Another Preemptive War While We're In the Bathroom

So, the newsmedia is fixated on Sen. Larry Craig in the bathroom. Wonder why? I figure it is because Bush and Cheney are about to sell us on another war, the one in Iran. Here is a nice little description of the sales pitch reminiscent of the 2002 sales pitch for Iraq. Here's another one.

Bush told the 89th Annual National Convention of the American Legion:

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

He also said this:

Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.

and this:

Terrorists could have more safe havens to conduct attacks on Americans and our friends and allies. Iran could conclude that we were weak -- and could not stop them from gaining nuclear weapons. And once Iran had nuclear weapons, it would set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

He forgot to explain why, if he is so worried about proliferation, he pushed for that India Nuclear Deal. If I am remembering correctly, I think we got honeydew melons in exchange.

Commenters on this blog filling us in about Kirk's Palatine meeting have said that Kirk voiced opposition to a military solution in Iran, but I wasn't there, so no one apparently pressed him on why he voted against the DeFazio Amendment to the Fiscal 2008 Defense Bill. That Amendment was an attempt to require the President to follow the War Powers Act in any military action against Iran. This is what Rep. DeFazio of Oregon said when he introduced the amendment:

Mr. Chairman, to address criticisms raised on the first amendment, this would not prevent retaliation for an attack upon U.S. troops. It would not prevent going into Iran to retrieve captured troops. But what it would do is say that we have not authorized, as some in this administration allege, a preemptive war against Iran because of the Iraq resolution or the 9/11 resolution. That simply is not true. They were not that all encompassing. Further, it would also challenge a letter I had on April 18, 2002, from then- White House counsel, the esteemed Mr.Gonzales, who claims that the President has unilateral war-making authority under the Constitution. No. This simply restates the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act. It is law, 93–148, and article I, section 8, of the Constitution.

This is not about whether or not military action against Iran is wise or necessary. Regardless of how you come down on that question, I urge you to support the amendment. It is not about binding the President’s hands so he couldn’t retaliate if they are involved in attacking our troops or capturing our troops in the area. It allows, as does the War Powers Act, in the event of any attack by Iran on the United States, its territories or possessions or Armed Forces, it is fully within the President’s purview to respond.

There are many who are concerned about the growing nuclear capability of Iran, and I share those concerns. But the question that some day possibly in the future they might have a missile that could work, they might have nuclear weapons, does not dictate that we should have a preemptive war now; and if the President wants to make the case that that warrants a preemptive war, he should come to the war-making body, the Congress of the United States, make that case, present his evidence and have a lawful vote. Plain and simple, that is all this amendment does, although I am certain other allegations will be made. [Congressional Record May 16, 2007, H5251]

Here are the Democrats who voted against it too.

I do not believe that Kirk is sincere in opposition to a military solution in Iran. He's never stood up to Cheney and Bush in any real way. He'll probably think of winding down preemptive war in another decade or so. The only thing left to wonder is what sort of bird Kirk will be when he gets up in Congress to lay out all the reasons Bush must be allowed another preemptive war. Last time, he was an owl. Since he won't stand up to Bush and Cheney with real votes against their plans, I'm thinking yellow-bellied sapsucker.

The War is Bush's Cheney's and Kirk's War. It's not about a 25 year old vet working for Iraq Summer

I am sort of sick of the banter by Mark Kirk's Ellen's Blog Hit Squad tearing at Josh Lansdale's reputation. While a vet and working for the Iraq Summer Campaign of AAEI, he'd probably be the first to agree that this is not about him and Kirk's attempt to make it about him is just one more smear attempt just like the ones that got us into this mess to begin with. They smeared Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame who spoke the truth. They smeared Scott Ritter who spoke the truth. Josh was smeared once before when he made an ad supporting Claire McCaskill. I don't know him very well and have no idea about his personal past, but that is not the issue any more than is Mark Kirk's personal past that I keep deleting whenever someone posts it.

The real story is Iraq, how we got in and how we need to get out. So, let's start with the new GAO report due to come out and leaked because they were afraid the Bush administration would alter it before it got out. Remember that the surge was supposed to bring some stability to allow political goals to be met, but this is what the GAO will report, if allowed to:

the Iraqis have met only modest security goals for Baghdad and none of the major political aims such as passage of an oil law.

According to the linked article, the White House plan is to blame the measuring standards that supposedly do not allow for success. It sort of reminds me of how Mark Kirk has set out to blame a 25 year old vet for his problems with the war and communicating with the hundreds of people from his district who he chose to ignore so he can still insist that the war means nothing to his district. It's a huge insult from Kirk as he characterizes us as a bunch of racists going after young middle eastern looking men and immigrants. No, Mark that's just your supporters, not the entire district by any means.

Tenth District Iraq War Town Hall Wrap Up

After the event, I had a chance to talk with Josh Lansdale of AAEI. He told me that 425 people attended the event and at least 300 were turned away. Many of the people turned away were separately addressed by Congresswoman Schakowsky and then went over to Congressman Kirk's office, but it was all shut down and closed up. Josh had spoken to Eric Elk from Kirk's office before the event. Josh asked if Kirk was going to attend. Elk answered "absolutely not".

Josh believes that Mark Kirk does not think that Iraq is a big issue in his district. I have seen Kirk say that in the mainstream media, but I am not so sure Kirk actually thinks immigration is the big issue in the district. He may want that to be so, but it doesn't actually make it so. He planted several people in his Palatine audience to prove that point. However, the turnout at the event, far exceeding Kirk's own turnout in Palatine, shows that he is incorrect. Kirk wants to talk about China and his stand against the Iran war. I'm not too optimistic that Kirk will ultimately stand against the Iran war as he always turned out for Bush and Cheney in the past and past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, but that is what they told Josh apparently.

Josh also pointed out that at his "town hall", Kirk said he wants to "win this war", so I would not be all that optimistic about Kirk ever coming around on this one. It is also unclear to me what they mean by win and if that win is even possible. It didn't seem so to Congresswoman Schakowsky from what I heard from her tonight.

Josh closed his discussion with me by saying that, since Kirk is a naval reserve officer, he would have expected him be more on the side of the people, the soldiers and marines, the Iraqi people and the people of his district. Josh still feels that Kirk will eventually come around, but will wait until after the Petraeus report and see how that plays out until the very end and then tell his fellow republicans that there is nothing more to do, so we should pull out. I think Kirk will do whatever the leaders of his party want him to do until they tell him to stop. I've never seen any independent thinking out of Mark Kirk.

Josh is a military man, a soldier, who is very upset that this war is breaking our military. He spoke about people they are now allowing into the military, non-graduates, older people and people with histories of legal problems. He is concerned that soldiers like he was need to rely on these people for their lives and maybe many of them are not up to the challenge. One would think Mark Kirk would care about that, but so far I haven't seen him even comment on that topic.

Live Blogging from Tenth District Townhall

I'm attempting a live blog from the townhall. Technology is acting goofy, so we'll see.

Aaron's talking. "We are out of seats".

I'm told that there are more people in line still waiting than were in total at the Palatine event Cong. Kirk organized.

Yikes. Lost my connection for a bit. There is a singer. Sorry, I did not catch her name. I'll try to get it.

Carol Williams singing Empty Boots.

Showing Iraq Summer Video.

The video says that a handfull of votes in congress could make a difference.

So, Mark Kirk changing his votes could make that difference.

