Syria, Gaza and the Palestinians and the Iraqis and Afghans are all involved in one way or another with terrorists organizations and therefore need to be controlled and ultimately crushed and if possible obliterated . This is just another part of the so-called War on Terror in which according to the Bush Doctrine pre-emptive attacks are justified .

So all one needs to do is claim that the actions of a few or of a segment of a country's population are involved in or are planing to attack an ally of the United States then the United States or one of its allies such as Israel has the right to attack and to eliminate with extreme prejudice any possible or conceivable threat.

It does not matter in their view how limited the threat actually is. The War on Terror ultimately is a state of mind or has created a mindset characterized by extreme paranoia and a somewhat psychotic desire for revenge . If one can't find the actual terrorists then to alleviate frustration America and its allies will lash out at more easily to reach targets. So if the leader and most of the members of Al Qaeda who planed and carried out the 9/11 attacks are from a country too powerful to threaten or attack ie Saudi Arabia instead America and its allies attack the beleaguered nations of Iraq and Afghanistan since they are in fact easier targets.

In Party To Murder Chris Hedges expresses his outrage at the crimes being committed by Israel and America's and the West complicity in these crimes.

Party to Murder" by, Dec. 30, 2008
by Chris Hedges editor's note: In light of the recent fighting in Gaza, Truthdig asked Chris Hedges, who covered the Mideast for The New York Times for seven years, to update a previous column on Gaza.

Can anyone who is following the Israeli air attacks on Gaza-the buildings blown to rubble, the children killed on their way to school, the long rows of mutilated corpses, the wailing mothers and wives, the crowds of terrified Palestinians not knowing where to flee, the hospitals so overburdened and out of supplies they cannot treat the wounded, and our studied, callous indifference to this widespread human suffering-wonder why we are hated?

Our self-righteous celebration of ourselves and our supposed virtue is as false as that of Israel. We have become monsters, militarized bullies, heartless and savage. We are a party to human slaughter, a flagrant war crime, and do nothing. We forget that the innocents who suffer and die in Gaza are a reflection of ourselves, of how we might have been should fate and time and geography have made the circumstances of our birth different. We forget that we are all absurd and vulnerable creatures. We all have the capacity to fear and hate and love. "Expose thyself to what wretches feel," King Lear said, entering the mud and straw hovel of Poor Tom, "and show the heavens more just."

Privilege and power, especially military power, is a dangerous narcotic. Violence destroys those who bear the brunt of its force, but also those who try to use it to become gods. Over 350 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians, and over 1,000 have been wounded since the air attacks began on Saturday. Ehud Barak, Israel's defense minister, said Israel is engaged in a "war to the bitter end" against Hamas in Gaza. A war? Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely crowded refugee camps and slums, to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command and control, no army, and calls it a war. It is not a war. It is murder.

The U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, former Princeton University law professor Richard Falk, has labeled what Israel is doing to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza "a crime against humanity." Falk, who is Jewish, has condemned the collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza as "a flagrant and massive violation of international humanitarian law as laid down in Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." He has asked for "the International Criminal Court to investigate the situation, and determine whether the Israeli civilian leaders and military commanders responsible for the Gaza siege should be indicted and prosecuted for violations of international criminal law."

Falk's unflinching honesty has enraged Israel. He was banned from entering the country on Dec. 14 during his attempt to visit Gaza and the West Bank.
Israel like the U.S. a Rogue State Involved in Collective Punishment of 1.5 Million Palestinians...

Tariq Ali in an article in the Guardian argues the attacks on Gaza are part of the struggle between the right wing and center political parties in Israel.

" From The Ashes of Gaza" by Tariq Ali ,Guardian.UK, Dec.30,2008

The assault on Gaza, planned over six months and executed with perfect timing, was designed largely, as Neve Gordon has rightly observed, to help the incumbent parties triumph in the forthcoming Israeli elections. The dead Palestinians are little more than election fodder in a cynical contest between the right and the far right in Israel. Washington and its EU allies, perfectly aware that Gaza was about to be assaulted, as in the case of Lebanon in 2006, sit back and watch.

Washington, as is its wont, blames the pro-Hamas Palestinians, with Obama and Bush singing from the same AIPAC hymn sheet. The EU politicians, having observed the build-up, the siege, the collective punishment inflicted on Gaza, the targeting of civilians etc (for all the gory detail, see Harvard scholar Sara Roy's chilling essay in the London Review of Books) were convinced that it was the rocket attacks that had "provoked" Israel but called on both sides to end the violence, with nil effect. The moth-eaten Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt and Nato's favourite Islamists in Ankara failed to register even a symbolic protest by recalling their ambassadors from Israel. China and Russia did not convene a meeting of the UN security council to discuss the crisis.

As a result of official apathy, one outcome of this latest attack will be to inflame Muslim communities throughout the world and swell the ranks of those very organisations that the west claims it is combating in the "war against terror".

And as this article points out the Mainstream Media in the US is biased in favor of Israel .

"Lights Out in Gaza, News Blackout in US", by, Dec. 30, 2008

by Deena Guzder

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have decried Israel's continued aerial bombing campaign as unlawful and denounced the killing of more than 300 Palestinians since 27 December, including scores of unarmed civilians not taking part in the hostilities. Israel's attacks on the densely populated Gaza Strip also elicited condemnation from numerous world politicians and sparked protests in global cities.

Despite international outcry over escalating violence, the U.S. mainstream media continues to privilege a prepackaged narrative in which Israel's actions are never disproportionate, never counterproductive and certainly never gratuitous. According to the mainstream media, the U.S. must continue uncompromisingly supporting Israel because the allegedly beleaguered democracy is held hostage by monomaniacal Islamofascists who are inherently evil. Promoting a paradigm in which Israel is always David up against Goliath, the U.S. media presents suffering Palestinians as expendable for the greater cause of Israel winning its epic struggle

Israel oust UN special rapporteur in fear of criticism about its actions it is taking against the Palestinian population.

"My Expulsion from Israel" by Richard Falk

When I arrived in Israel as a UN representative I knew there might be problems at the airport. And there were

By Richard Falk
December 20, 2008 "The Guardian" -- - On December 14, I arrived at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv, Israel to carry out my UN role as special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories.

UN official calls Israel 'Apartheid ' The Real News Network

UN General Assembly president Miguel d'Escoto referred to Israel as an Apartheid state. Phyllis Bennis analyzes the significance of this identification as compared to South African apartheid and the popular resistance struggles worldwide that helped end it. Isreali apartheid is built into a system of roads, walls, and fences which create segregation of Palestinians and Jews both inside the West Bank and between the West Bank and Israel. Gazan Palestinians are separated from Israel and West Bank Palestinians by the siege imposed by Israel after the election of Hamas. Bennis analyses the validity of the term 'apartheid' in the case of Israel and the proposed peace plan many Arab states have presented as a possible solution.

Also see:

"Take your pick- Kadima, Likud and Labor" by Uri Avnery at Media With Conscience , Dec. 20, 2008

"Cynthia McKinney Relief Boat Hit by Israeli Ship"by JULIA MALONE, BOB DEANS the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Dec. 29, 2008

" Arab-Israeli Rage" by Gotham Chopra at Huffington Post, Dec. 30, 2008

"Israel, Stop! Just. Stop." by Lorelei Kelly at Huffington Post Dec. 30, 2008

also see:
"Gaza Near to Collapse as Israel Tightens Grip, Says Bank" Dec 22 2008 by Toni O'Loughlin, The Guardian UK

and so it goes,

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

America Not Answerable To Anyone For War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

So here's a little ditty about Bush and His Gang of Thugs. If only this could really happen. Doubtful - Nixon never paid for his crimes and most likely nor will Bush. The laws are made by the rich and powerful and they break them as they see fit. Once in awhile they throw one of their own under the bus as it were to give the people a false sense of security and the appearance of justice.

Just Like At Nuremberg
ricoyoungblood- Dec. 22, 2008
"'re in prison now, you got no secrets to does it feel?"

