Connect with us

Vote. There Really Is No Choice.

Published

on

In a free society, perhaps most sacred is the right to vote.

An opportunity for your voice to be heard. This is not the time to be cynical, and take it from one of the biggest there is.

I’m under no illusions, of course.

By and large, the presidency is simply a figurehead position of our oligarchical corporatocracy.

In this our military industrial complex, the oligarchs have pitted us against one another in a two-party system as a distraction, while corporations and banks get richer and more powerful.

In the final debate, Mitt Romney forgot the plot, and started parroting his agreement with President Obama on most of his foreign policy initiatives. From illegal unmanned drones in undeclared war zones to Afghanistan withdrawals, he was supposed to offer us “a choice” while our defense industry sold weapons to undermine every policy principle expressed by the candidates.

Such that a discussion about energy policy failed to discuss what the implications of deregulation might look like. Not a whisper about climate change or devastating oil spills. With debate moderators that shouldn’t be allowed to moderate a high school debate, let alone Presidential one. It took the devastation of the unprecedented storm — Sandy (which should more aptly have been called Hurricane Infahoe or Hurricane Chevron) — to wake up Americans. Although New Orleans hadn’t forgotten.

Look at the evidence. We have our identical polar opposite mirror hatreds. Democrat and Republican. Nuanced to extreme representations of how we identify ourselves are embodied by our politicians and media figureheads. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Alan Grayson and Alan West, Rachel and Greta, Schulz and Hannity, Lawrence and Bill, the excommunicated Keith and Glenn, and the funnymen, John Stewart and Dennis Miller (was the latter actually funny). It would be nice if the right had a Bill Maher to balance things off, but they don’t.

The vicious storm, still wreaking havoc on hundreds of thousands of lives, to momentarily remind us what role government does serve (as opposed to making women pay for unnecessary vaginal ultrasounds) and what bipartisanship looks like, no matter the ideological differences or shapes and sizes of the politicians representing us.

But what we’ve learned in the last twelve years is that our elections do count, and that it does make a difference who’s in office.

From George W. Bush’s ban on stem cell research, to President Obama’s repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, along with the appointments of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, sitting on the Supreme Court.

In 2000, we saw the chilling Rehnquist/Scaila/Thomas selections hit paydirt for Republicans with the installation of a President. Culminating nine years later in a re-positioning of the court that brought us Citizen’s United, the single most significant decision relating to the funding of our political system, opening the floodgates of anonymous corporate donations. In his dissent, Justice Stevens declared:

“At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

Despite Samuel Alito’s unprecedented and rude muttering aloud “not true” to the President during his Statement of the Union address in 2010 when the issue was raised in an unequivocal condemnation of the Court’s decision.

And despite his criticism, President Obama has hardly proved inept in navigating the post Citizens United campaign funding waters. While corporations like BP and Chevron laughed all the way to Board Room…and then banks.

The ugly, poisonous fruits of that decision is where we find ourselves today.

During the Republican primaries, along with Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, we got to learn more about people like the egomaniacal Koch brothers, the ostentatious, multibillionaire political bankrollers like Sheldon Addleson and Foster Friess, (showing that they could sure as hell influence an election, if not buy one).

Desperate surrogates like Donald Trump, pissing all over the remaining shreds of dignity in our political discourse made a mockery of the process by which we elect what is supposed to represent the most powerful position in the world. Even if illusory.

According to Melissa Harris Perry on her show on MSNBC, a whopping $9.8 billion will be spent this year on 13,000 statewide Congressional and municipal races.

On Saturday, Harris Perry interviewed Scot Ross of One Wisconsin Now, who has been investigating the influence of money on Wisconsin’s politics, and who revealed that the little known Bradley Foundation, “since the Supreme Court declared George Bush the Victor of the 2000 election, they`ve spent in the neighborhood of $1 billion in propaganda to push forward a right-wing agenda.”

The Bradley Foundation, headed by Terry Considine and far larger than the Koch brothers, funds some of the better known “think tanks,” such as the American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institute and Manhattan Institute. And has given money to and owns a stomach-churning, staggering array of right wing ideologues and politicos.