Aaron: "Good evening, I am congressman Mark Kirk." Laughs. For standing with Bush he's afraid to show his face in the district without a disguise.

Thanking veterans and veterans families for attending. Appreciate service and sacrifice. Had to turn people away due to the turnout. Thanking volunteers.

Aaron goes on. He's a political commedian. Redundant. Congresswoman Schakowsky will be first. We are proud of her, Aaron says. She's the founder of the out of Iraq caucus.

Jan's on. Goal to report to us on her trip to Iraq. First, all of us should be proud of the men and women serving there. They're regardless doing their very best, sacrifice. Families, children. Second, third or even fourth deployment. Owe them a great debt of thanks. She met with a great number of them. She told them we are supportive of them and want to do our best for them. Provide health care and also means get them out of Iraq.

We have to set a deadline to withdraw troops. No such thing as winning. It's a civil war. We were a catalyst, but we are causing more damage longer we stay. Here is what she concluded. Surge is a failure. Purpose, sold to Am people to reduce violence to create secure enough enviroment for political benchmarks, but Iraq is now further from that than ever.

Could see security situation in Baghdad was horrible. Could not go anywhere unguarded. Blackhawk was necessary with full armour to go any distance--20 kilometers. In one day, 4 US soldiers killed by IED, one Brit, 33 Iraqis, 6 street cleaners, 2 killed in mini bus and 17 found killed by death squads. Lunch with Gen Petraeus was surreal. Guilded menu with lobster tortolenni. Then he says it will be 9-10 years that we will be in Iraq. What he said. I'm the general, the military and that is what I am telling you. If civilian leadership tells us we are getting out, we are getting out. That is a challenge to all of us. Asked about the 190,000 weapons lost. He got testy about that. Said not lost. Got where they are supposed to go. Just not good accounting. Weapons used against Americans and he blows off as there somewhere.

American Friends Society sent brochure about cost of war. Think about what else we could have done with that money. Health care, end oil dependence. $12-$15 bil each month spent on Iraq and loss of precious US and Iraqi lives. When she asked Rumsfeld about Iraqi lives years ago, he look at her "like some sort of bug" and said "How should I know that."

Jan wants to bring the troops home and effect change of policy.

Eugene Cherry, 1 year tour July 2004-July 2005. Recently returned from active duty. In trouble for going AWOL due to traumatic stress disorder. He calls his story a mother's struggle to help her son after the war. Mission never clear or defined. Working for privatized corporations. A lot of the workers were being paid less than minimum wage. He was a medic, but not doing what he was supposed to have been doing. Breaking into homes on patrols or watching bomb squad blowing up bombs. Collateral damage for no regard for life. His view of war changed. He was for it at first and he is proud of service, but coming back home, hard transition. Sleepless nights, loss of appetite. Struggle to stay sane. Friends are sitting in jail for all kinds of stuff. AWOL for 16 months at home in Chicago. Slipped through cracks. Never called the house. He was in personal exile. His mother decided she had enough and got in contact with vet organizations and turned himself back into army. Court martial. Charges dropped as of July 10, 2007 with general honorable condition discharge. Now shares his story so those coming back don't have to go through what he went through and also the VA situation with funding cut and veterans paying the price.

NSPI talking about cost of war. Casualties, IL servicemen lost $2bil from this district alone. Kirk told us that he knew that there were WMD in Iraq. Truth first casualty of war and that happened years ago. 4 1/2 years and passing each milestone with no result, we do know what will happen if we stay...going through attacks per day. We have asked our congressman to work to end the war and withdraw troops on event of 3000th American death, but it still goes on and everything we said would happen, happened. Asks Kirk for courageous leadership or step aside.

Aaron, proud of Il legislature because only body on earth that makes Iraqi parliament look good.
Thanking SEIU for their turnout.

Emil Totonchi (spelling?--ha got it right!), an Iraqi/Irish American from Glenview working with SEIU. Sharing his experiences. Displaced Iraqis in Syria and Jordan. He just got back from Jordan. 2000 flee to Syria every day. 1000 flee to Jordan every day. As you move out of business district in Jordan, see the poorer neighborhoods and the beggars with Iraqi dialects. Selling cigarettes on the streets. Lack health and education resources. Jordanian govt does not provide. They need permits to work or do illegal jobs. Sanction or deporation. Christians or other minorities, if go back suffer oppression. Jordan simply does not have the resources to help. Direct outcome of Bush's policies. Longer war, more difficult to solve refugee crisis. Urban professionals key to future of Iraq are already gone. Fate of Iraqi workers. No labor law, unions banned, killed on way to work. Unions are a secular movement in Iraq. Opposed to oil law.

Aaron talking about national Iraq Summer movement. Introducing Josh Lansdale of AAE. Campaign in 31 districts, 9 senate targets. All republican because we need that change to change the policy. When first started in Tenth Dist, did not know this sort of event was possible. As veteran, Josh believes they lead from front in war and in peace movement. Talking about the 10 years described by Petraeus. Permanent bases voted down, but what does permanent mean. 50 years? US embassy in Iraq is largest embassy in the entire world. If Kirk here, maybe he could answer why, but he runs and hides. Josh introduced himself to Kirk as Iraq Veteran, but kept walking away and never recognized him. Never thanked him for service or said glad you made it back. Said only, "have fun in Washington." Josh does not live in Washington. He thought as a vet, Kirk would acknowledge and engage him, but he didn't. That upset him so Josh came back with a video camcorder. Kirk never acknowledged him as he chased him around with the camera. Over 19000 hits on the You Tube of that occurrence.

Josh has all veterans stand up.

Mother Rosemary Slavenas (spelling?) is speaking. I lost my connection for a bit. Her son Brian was shot down in a helicopter over Falujah. Global oil and military contractors benefit. She feels several congressmen are invested one way or another in these industries. Some say gave war powers to Bush because they didn't think he'd use them. She feels they must think we are not too bright. Need to ask congress to rescind the war powers and respect the US constitution, not contractors. Peace doesn't ever come out of war. WWI was the war to end all wars, began with a terrorist attack.

Brian was in National Guard, thought he was going to help and secure people in this country not kill and torture people in other countries. What about homeland security? Spying on Americans?
Reciting poem she wrote right after Brian was killed. I'll try to get the words later.

Bill McNary of US Action and Citizen Action/Illinois. He's good at getting a crowd going. People who make things happen, watch things happen or have no idea what is going on. He's happy to spend a Tues night in Northbrook with activists who are working for change. Wants to bring our sons and daughters home. Thanks the speakers for challenging us with their information. On this day, 44th anniversary of historic march on Washington, peace, equality jobs and justice. Opportunity right now to redefine politics and chart a new course for this nation and change Am priorities. Not just to the left of Am, but have to see selves in thecenter of people's lives. This is where we are. Have confidence to believe we can change course of nation starting with ending this course in Iraq. Similar townhalls in 16 states. One of these town hall meetings is in Tim Johnson's district (IL-15) and one in Ray LaHood's district (IL-18). Asking them to stand with over 70% of American people and not with Bush. Vote for redeployment and withdrawal. Stubbornness of one man will not hold up and entire nation.