Anyway we are now being told that America has committed no War Crimes or Crimes Against Humanity since if the President of the United States authorizes a particular action it is by definition not illegal. And since America is the leader of the Free World all other countries must abide by its rules. Even the United Nations and the European Union have little or no power over America's policies and actions. If America decides to invade some country or overthrow a foreign government that's America's business and the rest of the world is to shut-up and do nothing about it.

Nixon Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal

Karl Rove claims the Congress and the President declared War against Iraq , Afghanistan and any country they wish to name or even not name. So was WAR declared or not . Rove just keeps repeating that the Congress gave permission for the president to use force is that tantamount to declaring WAR. Of course such legal hair-splitting doesn't matter to Karl Rove or Cheney or Bush.

Rove & Co. can not see why there should be any limits put on the US President or on the US Military , the CIA . They should do whatever they want and because they are acting on behalf of America's Security no one should be allowed to question their actions.

Note the Fox News anchor in the clip below starts off by saying that the Supreme Court has handed the administration " an unholy mess" and goes on and on about how terrible the decision is .He and Rove agree that some of these prisoners from Gitmo could end up on the streets of America. They wrongly compare the way these would be handled the same as common thieves in America. But if they are supposed to be terrorists then would be treated more like those accused of murder or Domestic Terrorists. They would be released if there was no substantive evidence against them.

As for Habeaus corpus and other legal rights:

Giving the Gitmo prisoners and others equal rights as American citizens Rove believes as Bush has said it is "utter Nonsense".according to Rove if prisoners are held outside what he calls US territory they can be treated however Bush and Cheney want to. Does this mean that members of the American administration and its military can also do whatever they want on foreign soil. So if an American soldier murders a few Iraqis its no big deal hand the survivors in the family a couple of thousand dollars and that's the end of it. Would Americans tolerate such abuses in their own country.

This is a slippery slope which spreads a contempt for the Rule of Law for human rights which can only lead which has done to abuse and torture of all those captured in Iraq . The military in Iraq appear to have contempt for the Iraqi people and terrorize and humiliate them to keep them in their place.

Alan Colmes Whips Up on Karl Rove Over War Powers, July 3, 2008

During a segment on Hannity & Colmes talking about the Supreme Courts decision that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay now have habeas rights, Alan Colmes takes Karl Rove to the cleaners when he tries to say that the a declaration of war is the same thing as the authorization to use force that the Congress granted Bush.

Bush and Cheney and their Nativist supporters seem incapable of sympathizing or empathizing with the Iraqi people. The average citizen of Iraq may have hated Saddam but they still like other people love their country and are proud of their country's achievements. In the same way that even those Americans who hated President Bush and his policies still see themselves as patriotic Americans.

It is the Americans who invaded Iraq and then proceeded to wreck the country first by destroying the country's basic infrastructure from highways to water and sewage treatment plants and the power plants and the electrical Grid to shelling hospitals and schools and once they took control of Baghdad they did nothing to protect public and government buildings except for the Oil Ministry in case of looting which had been predicted . Then along came the inexperienced Paul Bremner who was clearly out of his depth as he set about firing all the civil servants and then firing the army and police forces. Bremner did this as part of the debathafication but the problem was that almost anyone with the Iraqi Civil Service or anyone who was a teacher or other professional in order to work in Saddam's Iraq had to belong to the Bath Party. From early on in Iraq the Iraqis began distrusting and then hating the Americans as soldiers ramsacked their homes at 3am hurling accusations and insults or just shooting whole families . Iraq became an occupied country an outpost in the American Empire. Towns and villages were surrounded by razor wire and fences and road blocks and punishing curfews were enforced . Instead of hiring local Iraqis to do the rebuilding the private contractors brought in foreign workers which further alienated the Iraqi People. Then came the abuse and torture of thousands of captured Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and other prisons across Iraq. Billions were spent without much to show for it as Private Contractors overcharged as much as they could . But this was part of the plan that is to increase the profits for contractors such as Haliburton and the longer the war goes on the better it is for these private businesses. The longer the war goes on the better it is for helping to earn shameful amounts of money for the Arms Industry. It is also good for business for the private contractors that is "hired guns" or mercenaries such as Blackwater.
So as the water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants and power plants were not rebuilt properly the distrust among Iraqis grew and so fueled the so called insurgency which was a rebellion against their foreign conquerors.

But the Neocons and their drive to make this most privatized war in American history never learned from their mistakes. So some claim Iraq is quieter now since the so-called surge but they do not take into account that over a million Iraqis are dead and some four million are displaced inside the country or have fled to countries such as Syria. Now the American media believes or wants to believe or have been told by the Bush Regime's Propagandists that the War in Iraq has somehow suddenly become a success yet people in Iraq are still being shot or blown up on a daily basis. But the Neocons and a large segment of the American population do not care about Iraqis but what they do care about is for America to have a large support base in the Middle East in case they are forced to withdraw from other states such as Saudi Arabia. And now they can more easily give support where and when needed by Israel . They can for instance use Iraq as a launching area for attacking Iran or Syria . This is also one of the more reasonable explanations of America's occupation of Afghanistan as providing the American Military Machine a base from which to attack countries close to Afghanistan such as Pakistan or Russia or countries friendly with Russia or other countries the Americans distrust . It is also a way to try to secure more oil for America while preventing the building of oil or natural gas pipelines to Russia or its allies or whomever the enemy is supposed to be today and whomever might be called America's and the West' enemy in the future. In the end we in the West and America are in need of an enemy for whatever reason . Without any enemy the American Arms Industry or Military Industrial Complex would not be able to continue growing and expanding and making greater and greater profits. Besides there would be fewer military parades and little need for every other house in America to be flying their flags in defiance of some powerful evil enemy which of course is jealous of Americans and wants to destroy America.

Keith Olbermann & Rachel Maddow & John Dean on War Crimes Probe Dec. 18, 2008

and so it goes,

Monday, December 29, 2008

Obama Should Indict President Bush and His Fellow Criminals

UPDATE: DEC. 29, 2008 at 5:09 PM

UPDATE: DEC.29, 2008 2:40 PM

In case You Missed It:

Keith Olbermann & Rachel Maddow & John Dean on War Crimes Probe Dec. 18, 2008

Anyway the criminality of the Bush /Cheney Regime has now become for the most part a matter of public record. Those interested in pursuing legal actions against Bush and his fellow thugs need only to get enough evidence to get indictments and then prosecutions and a guilty verdict. It is not necessary to get them on every offence they have committed.

They are guilty of committing actions which show their contempt for the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights and for the limits imposed on the executive branch. They used a campaign of distortions and misinformation and lies and propaganda to engage in an unnecessary war costing the lives of over 4,000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. They abused and tortured POWS which they refer to as " detainees" as if the rule of law or international agreements did not apply to those captured in the War on Terror.

But Bush and Cheney and their supporters believe whatever Bush or Cheney did was wrong or illegal. They claim the President in a time of War which was the state of the nation the day after 9/11 so he and his vice-President and others in the administration would be permitted to do whatever they wanted if it was justified in the name of National Security . So spreading Propaganda by interfering with the Media to make sure it was kept on message adhering to the administration's Talking Points could therefore be justified . So the use of Torture on prisoners was all in the name of protecting America and its Superior Values. Survelliance on millions of Americans was supported by Bush and the Neocons and Religious Right for the same questionable and dubious reasons.

Nixon Nixon - When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal

Impeach Bush! Nixon: "When the president does it..."
Listen carefully to Nixons words here, the legislation he is saying would be impossible to pass because of public uproar, Bush has passed under the influence of fear and the threat of terrorism.

Nixon spied on activists in secret-Bush has passed laws to let him do it.
The NSA for one have recently been exposed by whistle blowers for listening in on private phone calls made by average citizens, and harrassing peaceful anti-war protestors

Impeach Bush!

So here's an example of the disinformation and misinformation for going to War with Iraq. The Bush Regime and the Media which they controlled claimed that Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq or when allowed in they were not permitted to do their jobs. But this was a fabrication. It was the Bush Regime that insisted UN inspectors leave Iraq so that Bush & Co. could invade Iraq. The head inspectorHans Blix is interviewed in this piece:

Hans Blix: "Cheney threatened to discredit me" -Dec. 22, 2008
Dick Cheney cooking The Intel to suit his own purposes
Americans still buying into his lies and Propaganda
"Hans Blik talks about the moment Dick Cheney threatened to discredit him and Mohamed El-Baradei over Weapons Inspections in Iraq "

David Swanson points out even if George W. Bush issues pardons even to himself there are precedents in American history that these pardons could be undone or negated especially if it appears that the people pardoned carried out actions approved by President Bush. Giving himself a pardon is in fact would be rather unusual and could be overturned if the Obama administration wants to reassure Americans that the Constitution and the rule of law mean something. This would go a long way to improve America's reputation abroad.

"Yes We Can Unpardon War Criminals" by David Swanson at MWC Media With Conscience, Dec. 28, 2008
Dear President Elect Obama,

On his third day in office President Grant revoked two pardons that had been granted by President Andrew Johnson. President Nixon also undid a pardon that had been granted by President Lyndon Johnson. There may be other examples of this, as these two have somewhat accidentally come up in a discussion focused on numerous examples of presidents undoing pardons that they had themselves granted, something the current president did last week. (See ). In 2001, President George W. Bush's lawyers advised him that he could undo a pardon that President Clinton had granted.

Much of the discussion of this history of revoking pardons deals with the question of whether a pardon can still be revoked after actually reaching the hands of the pardonee, or after various other obscure lines are crossed in the process of issuing and enforcing of the pardon. If President Bush issues blanket pardons to dozens of criminals in his administration for crimes that he himself authorized, he will probably -- with the exception of Libby -- not even name them, much less initiate any processes through which they are each formally notified of the pardons. He will be pardoning people of crimes they have not yet been charged with, so the question of timing is something you are unlikely to have to worry about (except perhaps with Libby).

Virtually none of the discussion of these matters ever addresses the appropriateness or legitimacy of the pardons involved or of the revoking of them. The history would appear to establish that you will have the power to revoke Bush's pardons. I want to stress that you will also have a moral responsibility to do so and a legal requirement to do so. Morally and legally, you have no choice in this matter. When you take the oath of office, you will be promising to faithfully execute the laws of the land. Through Article VI of our Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment are the supreme laws of this land. Those laws bind you to prosecute violations, including torture and other war crimes of which Bush, Cheney, and their subordinates are guilty and which Bush is likely to try to pardon.

and the writer notes for instance:

The idea that the pardon power constitutionally includes such pardons ignores a thousand year tradition in which no man can sit in judgment of himself, and the fact that James Madison and George Mason argued that the reason we needed the impeachment power was that a president might some day try to pardon someone for a crime that he himself was involved in. If impeachment was created to handle the abuse of pardoning a crime the president was himself involved with, how can we imagine that the pardon power legitimizes such abuse, much less the pardoning of crimes authorized by the president, much less the pardoning of obstruction of an investigation into a crime committed by the president? In fact, all such pardons are themselves obstruction of justice, as well as violations of treaties requiring the president to prosecute the types of crimes involved.

The problem is not preemptive pardons of people not yet tried and convicted. The problem is not blanket pardons of unnamed masses of people. Both of those types of pardons have been issued in the past and have their appropriate place. The problem is the complete elimination of any semblance of the rule of law if Bush pardons his subordinates for crimes he instructed or authorized them to commit. We elected you to restore the rule of law, and you will soon have the opportunity to either do so or to place a final nail in its coffin. Bush is likely to attempt to pardon torture, warrantless spying, all sorts of war crimes, fraud and aggressive war, and the various abuses of the politicized Justice Department.

There are limits to forgiveness since some crimes committed by the President of the United States and others in authority if left unpunished will undermine the American peoples faith in its government and the rule of law.

Seasonal forgiveness has a limit. "Bush and his cronies must face a reckoning"By Jonathan Freedland
December 24, 2008 The Guardian"

Heinous crimes are now synonymous with this US administration. If it isn't held to account, what does that say about us?

Yes, the new year would get off to a more soothing start if we could all agree to draw a line and move on. But it would be wrong. First, because we cannot hope to avoid repeating the errors of the last eight years unless they are subject to a full accounting. (It is for that reason Britain needs its own full, unconstrained inquiry into the Iraq war.) Second, because a crucial principle, one that goes to the very heart of the American creed, is at stake. And third, because this is not solely about the judgment of history. It may be about the judgment of the courts - specifically those charged with punishing war crimes.

Less than a fortnight ago, in the news graveyard of a Friday afternoon, the armed services committee of the US Senate released a bipartisan report - with none other than John McCain as its co-author - into the American use of torture against those held in the war on terror. It dismissed entirely the notion that the horrors of Abu Ghraib could be put down to "a few bad apples". Instead it laid bare, in forensic detail, the trail of memos and instructions that led directly to the then defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

For this Bush should surely be held to account. And yet there is no sign that he will, and precious little agitation that he should. A still smiling Cheney denies the Bush administration did anything wrong. Note this breathtaking exchange with Fox News at the weekend. He was asked: "If the president during war decides to do something to protect the country, is it legal?" Cheney's answer: "General proposition, I'd say yes."

It takes a few seconds for the full horror of that remark to sink in. And then you remember where you last heard something like it. It was the now immortalised interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon. The disgraced ex-president was asked whether there were certain situations where the president can do something illegal, if he deems it in the national interest. Nixon's reply: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

...If Bush and Cheney are allowed to retire quietly, America will have failed to reassert that bedrock principle of the republic: the rule of law.
This is why there must be a reckoning. Bush will do all he can to avoid it: and it is wholly possible that one of his last acts as president will be to cover himself, his vice-president and all his henchmen with a blanket pardon. Even if that does not happen, Barack Obama is unlikely to want to spend precious capital pursuing his predecessor for war crimes.

But other prosecutors elsewhere in the world should weigh their responsibilities. In the end, it was a lone Spanish magistrate, not a Chilean court, who ensured the arrest of Augusto Pinochet. A pleasing, if uncharitable, thought this Christmas, is that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush will hesitate before making plans to travel abroad in 2009. Or indeed at any time - ever again.

and : The Noose Tightens
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and other top Bush officials could soon face legal jeopardy.
By Jonathan Tepperman | Newsweek Web Exclusive Dec 19, 2008

The United States, like many countries, has a bad habit of committing wartime excesses and an even worse record of accounting for them afterward. But a remarkable string of recent events suggests that may finally be changing—and that top Bush administration officials could soon face legal jeopardy for prisoner abuse committed under their watch in the war on terror.

In early December, in a highly unusual move, a federal court in New York agreed to rehear a lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft brought by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. (Arar was a victim of the administration's extraordinary rendition program: he was seized by U.S. officials in 2002 while in transit through Kennedy Airport and deported to Syria, where he was tortured.) Then, on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld by four Guantánamo detainees alleging abuse there—a reminder that the court, unlike the White House, will extend Constitutional protections to foreigners at Gitmo. Finally, in the same week the Senate Armed Service Committee, led by Carl Levin and John McCain, released a blistering report specifically blaming key administration figures for prisoner mistreatment and interrogation techniques that broke the law. The bipartisan report reads like a brief for the prosecution—calling, for example, Rumsfeld's behavior a "direct cause" of abuse. Analysts say it gives a green light to prosecutors, and supplies them with political cover and factual ammunition. Administration officials, with a few exceptions, deny wrongdoing.

Vice President Dick Cheney says there was nothing improper with U.S. interrogation techniques—"we don't do torture," he repeated in an ABC interview on Dec. 15. The government blamed the worst abuses, such as those at Abu Ghraib, on a few bad apples.

High-level charges, if they come, would be a first in U.S. history. "Traditionally we've caught some poor bastard down low and not gone up the chain," says Burt Neuborne, a constitutional expert and Supreme Court lawyer at NYU. Prosecutions may well be forestalled if Bush issues a blanket pardon in his final days, as Neuborne and many other experts now expect. (Some see Cheney's recent defiant-sounding admission of his own role in approving waterboarding as an attempt to force Bush's hand.)