There is a new pro-war group. I think he called it Freedom Watch. New commercial, they attacked us on 9/11 and they will attack us again unless we fight on. Vet on commercial is probably sincere, but that sincerity should not apply to Freedom Watch. Ads paid by republican fundraiser, not by vets. It is not a real vet group. Brains behind it is Ari Fleischer, formerly of Bush administration. Expect to raise $15 mil. They say it has nothing to do with politics. To intimidate republicans who might defect on the next vote. Majority in House and Senate for withdrawal. Counting on Kirk to break wiht Preseident now and vote to bring troops home. We will not wait for a new congress or new president. Kirk represents sway district. We showed up in record numbers that even he cannot ignore. Values are more than pious posturing. Budget reflects values. People pay the price. Our national guard should have been in NOLA. Huge applause. We need to invest more in human capital and infrastructure. Unjust and illegal war. If they knew lies they were telling, they should be impeached. Huge applause.

Mr. McNary going through what we could have funded for all the money spent on Iraq. This is about priorities and we need to change our nation's priorities. Fight for America whose strength is not about weapons, people killed, treaties broken, but for political and economic justice.

41st Anniversary of King's march on Washington. King also a brilliant anti-war activist against Vietnam. Quoting King. Do words still hold true today.:

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

Substituted Iraq for Vietnam.

Aaron thanks everyone.

I lost my connection a bunch of times, but tried the best I could to give a true picture of the event. I hope you were there. If not, I hope you can take something from the message of the speakers. There is simply no way I can do justice to the excitement in the crowd. The response to the speakers and Aaron and particularly the electricity of Bill McNary who brought the house down. I am getting a full copy of the poem by Mrs. Slavenas and will post when I get it. Thanks for reading. Oh, and by the way, one more thing. Mark Kirk never showed up.

Mark Kirk Won't Clarify His Stand on Iraq. He Hopes Most Won't Notice.

Mark Kirk told a group of his hand picked constituents and a few others who heard about his fake town hall by accident and showed up that he believes we should "wind down" the Iraq War. He's said that before to the press. Problem is that hehasn't really define what he means by "wind down" and it is hard to understand what he means as he always votes to keep the troops in and the war fully funded for indefinite continuation.

At first I thought Kirk's buzzphrase might have been something he thought of off the top of his head to say anything he thought people wanted to hear, but after studying what that might mean, I now see that Kirk chose his words carefully to say anything he thought people want to hear while defending his voting record and likely future votes to continue the war. A dictionary definition of "wind down" is "to lessen in intensity so as to bring or come to a gradual end: The war is winding down." Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, recently returned from Iraq, reported to her district, our neighbors to the south, that Gen. Petraeus told her it could take a decade for Iraq to gain any real stability. Kirk's talking about a "winding down", a lesser intensity to bring about a gradual end to the war. If he really means that, I think he needs to explain his timetable; is he in agreement with Petraeus on the decade long war? He also needs to describe the actions he would take to lessen the intensity of the war during that time and what that would mean for the safety of our soldiers and long term political solutions for security as Bush has argued that the surge was needed to provide the Maliki government to some breathing room to effect a political solution.

In any event this is a mess, victories in Iraq seem to be only temporary and the administration's time table is not at all on the same page as the timetable envisioned by people when their hear administration talking points as Schakowsky correctly pointed out that people listen to what they say and hear 9-10 months while Petraeus was talking 9-10 years. Jan is going to discuss the situation in Iraq with our district in depth tonight at the Renaissance Hotel in Northbrook at 7pm. Kirk has the opportunity to clarify his point of view at that meeting also. It's been well publicized for several weeks now, so everybody can attend and that might be exactly why Kirk won't be there.

Response to some comments on Mark Kirk's Fake Townhall--We Have to Get Over This Racism and Hate

I would not blame the people of Palatine for the racial and other minority hatred exhibited at Kirk's event because he could have easily imported his racist minions from elsewhere. I heard from several sources that he made personal calls to gather his supporters to his event. However, I would agree with an observation in my comments that this behavior of Kirk's is scary. It shows that he does directly what I previously said he did indirectly by supporting Rove and those he got elected through racism and his own willingness to benefit from the tactic. Kirk has done this directly before in his racist ads against Dan Seals in 2006 and his push for racial profiling of young middle eastern men.

As a Jew, I feel that any Jewish organization that might endorse Kirk needs to think long and hard about such endorsement knowing that he uses race baiting and hating to get support thinking of the famous Niemöller statement.

Then, I'd ask the people who participate in this behavior of Kirk to think twice and thrice because it is this sort of racism and similar hate baiting that is bringing this country to ruin. The idea that it is so important to prevent a minority or people from another part of the world from having rights or jobs or oil or anything really that has gotten us into just about every tragedy in which we have participated including the Iraq war and our current state of health care. It's just a con of the wealthy to keep working people separated and weak. Get over it.

If you live on the high ground, you can help others...

I'm still on nursing duty in a hospital that seems pretty understaffed to me, and feel really really lucky that neither myself nor my parents were flooded out. We flooded for years when I was growing up in Skokie and I remember being up in the middle of the night bailing water out of a well next to our leaking patio door and helping my parents clean up afterward from raw sewage. That led my dad to his rule about never living in a place named after a river, river valley or having the word river, lake or low in it (so how do we explain what happened in Mt. Prospect? Well, I guess it doesn't always work). However, since many of our friends and neighbors live in areas that were hard hit by the storms of the last couple of days, below is some information about volunteering from the good people of the Tenth Dems (after my little editorial:

Something just struck me. We live in a very generous nation. Neighbors help each other. I've heard stories about neighbors sharing generators and helping sand bag. Why with all this, do we allow people like Mark Kirk and his followers to make us so very ungenerous, so worried we might have to spend a penny on someone else that we disallow the idea of covering children with health insurance while bombing Iraqi children for oil and profit. It's not what we are about.)

Sandbag Information

Lake County continues to provide sandbags to impacted townships and municipalities and assist in coordination of information and response activities. See below for information about volunteer opportunities for anyone willing to help with sandbagging efforts.

Residents in need of sandbags should contact their municipality or township. The public can visit http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=b9zz6dcab.0.u5y96dcab.9njiizbab.29&ts=S0270&p=www.co.lake.il.us for contact information.

Traffic/Road Conditions

Lake County and Village of Gurnee emergency officials are warning residents to avoid downtown Gurnee roadways due to anticipated flooding from the Des Plaines River. The public should plan on taking alternate routes to their destinations. Roadways may have to be closed in Gurnee, including Grand Avenue and U.S. Route 41, as well as other roadways in the County.

The public is advised to check Lake County PASSAGE Radio 1620 AM or visit the PASSAGE website at http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=b9zz6dcab.0.v5y96dcab.9njiizbab.29&ts=S0270&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lakecountypassage.com%2Fhtml%2Findex.html for up-to-date road conditions in Lake County. Visitors should view the Traffic Information box in the lower left corner of the web page.

Other

The Lake County Emergency Operation Center has been activated. The phone number is 847-377-7100.

Unfortunately, the Worst is not Over

The Fox River is not expected to crest until Monday and is expected to rise an additional 16 inches between now and then. We do not yet have the modeling on the Des Plaines River.