But for those interested in tougher sanctions, one other possibility looms. Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and author of "The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld," points out that over 20 countries now have universal jurisdiction laws that would allow them to indict U.S. officials for torture if America doesn't do it itself. A few such cases were attempted in recent years but were dropped, reportedly under U.S. pressure. Now the Obama administration may be less likely to stand in their way. This doesn't mean it will extradite Cheney and Co. to stand trial abroad. But at the very least, the threat of such suits could soon force Bush aides to think twice before buying plane tickets. "The world is getting smaller for these guys," says Ratner, "and they'll have to check with their lawyers very carefully before they travel." Jail time it isn't—but it may be some justice nonetheless.

and so it goes,

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Bush and His Policies Rejected By The American People- Yet CNN & Main Stream Media Argue American People Starstruck By Obama

UPDATE: 2:01 PM, Dec. 28, 2008

Anyway the media is still out attacking Obama either overtly in the case of Fox News and with a bit more subtlety as in the CNN piece below. Once again they want to distract the American public away from more substantive issues. And they especially don't want to deal with the criminality of the Bush/Cheney Regime. Nor do they want to talk about the fact that most of the problems facing Obama were not of his making but that it is a mess he inherited from the Bush Regime. It doesn't seem to matter to the Main Stream Media that the American people voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama and against George Bush and his policies and against the McCain Palin ticket which the American people believed to be a continuation of those policies.

The Main Stream Media doesn't want to have to do their jobs as real journalist seeking the truth rather than just getting the sound-bit of the day. While Bush was in power they were given their Talking Points by the administration and every Sunday Team Bush sent out its Propagandist to deliver the Bush Regime's message and told CNN & Fox News etc. what the issues were for the week to be dealt with on their networks and that if as networks they wanted to survive they better support the Bush Regime. Just like in other countries run by dictators or authoritarian regimes the Media has become a tool of the Bush Regime and the Ultraconservatives and the Religious Right rather than being independent of the government in power. And it appears the Media is going to continue to be shills for the Neoconservatives and the Religious Right so they will be out to attack President Obama in anyway they can.

Obama has inherited an economic mess and two disastrous wars and the battered reputation of America which are all the result of the Bush Regime's policies.
Fox News and others are doing everything they can to prove to the American people and the world that President Bush was one of America's greatest presidents . They see nothing wrong with the fact Bush and Cheney etc. lied so they could invade Iraq. Nor do these heartless supporters of Bush see anything wrong with the abuse and torture of thousands of detainees after all they argue these detainees are not Americans. Only Americans are guaranteed basic human rights and other people not so much. Nor do they want to talk about the failure of the Bush Regime during and after Hurricane Katrina.

CNN attack on Barack Obama - superficial rather than a Person of Substance
CNN also suggest that one or more of Obama's staff are tied into the Governor Rod Blagojevich scandal. In comparing him to Bill Clinton they suggest other scandals may be in Obama's future. CNN and Fox News etc. seem to be hungry for some sort of scandal to bring down Obama a notch or two.It is odd since during most of Bush's administration CNN and other Main Stream Media either didn't criticize Bush or in fact supported Bush's Regime and its policies wholeheartedly to the point that they were Shills & Propagandist for the Bush/Cheney Regime.

CNN Uses Obama's Beach Photos to Rehash McCain Celebrity Attack Ads

On AC 360 CNN uses the pictures of Obama taken in Hawaii to question whether Obama is a "celebrity" candidate, dredge up the McCain celebrity attack ads, use the occasion to compare him to Bill Clinton's problems with Monica Lewinsky and ask if he can govern or not due to this all with the feigned concern over the safety of Obama and his family. If only they had given Bush the same scrutiny. This is a non-news story where these people just have to make up crap to be concerned about and call it news.

and here's more on FOX NEWS and their phony " Fair and Balanced " coverage-

The Young Turks :Head of Fox News: Obama is Innocent Until Proven Guilty ... By Us
Nov. 21, 2008

The 'Bush Legacy Project' Is Failing
Steve Benen, Washington Monthly Dec. 26, 2008.

The scope of the public's disdain for Bush is almost impressive.

and from TPM : Talking Points Memo Breaking: American People Really Don't Like Bush
By Eric Kleefeld - Dec. 26, 2008

As President Bush gets ready to leave office, a new CNN poll lays out the extent to which the American people despise him.
CNN asked respondents whether various positive attributes applied to President Bush. In all cases the answer was No, and in most cases it was overwhelming. The list just goes on and on:

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think it applies or doesn't apply to George W. Bush:
Is a strong and decisive leader: Yes 45%, No 55%

Cares about people like you: Yes 37%, No 62%

Brought the kind of change the country needed: Yes 13%, No 86%

Is honest and trustworthy: Yes 37%, No 62%

Managed the government effectively: Yes 25%, No 75%

Is a person you admire: Yes 27%, No 72%

Shares your values: Yes 34%, No 65%

Generally agrees with you on issues you care about: Yes 34%, No 66%

Inspires confidence: Yes 20%, No 80%

Has united the country and not divide it: Yes 17%, No 82%

Was tough enough for the job: Yes 49%, No 51%

Can get things done: Yes 31%, No 69%

and so it goes,

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Fox News Claims FDR's Policies Prolonged The Depression : Rewriting History to Fit Their Ideology

Let's begin with more rewriting of History by Fox News

Fox News is still a propaganda machine for Dick Cheney George Bush and their cronies and the Neoconservatives and the Republican Party. Fox News is anything but Fair and Balanced and promotes misinformation on behalf of its ultraconservative & Radical Religious Right clients.

O'Reilly and Fox News claim once a war starts then no one should criticize the president or the administration. Besides they have argued for the last eight years that Americans should respect the office that is the presidency whomever is president. They have characterized anyone who criticized Bush and his policies as being unpatriotic, unAmerican or anti-American or as not being "Real Americans ". If this is so will they refrain from criticizing President Obama once he takes over and thereby inheriting The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terror. So far it appears that Fox News and their Neoconservative friends are out to criticize and undermine the Obama administration even before Obama actually takes power. Obama not being a Republican is fair game . So it appears that it is only Republican Presidents who are to be treated with defference and respect.

Employees Expose FOX NEWS' Distortions
FOX News: "Fair and balanced" because they say so!

A brief but shocking compilation from the documentary:
"OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"

As Rupert Murdoch's 'war on journalism' hits new lows, droves of disgruntled employees are confessing their many misdeeds, brought upon by the Soviet-Union-esque environment they faced at FOX News. Watch how FOX executives dictate their bias by forcing reporters to follow memos that predetermine what they can say and how they should say it.

Rupert Murdoch has decided that the best approach to journalism is to parade opinions dressed-up as News. The reason is simple: No one can disprove an opinion, and therefore, credibility is easier to maintain. Should they ever be caught lying, the legal process affords them protection under the First Amendment. We also have Congress to thank for the bright idea of passing a rider Bill (hidden) to deregulate the News Media

Fox News makes fun of Obama's policies to try to stimulate the economy. The anchor at Fox News suggests right off the top that Obama's plan just sounds crazy and Karl Rove agrees. Are they both reading from the same script or list of 'Talking Points'. Once again Rove reverts to the Bush/Cheney talking points that the only way to help the economy is to help the rich with lower taxes and other incentives. Once again the very idea of helping out average Americans in these difficult economic times is treated as being stupid, crazy and a waste of money.
They also see no point in improving roads or building new hospitals or schools etc. As for the roads and highways schools and hospitals these are all supposed to be supported through private investment. one has to remember that the conservatives don't want to support public schools since they prefer private schools run by religious institutions or home schooling as a way to undermine in their view the influence of Secular Humanists and Liberalism.