Sandbagging Volunteer Information - Des Plaines River Flooding
All support activities will be shifted to the north parking lot at Warren Township High School O'Plaine campus. Volunteer efforts will begin Friday, August 24th at 7:00 AM. Volunteers should check in at the Illinois Emergency Management Agency trailer in the north parking lot at the WTHS O'Plaine campus. Volunteers are encouraged to bring work gloves and shovels. The Lake County Health Department will be onsite to administer tetanus shots to those who reside, or will be volunteering in, the affected area. The focus will shift from Gurnee Grade School to assisting residents and business owners. Individuals interested in volunteering or making donations should: 1) Call the Volunteer Line 847-599-7010 for the latest instructions2) Check in at Warren Township North parking lot

Mom's up and about, sort of

As many of you know, my mom just had surgery on Thursday. We got her up and about today, but she's been better if you know what I mean. Nurses are in short supply, so I have learned how to fix the IV machine when it gets messed up and keep track of medicine and vitals and a few other things I never expected to know how to do, but could come in handy again one day. The sight of blood still comes close to bringing up my lunch better than a Mark Kirk townhall and that reminds me, I missed Kirk's feeble excuse for avoiding the real town hall on Iraq next Tuesday (7:00 pm at the Renaissance Hotel), so report (without plagarizing from right wing wacko sites) if anything interesting was said,
and
while we are at it,
can we have a sensible health care plan in this country?

I might not post a lot during the next few days, but will be monitoring enough to prevent it from being taken over by the type of people who would take over someone's blog while her mom is recovering from surgery.

Do Mark Kirk's Lies and Half Truths Ever Stop?

I don't have a lot of time today, but here are a few items:

1. I got one of those robocalls from Kirk yesterday. I have not yet listened to the entire thing carefully because I turned it off in disgust when he made his first claim that he's working to wind up the Iraq War. Since he's already used the term "wind up" before he last failed to vote to wind it up for the umpteenth time, you'd think he' d come up with a new buzz phrase.

2. He must be really worried about his vote against expanding SCHIP, the insurance plan for children. The intent of the house bill is to move the plan to the children of people who are not poor enough for the original program, but whose kids are not covered otherwise because they work several part time jobs and not one full time job with benefits. The key here is "part time" because that means they that while they are not destitute, their jobs exclude them from access to insurance coverage. Pushing people to part time has been a strategic intiative of many corporations to help them save on insurance. It's only fair to help insure the children of these hard working people who have been set aside by corporate America. They do everything right; they work hard and support their families, but are cut out of SCHIP as it was originally set up because they make too much. That is ridiculous. Kirk's against that expansion because he and his party-mates need to prove that single payer government provided insurance does not work while SCHIP has already proved that it does, but he's sent out several emails and now the robocalls and more as you will see below. He knows that most of his district is not with him on this one and will try to doubletalk his way out of it.

3. So much for the claims of his reserve duty keeping him from the Iraq War Townhall scheduled for August 28 at 7:00 pm at the Renaissance Hotel in Northbrook. He's in district and advertising his own town hall scheduled for tomorrow in a neighborhood he prefers. His topic again avoids the issue of Iraq. He'll only discuss his meager legislative offerings and again trying to avoid the question of why he won't insure children of hard working people who cannot afford it. Kirk sure won't win any points for bravery or candor on this one.

God's Warriors, Coming Soon to a House of Worship Near You and Mark Kirk Says Nothing

A Mark Kirk supporter commenting on this site thinks that Kirk's half hearted support for one hate crime bill is going to erase years of republican party interference in religion and mis-use of religion to get votes through hate baiting. Dan Seals supports legislation against hate crimes. I would imagine Jay Footlik does too. So, what do we gain by re-electing Mark Kirk other than his undying and loyal support for a political party that has gone further astray on separation of church and state issues than any other in our nation's history?

This discussion started with my Monday post about the new strategy of Minutemen United, a group that cherry picks news for stories to incite Christians into thinking that there is some sort of war against Christianity, and advocates hatred of gays and immigrants. That new strategy is to actually enter churches, disrupt ongoing services demanding floor time and using it to berate the leaders and congregations for preaching God's love and acceptance of others. This has happened in Ohio. I connected this situation with the republican party's encouragement of militant religious groups' demand for political power, not for the sake of God or the sake of religion or spirituality, but for republican party votes. Mark Kirk has never once spoken out against this prevalent practice of his party, now in the news because of the impending departure of one of its architects, Karl Rove.

We all need to ask ourselves how we will we feel when one of these religious extremist groups enters our church, our mosque or our synagogue, interrupts our religious leader, stops our service with chants and heckling for a change to our congregation's membership or service or legislation to force the change. Will that be ok with you? You need to ask yourself that because that is where this is heading and I'm not the only one saying that. I was just watching Christiane Amanpour on Larry King. She and four representatives from various mainstream religous groups were discussing her new special God's Warriors airing this week on CNN. It's not just about Islamic jihad and Israeli settlements. It's also about groups like Minutemen United and others considered far more mainstream trying to force their beliefs on others in the manner discussed in this post and through legislation forcing religious enforcement, such legislation rejected by our founders back in the 1780s--why? because they lived it and knew the harm it could do.

So forget blind loyalty to Mark Kirk because he promised you no more estate tax and ask yourself: will you feel comfortable in the world of these religious enforcers if they succeed in imposing their beliefs on the entire country? If so, do you simply feel comfortable because you believe you are in a majority religion? Have you considered that the people pushing this form of right wing religion are actually in the minority and not in the majority and yet they get this bully pulpit because they support the republican party?

Mark Kirk supported one hate crime bill and others got it passed in the house. It still sits in the Senate. Kirk has never gotten a bill of his own out of committee. He has never once spoken out against this strategy of breaking down the wall of separation between church and state, this strategic initiative of his own party to get votes and create Karl Rove's permanent republican majority. His separation of church and state voting record is not all that great because he votes with his party when they need him. He voted for allowing religious discrimination in hiring for jobs training programs receiving federal funds (H.R. 27--2005) and in hiring for head start programs receiving federal funds (H.R. 2210--2003). He voted against prohibitions against requiring recipients of recipients of anti-poverty programs to participate in religious activities (H.R. 3030--2004). He also voted in favor of protecting that infamous monument of the Ten Commandments displayed in Alabama's state supreme court (H.R. 2700--2003). Kirk has also voted in favor of school vouchers (H R 2765--2004), federal funds diverted from the public schools to religious schools and part of the religious right's agenda. Do you trust Kirk to help stem the tide of religious establishment, religious legislation and religious bullying fostered and fed by his political party before the Minutemen United or some other similar group crashes your weekend religious service or the US Congress?

If these issues concern you, check out the website of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Did you know that we have a local chapter right here in the Illinois Tenth?

Mark Kirk benefits from this type of Rovian style hate baiting

If you are a republican and thought the Rovian style of hate baiting for votes was harmless fun and a good way to lower your taxes, think again. It's not so harmless. Now, they are disrupting church services to force moderate and liberal churches into their brand of politics as religion. A group calling itself Minutemen United is stalking churches that don't spread anti-gay hatred.

This isn't a bunch of divinely inspired pious folks working for good based on scripture. This is a bunch of people who have little idea of what the Bible actually says following leaders who have cherry picked phrases from it in the same manner as Condi Rice and Dick Cheney cherry picked intelligence on Iraq, and have been baited and riled up by these fake religious leaders who are really republican strategists bring the philosophy of Karl Rove to life for no reason other than to help the republican party win elections. As Moyers pointed out last week, scapegoating minorities is the fastest and easiest way to take political control when your ideas fail to hold up otherwise and guys like Mark Kirk who probably would not be successful on a fair playing field benefit from it so they keep their mouths shut and let it continue.

Mark Kirk claims to support the gay community and other minority communities. He should speak out against the behavior of Minutemen United or stop talking about what a great representative for minorities he is.

Drug Czar Shills for republican Congressional Candidates at Taxpayer Expense: Did the Tenth Get Two of the Early Visits?

USA Today and several other sources including the Washington Post are reporting that White House Drug Czar, John Walters, made partisan trips on behalf of republican congressional candidates. Most of the article discusses a memo sent by former White House political director Sara Taylor to the drug czar's office about trips, at the taxpayers expense (and none to districts where the congressional seat was held by a Democrat) in 2006, but the article also referred to trips in 2002 and 2004 as being part of the investigation now under way by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman of CA. That led me to the committee's website and a letter from Chairman Waxman to former White House political director Sara Taylor. In that letter Rep. Waxman states:

Other documents provide evidence that White House-directed political travel may have occurred before the 2004 and 2002 elections. Prior to the 2004 elections, a political appointee at the Agriculture Department e-mailed an aide to Mr. Rove: "people need to hear the message... that the White House determines which members need visits and where we need to be strategically placing our assets." In a similar e-mail sent to your predecessor, a political appointee at the Interior Department wrote: "these folks need to be reminded who they work for and how their geographic travel can benefit this President." In fact, a slide from a White House political presentation in 2004 suggests that agency heads and other federal officials may have engaged in more than 1,000 appearances with Republican candidates in the 2002 election cycle alone.

It appears that the Illinois Tenth, specifically London Middle School in Wheeling, was graced with Mr. Walters' presence in October 2002, just in time for the 2002 election, according to a press release from Mark Kirk's old website still available on the web. It also appears that Mr. Walters came to the IL Tenth again in 2003 as reported in the Pioneer Press on October 23, 2003, this time to Wheeling High. At that summit, Mark Kirk said, "Our government's prime mission is to protect its citizens - especially children - from new and potent dangers." He left out the part of the government mission to send executive branch officials around to protect republican congressional seats.

Kirk still cites the 2003 visit on his campaign site.

You can take a look at the documents now under investigation by Waxman's committee here and note that it is a violation of the Hatch Act for federal agencies to spend taxpayer money to benefit candidates.

Scapegoating those you outnumber

Here is a bit of what Bill Moyers recently said about Karl Rove:

Karl Rove figured out a long time ago that the way to take an intellectually incurious draft-averse naughty playboy in a flight jacket with chewing tobacco in his back pocket and make him governor of Texas, was to sell him as God's anointed in a state where preachers and televangelists outnumber even oil derricks and jack rabbits. Using church pews as precincts Rove turned religion into a weapon of political combat - a battering ram, aimed at the devil's minions, especially at gay people.

It's so easy, as Karl knew, to scapegoat people you outnumber, and if God is love, as rumor has it, Rove knew that, in politics, you better bet on fear and loathing. Never mind that in stroking the basest bigotry of true believers you coarsen both politics and religion.

It reminded me of what really bothered me most about the recent IL Tenth District controversy over the scathing political hatchet job email of self proclaimed "stauch supporter of Congressman Mark Kirk", Andy Lappin, who took up the argument of Fox New's Bill O'Reilly and complained because Dan Seals and Jay Footlik attended a convention of Daily Kos bloggers to discuss better health care and preserving the constitution. What really bothered me and still does is that the republican administration has been about nothing if not using religion to scapegoat people who are outnumbered for political gain. It's an old trick of those seeking political power. Add the loss of our constitutional rights to speech, privacy, habeas corpus, timely charges and trial (all such losses supported by Mark Kirk) and you get the nightmare.

For another take on Karl Rove, read this terrific LTE to the Sun Times written by a district resident.

O'Reilly Exchange with A Jewish Caller

This is sort of an interesting companion piece to the previous posts about a Mark Kirk supporter seeking more support for Mark Kirk using the O'Reilly argument accusing liberal and progressive bloggers as being anti-Semitic.

Mark Kirk's Mistake

Mark Kirk has always seen his power as deriving from Washington, D.C. It's not hard to understand because he's spent most of his adult life there and not here in the Illinois Tenth where the election judges had to be chewed out by him to allow him to vote as a resident of Highland Park in 2006.

Kirk took his direction from the Bush Administration when he helped spread their lies to start war in Iraq. Now, he sows the seeds for war with Iran, calling for sanctions that seems logical and rational at this point, but if his past behavior says anything about his future behavior, we'll soon see the escalation to a call to war as the Iranians are invariably found violating them. Kirk has cast his lot with Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove. Since Bush lost his brain, Cheney is in charge now and wants an Iran war, so it's bound to be. What does Cheney care, his kid is not in the military and he's made money on Iran's upswing, so probably feels entitled to make more on the back end.

Kirk took his direction from the Bush Administration when he pushed for more trade with China no matter their labor and product quality problems. I guess he figured that the people who mattered to him could afford to skip dollar store toothpaste and Wal-Mart toys. He forgot they were busy paying on 80/20 mortgages for overinflated homes.

Now, even the republicans are saying that Kirk has lost out on Rove's departure. Hastert, tainted by the Mark Foley page-sex-scandal jumps ship from re-election possibility this week, so Kirk's power base slumps again. Funny the article in the Herald linked above says Illinois loses power, but I disagree. Illinois republicans lose power, but Illinois is not a republican state and we have great Representatives like Jan and great Senators like Dick and Barack. So, thank you very much, but we're doing just fine.

Poor Mark, he's lost his power buddies, but he wouldn't have had to worry about that if he had only derived his power from where he should have, the people of the Illinois Tenth District. Well, we are a nice group of people and will give him yet another chance. He's been invited to a townhall meeting on August 28th at 7:00 pm at the Renaissance North Shore Hotel at 933 Skokie Boulevard in Northbrook. All he has to do is be gracious to a few veterans who served their country and the people who vote every two years. One would think that is not a very hard thing to do.

Rove's Exploits Were Our Biggest Failures

Since yesterday, there has been story after story about Karl Rove's exploits into political dirty tricks from vote supression in Ohio to fake allegations of vote fraud leading to the political firings of US Attorneys to the outing of active covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame. This and that was Rove's fault. I imagine the republicans are talking about how great he is.

What I see is what he exploited and what he leaves behind and, while it is his fault, it's ours too.

In poking around the net last night, I ran into a post wherein CNBC’s Erin Burnett actually argued that poisonous products from China are good because they keep prices down at Wal-Mart. Burnett went on to argue that their lack of inspections and standards prove that "China is our greatest friend right now." If she was concerned about Intellectual Property law violations, she'd sound like Mark Kirk. I don't know, my mom always told me not to eat poison. I remember not too long ago there was a big push to repaint school walls because small children should not be exposed to lead paint. Now, they make toys out of it.

I have commenters on this blog making arguments ranging from preferring that their children and grandchildren never have health insurance than pay one single cent toward someone else's to admonishing me for not being too keen on supporting a candidate who is supported by someone who writes that torture is ok so long as it's codified. I remember a time when the torturers were the bad guys on TV. Now, they are the heros.