Rove: Infrastructure Spending Is 'Goofy, Pie-In-The-Sky Spending Idea'

FOX NEWS Revisionist History -Making the facts Fit The Neoconservative Right Wing Ideology. Suddenly they claim it is a matter of record that FDRs policies had either no effect on the economy during the Great Depression or in fact they claim prolonged the Depression. This is just part of Fox News attacks on Barack Obama. They are also doing everything they can to divert attention away from the fact that this economic melt-down occurred during the Bush Presidency and that Obama was in no way responsible for it. The current economic problems are for the most part the result of the Bush Regimes policies of the last eight years of helping the rich and deregulation . Laissez Faire capitalism has failed and this is not what the people at Fox want to be told.Karl Rove like the rest of the Neocons believe as long as the rich are doing well then that's all that matters. The average American who loses their job or loses their house it is their own fault.

Fox News Says "Historians Agree" that FDR Prolonged the Great Depression

I appeared on Fox News to discuss the economic recovery package. As you'll see, the anchor and the other guest assert that historians agree that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression - and they actually laugh at me when I say that's a lie.

" Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression" Huffington Post by David Sirota Dec. 25, 2008

Fox News is starting its campaign to stop Obama's big spending plan by stating - as assumed fact - that "historians pretty much agree" that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression, and that therefore, Obama shouldn't try another New Deal.
When I say Fox News' assertion about historians is patently false, they literally laugh at me as if I've said something so clearly untrue, something Americans supposedly assume is so obviously stupid, that it's worthy of ridicule.
The Depression issue was brought up by conservative pundit Monica Crowley - not surprising since this is the conservative talking point du jour ever since the "center-right nation" meme started looking idiotic and ever since fringe-right-wing bloviator Amity Shlaes published her since-discredited book claiming FDR essentially created the Great Depression. Crowley supported her the "FDR ruined the country" meme with the very authoritative-sounding statement that "based on all kinds of studies and academic work done on the great depression" she knows that the New Deal's "massive government intervention prolonged the Great Depression."
Of course, she doesn't offer up a single study or "academic work" as any kind of proof, and yet, when I say her assertion is absurd, Fox News anchor Greg Jarrett starts laughing at me - as if my assertion that FDR's New Deal helped end the Great Depression is so fantastical as to prompt guffawing. Jarrett proceeds to state that historians "pretty much agree" that FDR prolonged the Great Depression, and resorts to insisting that he knows that's true because "it's in the books" - whatever the hell that means. Indeed, Fox wants us to believe that what was only very recently the deranged propaganda of a handful of conservative political pundits is now such a consensus opinion among historians that to say otherwise is to evoke laughter.

and he concludes after arguing the case in FDR's favor:

If the right wants to try to stop a serious economic recovery package and financial regulations by trying to vilify one of the most popular presidents and popular policy programs in American history, then I'll say what George Bush once said: Bring it on. Every high school civics class teaches the broad truth about Roosevelt, the New Deal and how it helped end the Great Depression, and if the conservative movement has gone so off the deep end that they want to make crazy-sounding arguments that even high schoolers know are silly, then the progressive movement is in an even better position than we may have thought.

and so it goes,

Friday, December 26, 2008

Resurrecting Dick Cheney & Bush As Heroes- America Slipping Into Amnesia

UPDATE: Dec. 26, 5:36 PM

" The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

December 11, the Senate Armed Services Committee

Resurrecting Dick Cheney and Bush and their thuggish brutes as " True American Heroes " who did what was necessary to Protect the FATHERLAND or Homeland - Do Americans or is it just a particular group of Americans who pine for a Dictatorship or Fascist State.Will President-Elect Obama be willing to strip away the newly granted powers of the executive which Bush & Cheney built up over the last eight years.

War Is Over-John Lennon

Dick Cheney the Hero of The Religious Right and The Main Stream Media & Millions of Self-righteous Fanatical Patriotic Americans . They believe anyone who is against torture or shows concern for the Million and a Half Iraqis and Afghans is unAmerican or Anti-American. The question is will President-Elect Obama be able to break away from this American addiction to WAR & Torture and slaughter or is it that this desire for Blood and Power just bred into the very marrow of all Americans. Will Obama be able to convince Americans that they are just one nation among many and that God does not have some special plan for America to conquer the world or destroy all those who are not Christians or who are not in favor of " Laissez Faire Capitalism ".

It's OK to say "Go Fuck Yourself " when you are a Good Christian like Dick Cheney.
Bill Kristol being the good American Fascist that he is is proud of Cheney.
Bill Kristol like Cheney and Bush is just another thug who has no time for differences of opinion or some " Pussy" who has no stomach for Torturing the Bad Guys .

And oh how sad thoseat Fox News and CNN etc. will be if prisoners are not abused or tortured. They absolutely gleeful at the suffering of other human beings. It's the reason they all are in favor of Capital Punishment - each person executed fills them with joy - they have a mindset that is not much better than the hated Taliban.
Cheney: I told Leahy to "f--- himself," "I thought he merited it."

America slipping into Amnesia as Usual

Just because these prisoners are not Americans doesn't mean they can be abused and tortured and denied human Rights no matter what Dick Cheney Bush & Fox News believes. So much for the superiority of American views on justice. Maybe Cheney is right that most Americans believe they as Americans are superior to all other peoples and nations and therefore anything America does to other peoples or nations is always justifiable and right . The Father Land or Home Land must be protected at all cost even if it means turning most of the world into a killing field.
Cheney's Torture Admission dictates Fed Investigation & pursuit of Criminal Charges - Nadler "Independent Counsel NOW".

Media Hacks Call Cheney A "Hero", Say They Love Him For Not Caring What Americans Think!
Dec. 21, 2008

" Dick Cheney does not care what you or anyone else thinks about the war in Iraq or any other subject for that matter, and because of this he is a "hero".

That was the sentiment expressed by both Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson yesterday after The Vice President made it clear during an interview that he is not bothered in the slightest what the American people think. "

The President Has Dictatorial Powers In A Time Of WAR

Cheney reminds the world that the abuse and torture of detainees and the slaughter caused by the Bush Regime in Iraq and Afghanistan was justified and that if he and Bush wanted to they could have used the secret codes to launch a few nuclear weapons on those countries or any that America viewed as a threat. So those who are critical of US policies whether those counties are in the Middle East or Asia or even Europe they should be careful what they say od because America has the power to wipe them out. Cheney shows off his thugish Ganger side smiling while threatening the world. So I guess from his point of view France and other countries who were or are critical of American policies should be greatful they were not attacked or Nuked by America.

See for instance on the brutality and Tyranny of the Bush/Cheney Regime:

also see: The Ten Lies Of Dick Cheney Parts 1 & 2 by Andy Worthington at Huffington Post Dec. 24 & Dec. 26

On December 11, the Senate Armed Services Committee issued a compelling report into the torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody ,based on a detailed analysis of how Chinese torture techniques, which are used in US military schools to train personnel to resist interrogation if captured, were reverse engineered and applied to prisoners captured in the "War on Terror."

...Those singled out for blame include President George W. Bush (for stripping prisoners of the protections of the Geneva Conventions in February 2002, which paved the way for all the abuse that followed), former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney's former legal counsel (and now chief of staff) David Addington, former Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, former White House general counsel (and later US Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales, former White House deputy counsel Timothy Flanigan, former Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, former Justice Department legal adviser John Yoo, former Guantánamo commanders Maj. Gen. Michael Dunlavey and Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq.

The one senior official who was not mentioned -- presumably because of the talent for remaining behind the scenes that once earned him the secret service nickname "Backseat" -- was Dick Cheney. However, just four days later, as if to make up for his omission from the report, Cheney was interviewed by ABC News, and took the opportunity to present a detailed defense of the administration's national security policies, throwing down a very public gauntlet to critics of torture, Guantánamo, illegal wiretapping and the invasion of Iraq, and raising fears that he was only doing so because a Presidential pardon is just around the corner.

Cheney's most significant remark was his first admission in public that he was involved in approving the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks (who, it should be noted, claimed responsibility for the attacks before he was captured by US forces). However, the entire interview is worth looking at, as Cheney's version of the truth does not stand up to scrutiny, and features ten lies that should not be allowed to pass without further comment and analysis.