When Rove had households in Texas called to insinuate that Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian, people did not bother to find out that she was in fact not, or maybe even worse, they let it affect their opinion of her if she was. The calls really said more about Rove and his candidate, George W. Bush, than Richards, but people let those calls affect their vote. Now, Texas is highest in ozone pollution and has the worst record in health insurance with 1 in 4 Texans uninsured. Maybe the response to Rove's push polls should have been, "so what if she is a lesbian! She's a good Texan and a good person!" It wasn't and that political success led to the face merging with Osama bin Laden that has caused our representatives to get us into a meaningless, endless and winless war in Iraq, and throw out the Bill of Rights and all government accountability along with it.

What Rove did and we let him do was divide us by playing on our prejudices. Rove and Bush divided this country on race, nationality and gender preference criteria and we let them. Mark Kirk played on that too when he sought Jewish votes by favoring discrimination against Middle Eastern young men and white votes by featuring Dan Seals in racist television ads just before the 2006 election. They also divided this country on class lines with the haves who think they will never be have nots arguing that poisonous products from China are good. What they mean is not good enough for us, but good enough for you.

The good of all this is that it does not have to happen. We don't have to vote based on some mysterious phone call spreading lies and attacking characters based on criteria that have nothing to do with character. We don't have to be selfish enough to watch others suffer without insurance, housing, safe and healthy food, happy that we are not in their position (yet anyway). We don't have to turn a blind eye to torture advocates or race baiters because we think we'll never be in the category of the tortured or targeted.

The bad of it is that we don't seem to know that yet. That is why guys like Rove win and are likely to win again.

The Ultimate Rovian Act

Rove resigns.

Veteran Caravan Stops in Northbrook to Seek Mark Kirk's Support for Ending the War

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq caravanned through Illinois today, and while the caravan ran into some traffic problems preventing their scheduled stop in Northbrook, AAE held its scheduled rally in front of the Village Hall anyway. The Chicago-Waukegan caravan highlighted the participation in the war of our Tenth District Congressman, Mark Kirk. Another went from Springfield to Urbana to discuss the participation in the war of Congressmen Ray LaHood (IL-18) and Tim Johnson (IL-15).

Josh Levin (pictured above) led off the speeches by introducing Vietnam Veteran Bob Emerson. Emerson (pictured below along with Sharon Saxelby, the mother of a soldier currently serving in Iraq) was in the 21st Infantry Division out of Ft. Benning. He served in Berlin and was sent to Vietnam in 1971. Emerson talked about the lead up to Iraq. Inspectors were in the country and troops were on the border. They could have left things that way until weapons of mass destruction were found. "There was no need for a ground conflict whatsoever," said Emerson. He went on to say that by the time it became apparent that they were not going to find WMD, there was no stopping the ongoing train.

Emerson pointed out a few instances of dishonesty in the administration. They now admit to having lots 190,000 weapons in Iraq. Previously, for a period from the beginning of the war in 2003 to now, they had only admitted to having lost 14,000 meaning that they either lots a lot of weapons in one year, or they were not admitting to the truth in order to not look that bad. He also retold the story about Mark Kirk speaking at his church in Kenilworth, claiming to have worked hard on his presention so it would be as accurate as possible, but then lying about information the CIA gave to the administration in the lead up to the war and when caught in the lie responding with further mis-information (click on link for details).

They really don't seem to care what they say in suport of the war, but parents are sending their children to fight in it nonetheless. One of these parents is Sharon Saxelby who also spoke at the rally today. Her son, Mike, is in the artillery, but is serving as a gunner on an Humvee. He is on his second tour was supposed to come home earlier this summer, but was required to stay and is now due to come home in September. She is very concerned because he is out for 12 hours each day, 10 days in a row in 123 degree heat and he's been doing that for 3 months. She recently spoke to Congressman Rahm Emanuel about the situation and his office has been helpful and supportive. Ms. Saxelby is concerned that the September report set forth a new direction in Iraq and as people are beginning to form their opinions about what that new direction will be, it is important that we lay the groundwork now.

Also at the event was green party candidate Dave Kalbfleisch. He not one of the AAE speakers, but insistied on some time as a veteran and not a candidate. He was not in combat in Iraq, but saw some soldiers switched from the duty for which their trained and related some of the stories and othes supporting what we now know to have been the push to war despite all evidence to the contrary that a shooting war was needed. It's too bad that Mr. Kalbfleisch doesn't care that his candidacy is really just support for war-vote-loving Mark Kirk.

I spoke to Ms. Saxleby at greater length and will relate more about that interview in tomorrow's post.

Hey Mark! Illegal Spying on Us. Unending war. Is This The America You Want For Us?

Mark Kirk's support for Bush's Iraq War and unconsitutional spying on Americans has helped bring this country to the brink and now we appear to be at a crossroads. Do we want a constitutional democracy with a balance of powers to check government's ability to stomp on our rights or do we want to live like the child slaves of the rich, greedy and powerful?

The fake Protect America Act (PAA) was designed to protect us out of our privacy rights and protect government from unaccountability. Mark Kirk went for that one without even asking anyone in the district their opinion assuming his "Israel is gone while you brushed your teeth" speech is good enough to get us to agree to anything. Even some Democrats voted for it, although not our fine Senators, Durbin and Obama. It seems that republicans are still salivating over their chance to destroy the Constitition and eliminate government accountability to the people once and for all and many Democrats are still afraid to have their faces digitally merged with Osama's around 2008. American's, while probably not too busy shopping any more, are busy watching anti-semitic diatribes on national network television.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is taking steps to knock us out of our fearful and lazy stupor to fight implementation of this unlawful law and working to protect their case for the Guantanamo Bay detainees (CCR V. Bush filed in January 2006) from being dismissed as a result of the law's passage. They appeared in a federal court in San Francisco on Thursday to seek leave to file additional pleadings arguing that the PAA should be struck down as an unconstitutional expansion of the government’s power to spy on Americans without court approval. Michael Avery, a CCR attorney argued that the PAA "redefined the term of electronic surveillance and gives the government new powers, extraordinary powers, unprecedented powers." The government now feels it can dispose of CCR v. Bush under the protection of the new PAA.

Make no mistake, unaccountability, that's what it's all about. If you let government have this law, despite its unconsitutionality, they will continue to erode all accountability until they can do anything.

So, what can a government do with unaccountability besides line the pockets of their corporate friends? Keep a needless war going for another 9 to 10 years and start a draft to do it. So, if your kids are older than 10 and younger than 45, you might want to go to one of the press conferences scheduled for tomorrow by the Iraq Summer Campaign and a bunch of vets. Ask Congressman Mark Kirk why he has failed to vote to bring our troops home safely and responsibly despite his comments that it's time to "wind up the mission".

Chicago: Federal Plaza, 10 AM
Northbrook: 1225 Cedar Lane, Northbrook City Hall, 12:30 PM
Waukegan: Veterans Memorial Plaza, at the intersection of Washington St. and West St., 3 PM

Rudy Giuliani: Authoritarian Freedom?

Another bizarre twisting of political philosophy came out of Rudy Giuliani not too long ago. The source is a 1994 New York Times article about Rudolph Giuliani on the subject of crime. It was circulating around the web this week courtesy of Huffington Post. What Giuliani ended up talking about was his concept of authoritanian freedom:

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

I had never heard of authoritarian freedom until George Lakoff mentioned it in his book Don't think of an Elephant, a sort of chains that bind will set you free, but the concept of the relationships and tensions between the needs of society, majority driven democracy and individual liberty was often discussed by the political philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. One of my favorites was John Stuart Mill, a Utilitarianist of mid-nineteenth century England.