War With Contempt for CiviliansTorture, Slaughter and Lies


In September an Afghan journalist, Jawed Ahmad, was released from a US military prison in Afghanistan where his jailers " broke two of my ribs during the beatings." He worked for Canadian TV and the BBC, among other media outlets, and he had done nothing wrong. That is obvious, because he was freed without charge after a year of hellish treatment at the hands of uniformed filth whose claim to being human is at best feeble. If there had been the slightest genuine suspicion that he had committed a crime he should have been put on trial, but that is not the way the US system works, in these horrible days. Bush policy in Iraq and Afghanistan is never to admit that anyone can be innocent because everyone arrested is automatically guilty. But will it get any better under Obama? Can he alter what has become normal behavior on the part of the robotic minions of the commander-in-chief?


Dismantling the Imperial Presidency By Aziz Huq Dec. 23, 2008

At first blush, Obama's victory is cause for optimism. As a senator he roundly rejected the signature Bush/Cheney national security policies: torture, "extraordinary rendition," Guantánamo and--until July--warrantless surveillance. Obama appointees like Eric Holder as attorney general speak unequivocally against these violations of constitutional and human rights (to be sure, in Holder's case it was after early equivocation).

The most significant Bush/Cheney innovation was planted at the taproot of our Constitution. It was the insistence that the president can exercise what Cheney in 1987 called "monarchical notions of prerogative." That he can, in other words, override validly enacted statutes and treaties simply by invoking national security. This monarchical claim underwrote not only the expansion of torture, extraordinary rendition and warrantless surveillance but also the stonewalling of Congressional and judicial inquiries in the name of "executive privilege" and "state secrets."

The Bush/Cheney White House leveraged pervasive post-9/11 fears to reverse what Cheney called "the erosion of presidential power" since Watergate. Relying on pliant Justice Department lawyers for legal cover, it put into practice a vision of executive power unconstrained by Congress or the courts. It achieved what James Madison once called the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands," which he condemned as "the very definition of tyranny."

and so it goes,

Thursday, December 25, 2008

The Junky's Christmas by William S. Burroughs

Anyway here's a little video for Christmas which in its way captures the Spirit of Christmas.

William S. Burroughs-The Junky's Christmas, Part 1.
A different kind of Christmas story.It has become one of my favorites. Even a Junky can sometimes redeem himself.
From my blog Gord's Poetry Factory at
& my website gordscafe at

William S. Burroughs-The Junky's Christmas, part 2

and so it goes,

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Pastor Rick Warren Anti-abortion Anti-Gay Anti-Evolution Anti-Women's Rights & Equality Etc. : Typical Ultra-Conservative Evangelical Fundamentalist

UPDATE: 3:14 PM, Dec. 24, 2008

More Ultra-Conservative views from Pastor Rick Warren. Pastor Rick Warren has now joined the O'Reilly , Sean Hannity Ann Coulter crowd claiming anyone criticizing his views on Gay Rights and Women's Rights are themselves engaged in Hate Speech and are therefore Christophobes who are anti-Christian.

It is not just Gay Rights that he attacks but also in particular women's rights. Pastor Warren is anti-abortion and likens those who are Pro-Choice as being equivalent to "Holocaust Deniers" and that women who have abortions are equivalent to Nazis.

Pastor Warren claims that men and women are not equal and that women are to be subservient to men and wives in particular must be subservient to their husbands.
He also does not regard spousal abuse that is the abuse of wives by their husbands as an important issue. Since women must do what their husbands say that if they are not doing as they are told the husband has a right to discipline their wives and one can imagine their children as well.

Pastor Warren in his most recent statement claims that those who accuse him of Hate Speech because of his views on Gays and on Women's Reproductive Rights or concerns over Spousal Abuse are themselves engage in Hate Speech against Real Christians. He refers to all such people as Chritophobes or Anti-Christian. Again this is a common notion among the Religious Right and Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalists who regard all those who are opposed to some of their views and their theological tenets as Not being Real Christians. Only those who are members of his church and those similar to his can be rightly called Christian.

Homophobes and Christophobia & The Real Christians

Rachel Maddow & Katha Pollitt take Rick Warren to the woodshed- Dec. 23, 2008


Anyway Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration has upset a lot of Obama's supporters. So the controversy continues if only Obama would show the courage to choose someone else - there is still time to do so. There are surely a number of Christian leaders in America who are more tolerant of Gays and Lesbians whom Obama could choose instead.

From what we know about Rick Warren he is no better than Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family or Ron Luce of Battle Cry or the deceased Jerry Falwell. This does not bode well for Barack Obama and his attempts at bipartisanship and inclusiveness. Will he next appoint Bill O'Reilly to a cabinet post so that Obama can claim to be reaching out to all Americans no matter how crazy or Hateful their message is.

Melissa Etheridge believes that the Gay community should just tolerate Rick Warren at the inauguration and hope that situation for Gays in America will improve The Choice is Ours, by Meliss Etheridge , Dec. 22, 2008

Brothers and sisters the choice is ours now. We have the world's attention. We have the capability to create change, awesome change in this world, but before we change minds we must change hearts. Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen. They don't hate us, they fear change. Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.

Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.

I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.

But Melissa Etheridge appears to be outnumbered by those who would disagree with her and are outraged by Obama's choice of Rick Warren.

In the clip below Pastor Rick Warren appears to just be against the redefing of marriage and not against equal rights for Gays and Lesbians. But when we dig deeper the claim is not as straighforward as that . As we also see Rick Warren has some typical Conservative Evangelical views on a number of topics as I pointed out in yesterday's post and I will offer up some more examples of this below.

News: Hannity & Colmes - Rick Warren: Controversy Continues Over Prop. 8 in California

Robert Zimmerman & Hilary Rosen on CNN
Rick Warren's attitudes are characterized as hateful and divisive.
Using the Bible to malign and attack Gays and Lesbians.
CNN:No More Preachers At Presidential Inauguration
December 17, 2008

In this next clip O'Reilly claims the Gays and Lesbians protesting outside Rick Warren's church should go to the African-American community since blacks voted in larger numbers tahan other ethnic groups against Gay Marriage . O'Reilly wants to trun the Culture Wars into a Race War or is he just making fun of white progressives and liberals. O'Reilly of course is also against Gay Marriage and so defends Pastor Rick Warren - that O'Reilly supports him is rather alarming in itself- so we do need to dig deeper to discover how conservative Rick Warren is and is he just another Bible thumping Fundamentalist who has a softer sales-pitch. .

But it should be noted that these commentators take it for granted that all "Real Christians " are against Gay Marriage and to a greater or lesser extent against Gay Rights.(*** see example below of United Church of Canada) It does bother a lot of these conservative Christians that Gays and Lesbians are no longer in the closet hiding what they the Conservative Christians & the Religious Right see as the Gays and Lesbians immoral life-style which they have perversely chosen. But there are Christians in America and in Canada who do not treat Gays and Lesbians as evil sinful perverts but rather as equal to all of God's Children as it were and that they can not only belong to a church but even become a minister or pastor .

Fox News: The O'Reilly Factor - Culture Warrior: Prop. 8 Protests at Rick Warren's Church
11.10.08 09:54 pm - Bill O'Reilly denounces Prop. 8 protests in front of Rick Warren's church: "My problem here is that they're directing their ire toward the wrong target. To go after a church, which is a private institution, they're preaching based on biblical teachings. And there are biblical admonitions against homosexuality."

For instance :

Conservative Anti-Choice Pastor Picked for Obama's Inauguration
By Sarah Posner, Dec.18,2008

A very strange pick -- Pastor Rick Warren opposes gay marriage, doesn't believe in evolution and compared abortion to the Holocaust

Now it has officially gone too far: Democrats, in their zeal to appear friendly to evangelical voters, have chosen celebrity preacher and best-selling author Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration.
There was no doubt that Obama, like every president before him, would pick a Christian minister to perform this sacred duty. But Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service, but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Warren has done a masterful job at marketing himself as "new" kind of evangelical with a "broader agenda" than just fighting abortion rights and gay marriage. He dispatches members of his congregation to Africa to perform AIDS relief and has positioned himself as a great crusader for bringing his "purpose-driven" pabulum to the world.

...Warren called opposition to gay marriage a "humanitarian issue" because "God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation."

...Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

and as Sarah Posner concludes that:

Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful. Obama's religious outreach was intended, supposedly, to make religious voters more comfortable with him and feel included in the Democratic Party. But that outreach now has come at the expense of other people's comfort and inclusion, at an event meant to mark a turning point away from divisive politics.

and from Huffington Post on Rick Warren as Obama's choice How To Keep the hearts of bigots Warm through the Winter, by Harvey Fierstein, Dec. 23,2008 argues that:

He can call the placing of a hate monger like Rick Warren on the world dais political healing or inclusiveness or any other nicety he'd like, but I call it pandering to the lowest instinct of the worst kind of politics.
President Elect Obama, your victory was made possible in no small part to the votes and wallets of the gay and lesbian community along with our supporters. Turning your back on us does not make you more mainstream American. It just makes you a coward.


at huffington Post Rachel Weiner is scathingly critical of Obama's choice of Rick Warren and about Obama's own views on Gays
Time Mag Columnist: Obama Is "Very Rational-Sounding Sort Of Bigot" By Rachel Weiner, dec. 21,2008

...Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, one that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

and Rep. Barney Frank is also critical of Obama on this choice: Obama's Choice Of Warren Is Very Disappointing
by barney frank, Dec.18, 2008

...the President-Elect has not simply invited Rev. Warren to give a speech as part of a series in which various views are presented. The selection of a member of the clergy to occupy this uniquely elevated position has always been considered a mark of respect and approval by those who are being inaugurated.

also checkout article comparing Rick Warren's invitation as disappointing and troubling but not as bad as the U.S. refusal to sign on to the Un Decaration against Descrimination of Gays :
Bad Company: US Fails Gay, Lesbian Citizens by The Boulder Daily Camera(Colorado) Dec. 23, 2008 by Clay Evans

*** Case of The United Church of Canada and Gay Rights, ordination and marriage:
see: "United Church Of Canada and Homosexuality" at Religious

United Church of Canada :About 3.1 million Canadians identify themselves with the United Church of Canada. The church reports 684,000 confirmed members
This is the most liberal of the larger Protestant denominations in Canada. It is exceeded in size only by the Roman Catholic church. It was formed in 1925 by a merger of most congregations of the Association of Congregational Churches in Canada, the Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church in Canada. Some Presbyterian congregations remained part of a separate mainline religious organization.

and in 1988 when the Church was deciding on the issue of Homosexuals in the church -
At the General Council ...a group of Christian, anti-homosexual Fundamentalists from the United States crashed the meeting and attempted to disrupt proceedings. They were gently ejected. Their open display of hatred for gays and lesbians may well have changed many delegates' minds in favor of homosexual ordination; it is impossible to tell. After much heated debate and maneuvering, Council passed a resolution with approximately a 3:1 vote:

"A) That all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation, who profess Jesus Christ and obedience to Him, are welcome to be or become full member of the Church.
B) All members of the Church are eligible to be considered for the Ordered Ministry."

A strange event had happened. The majority of delegates had come to the Council with a bias against ordaining homosexuals, but with an open mind. They heard the heart wrenching testimonies of devout gay and lesbian church members; many probably met an openly homosexual person for the first time in their life; they debated little else among themselves; they searched their souls and prayed to learn God's will. And most changed their mind!

The resolution was subsequently amended to include:

"that all Christian people are called to a lifestyle patterned on obedience to Jesus Christ."


2005:The United Church of Canada, Canada's largest Protestant denomination, congratulated the government of Canada on its proposed same-sex marriage (SSM) law which the Church called a "win-win solution in the same-sex marriage debate." Rev. Dr. Jim Sinclair, General Secretary of the General Council, said: "Marriage will be enhanced, not diminished, religious freedom will be protected, not threatened, and Canadian society will be strengthened, not weakened, as a result of this legislation."

Statement from the Church:
"A significant, unique contribution that the United Church brings to this debate is the denomination's own experience of making same-sex marriage ceremonies available to its members and, at the same time, respecting the right of those within the denomination who are opposed to such services...Religious marriage is not, and cannot be, affected by the proposed legislation. All faith communities in Canada, whatever their views on same-sex marriage, have the absolute right to determine for themselves who will be eligible for religious marriage within their communities. This includes the right to determine whether the community will offer religious marriages to interfaith couples, to divorced couples, or to couples who are not members of the community."

and so it goes,

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Should Obama Rescind Invitation to Rev. Rick Warren ?

UPDATE: 11:53 AM, & 1:50 PM Dec. 23, 2008

Case for and against Rick Warren
Should Obama Rescind invitation to Rev. Rick Warren to his inauguration
Surely Obama could find a more liberal Evangelical to replace Rev. Rick Warren-

President -Elect Obama has picked Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Ministries to give an address at his Inauguration . Obama has picked an evangelical minister we assume to show that he is being inclusive of as many Americans as possible.
When I first heard that Pastor Warren was against Gay Marriage I thought many may not agree with him on this matter but surely he just happened to be against making this into a legal issue which he and many other Evangelicals believe might force churches to comply with the law and perform Gay Marriages against the church's wishes. But no Pastor Rick Warren goes much further in his negative views about Gays.

Rick Warren is not some fairly open-minded inclusive Evangelical in regard to Gays. So this has created a lot of controversy since Rick Warren has some rather narrow views in regards to Gays. He is anti-Gay marriages to begin with but he goes much further claiming Homosexuality is just as bad as Pedophilia and Incest. He also argues that Gays can be cured. And his church does not allow unrepentant Gays to join his church. They may attend but not become members.

Barack Obama by choosing Rick Warren is trying to be inclusive of the significant portion of Americans who are claim to be Evangelical Christians whereas Rick Warren is not inclusive. But Barack Obama could have chosen one of a number of more liberal Evangelicals who are less critical and more accepting of Homosexuals and who don't attempt to cure Gays .

New Dirt on Pastor Warren via Rachel Maddow
Rachel Maddow on MSNBC
Rachel Maddow highlights new details about Pastor Warren and his blatant intolerance against Gays

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur

Rick Warren is wrong in comparing Gays to pedophiles and those who engage in incest. As Cenk correctly points out that Warren is wrong claiming marriage has been defined for some five thousand years as the union of one man and one woman. You'll hear this sort of claim being made especially by ultra-conservative Evangelicals but they just sort of make this up knowing most of their listeners will just accept as true without questioning it or doing a little bit of research. But what these Evangelicals are doing is confusing questions of historical fact with one's belief and faith . Throughout most of human history marriage as such was a matter of a contractual agreement made by the parents of the persons who were to be married. Women more often than not had little or no choice in whom they might want to marry. In the Bible in the Old Testament for instance it also mentions multiple wives and /or the use of concubines and servants as being acceptable.

Rick Warren Can Stuff a Donut Up His ---

Watch more at

" If Warren said on TV in Canada what he said in the United States he could be prosecuted for a hate crime. That's a fact. " Charles Karel Bouley

From Huffington Post Barack Get A Klue by Charles Karel Bouley, Dec. 22, 2008

Change would have been letting the preachers that get it right have a voice. Those of faith that know whether they agree with these issues or not they are not for the legislature or the Constitution. People who don't condemn and divide, but unite through love and compassion; who would never legislate their beliefs. That would be change. Change would be silencing the hateful speech of those like Rick Warren and replacing it with true love and joy and inclusion. If Warren said on TV in Canada what he said in the United States he could be prosecuted for a hate crime. That's a fact.