Mill was concerned with the "safety of Civil or Social Liberty", which he defined as "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual." He also advocated social responsibility including subjecting people to legal punishment when their actions hurt others and compelling them to act for the benefit of others in some cases (Mill's examples of acts a person might be compelled by law to do are: "to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage"). We could add pay taxes to invest in our infrastructure, education and health care. Mill was concerned with people keeping as many individual liberties as would be utilitarian while keeping society liveable.

Nonetheless, Mill was no authoritarian prone to use fear to end debate and make the rules as it seems Giuliani may be (see here too and here about his views on dissent). Mill felt that the best way to assert societal influence was through reasoning and persuasion rather than force and felt that society pays too high a price for quashing dissent, that price being "the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind." He also believed that obedience to law is not "the ultimate criterion of justice." While Mill understood that society had to assert some control over the individual to prevent harm to others, it is unlikely he would have ever understood freedom to be about authority or some sort of relinquishing of self-determination to government. The connotation there is that individual's need to surrender their thought processes to obey a set rules made from above (not God, but the republican party of course). Mill would have argued against that because he believed the only reliable thought is the one that is hashed out with those who disagree. The greatest evil people do to themselves, according to Mill, is to fail to put their opinions to the test of the opinions of others.

After pondering this one for a while, I've decided that authoritarian freedom is not freedom at all but, but giving up to the will of others to live a childlike life which stops being cute or sweet or even secure some time in our early 20s or something akin to the racist and fictional concept of the happy slave. It's probably safe to say that there were and are no happy slaves. If you think you will be free if someone else is making your decisions for you, go back and read my post about my friends from the Soviet Union.

Mark Kirk: Don't Use Accusations of Anti-Semitism to Isolate the Jewish Community As Real Anti-Semites Have Done in the Past

If our basic American freedom and security seem less solid these days, it's likely because of the recent republican strategy of co-opting of some of our most basic concepts and twisting them into quite the opposite. This week, we saw the religious right-wing of the republican party again attempt to co-opt the meaning of what it is to be against anti-Semitism to the benefit Mark Kirk's political campaign. Apparently, Kirk's supporters seek to win the 2008 election by using abhorrence of anti-Semitism with a newly defined version of anti-Semitism. Strangely, this new definition of anti-Semitism is used to create hatred and divisiveness similar to what has historically been central to the operation, not the destruction, of real anti-Semitism.

The strategy of anti-Semites throughout the ages has been to vilify Jews by creating non-existent differences, exaggerating real differences and isolating them by forcing them into ghettos, making them wear identifying symbols on their clothing, preventing them from owning land and keeping them out of various occupations. It was only with the liberal movement of the Enlightenment of the mid-eighteenth century and it's idea of self-determination and religious freedom that anti-Semitism began to lose strength. Jews were emancipated in France after the egalitarianism of the French Revolution. Jews in revolution-less England were emancipated much later, in 1846, and it's probably no coincidence that was around the time when English political philosophers such as John Stuart Mill were writing against religious authoritarianism they saw as leading to religious persecution.

American Jews, although enduring our share of anti-Semitism even today, have had unprecedented freedom in the United States because our founders’ philosophy of separation of church and state and basic freedom of and freedom from religion. If you are interested in one of the earlier writings for religious tolerance in our country, take a look at George Washington's 1790 letter to the Jewish community of Rhode Island. Washington understood that religious freedom sprang from the new liberalism and liberty of the young country:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Now, the religious right wing of the republican party is claiming that the very ideas that halted religious persecution in Europe and the US, freedom of thought and speech, are anti-Semitic in and of themselves because they allow individuals to articulate frustration with defense policy or speak against wars perceived by most as bad for both the US and Israel, but that they perceive as good for Israel. Certainly, some of this speech to which they object rises to the level of real anti-Semitism, but criticism of those comments and isolation of the bad commenters is not good enough for these republicans. The are saying that the speech has to be halted completely. We must walk in lock step with the people who have created our failed foreign and domestic policy or be labeled anti-Semitic.

It seems to me that these new definers of anti-Semitism are advocating a self-isolation within the Jewish community. Under their definitions, Jews are supposed to be unquestioningly in favor of the Iraq war, a potential war with Iran, and continued buildup of arms and tensions in the greater Middle Eastern Region, when the rest of the world, including large groups of Jews, and maybe even the vast majority of Jews, feel differently. Under their philosophy, Jews are also supposed to suffer the Bush administration's theft of our privacy and civil liberties, cronyism, war profiteering, criminality and incompetence in silence and be against the whole ideal of liberalism that created the strongest and healthiest Jewish community of the Diaspora, the one we have enjoyed here in the United States for our entire lives. Our great and brave people are supposed to listen to Mark Kirk's stories about waking up one morning and finding out that while we brushed our teeth, Israel was destroyed, and be so afraid that we advocate lashing out indiscriminately and disproportionately rather than work to ease tensions and increase understanding.

It's hard for me to recognize this new way of thinking as having anything to do with the American Jewish experience. I grew up watching Jews march for civil rights in the 1960s and always advocate free speech, voting rights, religious freedom and, yes, liberalism. We became lawyers in large numbers in those days, not to make piles of money, but to keep that dream alive. The idea was that we did well when everyone did well and we had liberty when everyone had liberty. By forcing the Jewish community to isolate itself in fear and anger, Kirk and his supporters are asking Jews to take the role of the anti-Semites of the past and keep ourselves out of the public dialogue about war and peace in the world. They are also asking us to do so against our own traditions and traditional philosophies and against our ultimate interest. As a freedom loving American Jew, I vote no to that and ask my congressman to admonish his supporters who use this tactic and reject the cheap benefits he gets from it.

National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) Calls Out Mark Kirk Supporter Who Alleged Anti-Semitism

I don't usually publish press releases to the blog, but this one is relevant to a prior post:

NJDC CALLS ON REP. MARK KIRK TO REPUDIATE SUPPORTER ANDY LAPPIN FOR LETTER IMPLYING OPPONENTS CONDONE ANTI-SEMITISM

Democratic Candidates Jay Footlik and Dan Seals have Strong Records on Israel

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Steve Rabin August 8, 2007, Office: (202) 216-9060, Ext.304
Cell: (202) 486-6198

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) called on Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) to repudiate a campaign-style email sent by supporter Andy Lappin which implies that Democratic candidates Jay Footlik and Dan Seals condoned anti-Semitic behavior by attending the YearlyKos convention earlier this month. A copy of the email follows. Previously posted in full on this blog below.)

Mr. Lappin's email seeks to paint the 900 bloggers who attended the YearlyKos convention - and the hundreds of thousands of bloggers in the DailyKos online community - as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel because a handful of posters have written objectionable comments. To defend his position, Mr. Lapin presents five comments he finds objectionable, none of which were written by Kos or his editors.

To blame all attendees and participants in the YearlyKos convention - which was sponsored by JetBlue airlines, Warner Independent Pictures, the National Education Association, and other mainstream organizations - for objectionable comments posted by a small handful of people is the height of absurdity. If Mr. Lappin's logic were applied to the Republican Party, all its presidential candidates would be deemed anti-Israel because they regularly participate in debates with anti-Israel firebrand Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

"Rep. Kirk should condemn this over-the-top email sent on his behalf of his campaign by Andy Lappin," said NJDC Executive Director Ira N. Forman. "Mr. Lappin's email seeks to deceive voters about the strong, pro-Israel candidacies of Jay Footlik and Dan Seals and makes a ridiculous leap in logic that suggests a few inappropriate comments posted on a blog somehow represent the opinions held by hundreds of thousands of activists. There are some on both the far right and the far left that hold anti-Israel views. The bloggers cited by Lappin no more represent the views of most progressives than the views of Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul represent mainstream conservatives."