No, if you want inclusion, either include all of America, the UGLY part or leave Rick Warren out. He is part of the Ugly part. He is the same as a member of the Klan. He burns his opponents politically, socially, financially. He does slash and burn campaigns through funding lies, downright lies, and focuses the resources of his tax free mega church on those that need protection under the law from people just like him. He ministers to a White, racist classist ministry (I've been in the church, I know of what I speak, and lived in Orange County, CA for 10 years), is filthy rich, has a church that is an abomination to God (did he not destroy the temple and throw out the money changers?) and should fade in to the last century like all relics. I don't care what book he wrote. As far as I'm concerned, he's a hate monger of the worst kind...the kind with a slick smile and caring glance. They're the worst. Slit your throat every time, and he's trying to kill all gays and lesbian relationships in the California and the Country and crawl inside a woman's woman and put a lock on her uterus until HE says it's OK.

Just because he says he's doing it in the name of God doesn't mean he is. Even the Bible said that Demons will take all forms, and even will even appear as benevolent and just.

In either event, Rick Warren is what's WRONG with America, not what's right. There are plenty of other ministers out there that get it, that know their god is love, not hate, and that their god didn't make mistakes and thus gays and lesbians deserve all the same benefits under the law; or they are at least smart enough to know that even if their god disapproves, they disapprove in their church and not at City Hall, the State House or the White House and their bible when it comes to America is the Constitution of the United States and not a King James version of anything.
Barack, get a Klue.

And from Steve Waldman at
Saddleback: Homosexuals Not Welcome As Members Dec. 21, 2008

A statement on the Saddleback Church website declares, "someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church." The full statement on homosexuality:

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

The Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin.

"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin." (Lev. 18:22 TLB)

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:9-11 NIV)

While all sin is destructive, Romans 6 warns us of the great dangers in sexual sin when it says, "Run away from sexual sin! No other sin so clearly affects the body as this one does. For sexual immorality is a sin against your own body." (1 Cor 6:18 NLT) This includes not only homosexuality, but all sexual immorality: adultery, sex without marriage, pornography. We must not act as if homosexuality is the only serious sexual sin, and we must not act as if homosexuality is not a serious sexual sin.

I've heard it asked, "Isn't being homosexual something that a person is physically born with?" First of all, there are absolutely no facts to support this claim. From time to time studies have been reported in the news that seemed to indicate this, but every one of these studies has proven to be wrong. Secondly, even if some physical difference were discovered, it would be no excuse for sin. We know that some people can develop a stronger physical addiction to alcohol than others, but that's obviously no excuse for living an alcoholic lifestyle.

Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.

Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church. That does not mean they cannot attend church - we hope they do! God's Word has the power to change our lives.

In equal desire to follow Jesus, we also would not accept a couple into membership at Saddleback who were not willing to repent of the sexual sin of living together before marriage. That does not mean this couple cannot attend church - we hope they do! God's Word has the power to change our lives

Anyway having visited the Saddleback Church's website it appears to me to be the standard fare of Conservative Evangelical Christianity which is shared by a number of such Evangelical organizations. So we should re-evaluate Pastor Rick Warrens beliefs in the context of Conservative Christian Evangelicals . What we find is that he is inside that particular Conservative school of thought and theology which rjects Homosexuality as being an acceptable practice.

There is little here to convince one that this ministry is at all liberal in its views. The Church claims that Good Works and self-improvement will not lead to salvation. Salvation is a matter of faith in Jesus.

Another thing of note is that this is ministry believes as far as I can tell in the literal and inerrant truth of the Bible as the Inspired Word of God. This form of literalism is typical of Evangelical Fundamentalism. If this is true then it leads to a plethora of issues regarding for instance the Book of Genesis and the Creation myth as being literally true as well as other parts of Genesis and the rest of the Bible. Does the church accept the Creation Myth and reject Evolution .

Does the Church believe that men and women were not made equal and that women are to be subservient to men. This opens up a whole can of theological worms as it were. Is the church also convinced of the literal truth of the Book of Revelation and so believe in a literal End-Times and eschatological views such as The Rapture & Tribulation and The Anti-Christ .

The church like other Evangelical ministries is not at all inclusive since according to its basic tenets those who do not accept Jesus as their savior are also sinful and living in error and have no chance at salvation. It is necessary therefore to try to convert all non-believers to this particular form of Conservative Evangelical Christianity .Otherwise they are damned for all Eternity to Hell.

See Saddleback Church

and like other Evangelical ministries those who do not accept Jesus as their savior are also sinful and living in error and have no chance at salvation. It is necessary therefore to try to convert all non-believers to this particular form of Conservative Evangelical Christianity.

The position of Rick Warren on the Family & Homosexuality is much the same as other conservative Evangelical groups such as Dobson's Religious Right organization " Focus on the Family":

The Permanence of Marriage

...We believe that the institution of marriage is a sacred covenant designed by God to model the love of Christ for His people and to serve both the public and private good as the basic building block of human civilization. Marriage is intended by God to be a thriving, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman enduring through trials, sickness, financial crises and emotional stresses. Therefore, Christians are called to defend and protect God's marriage design and to minister in Christ's name to those who suffer the consequences of its brokenness.


The Value of Male and Female

...We believe that God created humans in His image, intentionally male and female, each bringing unique and complementary qualities to sexuality and relationships. Sexuality is a glorious gift from God to be offered back to Him either in marriage for procreation, union and mutual delight or in celibacy for undivided devotion to Christ. Christians are called to proclaim the truth and beauty of God's design and the redemption of sexual brokenness in our lives and culture through Jesus Christ.

And see on Homosexuality : Focus on The Family Love Won Out in which again the belief is that Homosexuality is unnatural and a sin against God and that it is something which needs to be overcome by any who wish to be SAVED!

On Battlecry see article at Truthdig: Battle Cry for Theocracy May 11, 2006

...BattleCry is a part of the evangelical organization Teen Mania, and you can learn a lot about the kind of society that Teen Mania is fighting for by reading up on its Honor Academy, a non-accredited educational institution that offers directed internships to 700 undergraduate and graduate youth each year. Among the academy's tenets: Homosexuality and masturbation are sins. Interns are forbidden to listen to secular music, watch R-rated movies or date; men can't use the Internet unsupervised; the length of women's skirts is regulated. The logic behind this—that men must be protected from the sin of sexual temptation—is what drives Islamic fundamentalists to shroud women in burkhas!

Assemblies of God On Homosexuality :

This statement is the report of the committee to study homosexuality. The report was adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 14, 1979. This report was revised by the General Presbytery on August 6, 2001.

Increasing political and religious advocacy for homosexuality1 has prompted us to restate our position on this critical issue.2 We believe that all matters of faith and conduct must be evaluated on the basis of Holy Scripture, which is our infallible guide (2 Timothy 3:16,17). Since the Bible does speak on the subject of homosexuality, it is imperative that the Church correctly understands and articulates the truth on this important contemporary issue.

This reaffirmation of truth has become all the more urgent because writers sympathetic to the homosexual community have advanced revisionist interpretations of relevant biblical texts that are based upon biased exegesis and mistranslation. In effect, they seek to set aside almost 2,000 years of Christian biblical interpretation and ethical teachings. We believe these efforts are reflective of the conditions described in 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”3 (See also v. 4.)

or see the PBS Frontline documentary " Assault On Gay America" interview of Reverend Jerry Falwell

as for the Bible as the literal and Inerrant Word of God this is just a basic belief of Conservative Evangelical Groups:

see for instance Fresh Fires Ministries

Statement of Faith :THE WORD OF GOD

We believe the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error, unified in their redemptive purpose, yielding a complete revelation of God's will for the salvation of mankind. We hold the Bible to be trustworthy, the only supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. Scripture is our source of revelation of God, the knowledge of salvation, the origin of all things and of the hereafter-it is the final Court of Appeal on all points of doctrine, life and godliness. (2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Hebrews 4:12)

and : Battlecry Ministries: Our Core Values
Doctrinal Statement

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, only infallible, authoritative Word of God. We believe that there is one God eternally existent in three persons: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in the deity of Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, and in His personal return in power and glory. We believe in the resurrection of the saved to eternal life, and the everlasting punishment of those who have rejected God's forgiveness in His Son. We strive to contribute to achieve greater unity in all that we do within the Body of Christ

or see: The Official Creed of the Assemblies of God

The Scriptures Inspired

The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Tim. 3:15-17; I Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).

and so it goes,