"This is not the first time we've seen individuals tied to the Kirk campaign using sleazy tactics," continued Forman. "This is reminiscent of 2006 when a Kirk staffer issued a veiled threat to cut off aid to Tel Aviv University because one of the school's backers supported Kirk's Democratic opponent. If Kirk and his political cronies want to do something truly productive for Israel they should quit trying to use Israel as a partisan wedge issue and work on encouraging the House Republican leadership to change their behavior and begin supporting full funding for the foreign aid bill."

Good for the Country

Today is the anniversary of Nixon's resignation. He was not impeached, went back home barely admonished and that was good for the country, or so they told us.

Not too long after that, we found that our President and Vice President were involved in Iran-Contra, the scandal in which they sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua, known for human rights abuses. Knee deep in the scandal was our current Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, no consequences, a promotion. Those convicted in Iran-Contra were pardoned or their convictions overturned. No consequences whatsoever to Reagan and Bush I. We were told that was good for the country.

Recently, Scooter got off for outing Plame because the political goals of the Bush administration are more important than an active CIA agent searching for WMD in Iraq. Good for the country. We'll probably see him in some position in the next republican administration if he's not too old by the time that happens again.

Now, Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are free to run roughshod over our rights and were just given license to spy on Americans by a very deeply confused congress apparently still afraid of having their faces merged with bin Laden's or just happy to use fear for re-election like Mark Kirk. We are told that is good for the country, Protect America and all that.

We went down the garden path of no consequences for criminals in our government starting with Nixon. It was good for the country. I know we would have all lost sleep if Nixon had to endure a trial, if Reagan and Bush were held accountable, if Poindexter served his time. My gosh, someone might have had to hear the truth about our government and try to think of a way to get it to do the right thing, maybe real campaign finance reform would have been seriously considered, maybe lobbying for billions halted.

Nope, it was good for the country to keep all the scandal and harm quiet and for people to endure the distruction of our Constitutional government so war profiteers can get away with murder for dollars. At least someone is making money in this economy, right?

I wonder what an administration has to do to actually get impeached. Oh, we found that out under Clinton. Murder, war profiteering, good. Sex, bad.

I am seeing arguments that impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales would be bad for the country because they should not endure public embarrasment when dealing with the international crises they have created in Iraq and the Middle East. Did anyone ever think that we might have all these crises because we are unwilling to visit consequences on criminals in our government and that consequences would force our leaders to work for the good of the country?

Talk to a Real Person, Not Barry Bonds

I only had a chance to watch the very end of the Democratic Debate at Soldier Field Tuesday evening, but I did get to see the all important Barry Bonds question to Obama. Obama was asked if he would honor Bonds at the White House for breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record. Obama didn't want to get embroiled in the Bonds issue and I really don't blame him. However, he did miss the easy answer, forego giving yet another millionaire access to the White House and instead honor a real person who works every day in this country for less and less and no insurance.

I cannot help but thinking about the person I'd like to see visiting the White House, she blogged on this site in the past under the name of Autismom. I'm thinking about her because there is a new radio commerical that gives the statistic, "one in every 150 children born in the US have autism." That is a real problem under any standards and I think the President should be aware of these issues on a more personal level.

I'd like to see the presidential candidates pledge to talk to real people every week about the issues that are important to them. Not by having lobbyists place connected people in short meetings, but by choosing people randomly and giving them at least an hour each week. Bush took more vacation time than that throughout his presidency. Sure, you'd get some nuts, but the President needs to see the entire cross section of the country. That is what is missing from our government. The ones who can afford and have the connections to run and win, even if they start out talking to the rest of us, lose it by the time they get there, even if they keep trying. It's not even their fault, but our election system that does it.

Isolating themselves from humanity allows a president to send young people to war for no good reason and then ignore their needs while fighting and allows a congressman to literally run away from a war veteran because he has a different opinion.

What strikes me so funny about Kirk is that all he had to do was stop for a few seconds and talk to that veteran and thank him for his service. Be gracious. He didn't have to agree with him. Just give him the time of day. All Kirk had to do back in September 2005 when I was part of a group that visited his DC office to voice concern about the Iraq War was to have his staff be gracious. They couldn't manage it though, opting to put us off as long as possible and then making fun of us in front of our faces with him obviously on the phone laughing too. Maybe Kirk has spent so much time with his cheerleading section that he forgot what it's like to talk to real people.

Mark Kirk Supporter Goes O'Reilly On Us

Just got this one passed to me. It's an email from a Kirk supporter basically accusing anyone who does not support Kirk's pro-war position as anti-semitic. The writer then goes off on bloggers on Kos and picks out some of the more extreme examples trying to pass them off as the norm. As my readers know, I am Jewish, not at all anti-semitic, not at all self-hating and pretty fed up with people who presume to tell me and others what we are supposed to think with the threat of being marked anti-semitic for any disagreement. I am also fed up with the new spin on anti-semitism that leaves us vulnerable to real anti-semitism now unchecked in the new church merged with state country Bush wants for us, and supported by Mark Kirk who never says anything about its dangers.

The email goes further to insinuate that Jay Footlik and Dan Seals should not speak to anyone left of center and certainly not anyone who would use that pesky old free speech, a mere holdover from those Jefferson/Madison days.

The Bush/Cheney/Rove/Kirk mentality is that only a few far right wing extremely wealthy people really matter and no one else should have a say or even be allowed to listen. Remember that also means that you should not have the ear of a candidate:

if you support a reasonable health care system,
if you support investing in education and Americas infrastructure,
if you support a woman's right to choose,
if you support separate of church and state,
if you support clean, renewable energy over oil companies,
if you support dealing with the issue of global warming, and
if you want to see a reasonable and rational approach to foreign policy over entering into elective wars and then doing a really bad job once you send our young men and women to fight them.

See for yourself what Kirk supporters are emailing around to each other and then ask yourself if you agree that no one who supports any of the above should be able to speak to a candidate for U.S. Congress. Then, ask yourself: since Mark Kirk will not, does not and even runs away from people who believe in the above, should he be your U.S. Congressman?

Oh, and by the way, I know who sent the email. I just choose at this time not to print his name. I'd really like to see the person fess up himself.

Dear Friends,

While we may disagree on politics and policy sometimes, we all can agree to strongly condemn anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and the institutions that foment them.

I remain a stauch supporter of Congressman Mark Kirk who has co-chaired the congressional Task Force on Anti-Semitism, led the way on hate crimes legislation, continues to lead on opening the Holocaust archives in Bad Arolsen and remains the strongest voice in Congress for the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship.

I write to you today to make sure you know about an issue I find to be pivotal in the upcoming race for Congress in the 10th District. While the two Democrats vying to take on our friend Congressman Kirk next year claim to support our values, their actions to gain political support suggest they do not.

In an effort to appeal to their party's far-left, both candidates participated in this week's Kos Convention in Chicago--with Jay Footlik working the crowd and Dan Seals addressing the confe