Among the valuable contributions they’ve brought to the election process — along with the junk science they fund in order to debunk climate change, and their push to privatize anything that is capable of yielding a profit — is a highly orchestrated, systematic voter suppression strategy.

One which includes positioning millions of poll workers in precincts around the country, the effect of which may yet have huge implications on this election.

Enough people across the political spectrum are concerned enough with the Citizens United decision, that chances of changing it might actually be realistic. Yet there are still dots we must continue to connect following this election. Terry Considine might be a good place to start. We don’t know the half of it yet.

Before a moderator could pull it, markomalley, at Free Republic.com asked a simple question. Would there be something illegal with Freeping an election? Followed by a strategy to disrupt the voting process. These are the kind of people Terry Considine is relying on to fulfill his agenda. Along with Mitt Romney.

One thing is certain, aside from the endless greed, lies and manipulation that define our fractured, almost unworkable political election process. No matter how much money they flood the process with, no matter how many obstacles they throw in the way, and no matter how much they try to suppress your vote. Whether by spreading vicious lies and insidious propaganda on billboards, web sites and position papers, or paying to elect the likes of Jon Huster, Ohio’s Secretary of State — the new Katherine Harris — to brazenly defy the courts and shamelessly make the fundamental right to vote, a tricky, scary, expensive proposition.

They cannot buy your vote. That alone is reason to do whatever it takes to vote this election.

Vote. There really is no choice.

 

Clinton Fein is an internationally acclaimed author, artist, and First Amendment activist, best-known for his 1997 First Amendment Supreme Court victory against United States Attorney General Janet Reno. Fein has also gained international recognition for his Annoy.com site, and for his work as a political artist. Fein is on the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Project, “a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition.” Fein’s political and privacy activism have been widely covered around the world. His work also led him to be nominated for a 2001 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump Appears to Confuse America’s Revolutionary War With the Civil War

Published

on

President Donald Trump, speaking about war as he attempts to decide whether or not to actively support Israel by bombing Iran, appeared to confuse America’s war for independence —the Revolutionary War—with America’s Civil War.

Asked in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon if he’s made a decision about what, if anything, he will do regarding Iran, the President told reporters, “I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven’t made a final.”

“I like to make the final decisions one second before it’s due, you know, ’cause things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war, it can go from one extreme to the other.”

READ MORE: ‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

“War’s very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war,” he said, apparently about Israel and Iran.

“There was no reason for Russia, Ukraine. A lot of wars, there was no reason for.”

“You look right up there,” Trump said, pointing to the wall, “I don’t know, you see the Declaration of Independence, and I say, I wonder if you, you know, the Civil War always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600,000 plus people.”

The Declaration of Independence was America’s declaration it would no longer be ruled by England. It effectively became a declaration of war: the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence, which lasted from 1775 to 1783.

By contrast, the American Civil War was fought in the following century, from 1861 to 1865, over slavery.

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Critics were quick to mock the President.

“I think we all remember our schooling, when we learned how the Declaration of Independence led to the Civil War,” snarked former journalist Landon Hall.

“As a Canadian, even I know that the Declaration of Independence has absolutely zero to do with the Civil War, what is going on down there?” asked filmmaker Robert Fantinatto.

“Does he think the Declaration of Independence was written in response to the Civil War?
What is he talking about?” asked attorney Robyn J Leader.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

Published

on

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faced sharp and stern criticism during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing over his highly controversial decision to fire Air Force General Timothy D. Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. Reports suggested a far-right social media influencer was behind the move to terminate the NSA Director in what some have called a “loyalty purge.”

Calling General Haugh’s dismissal “sudden and inexplicable” and “deeply concerning,” U.S. Senator Jackie Rosen (D-NV) told Secretary Hegseth it “raises significant questions about the decision-making process,” and “its potential consequences.”

“Public reports indicate that the removal of General Haugh, who has served his country proudly, has been influenced by social media influencer, an influencer— a personality on social media, Laura Loomer—spreads conspiracy theories. She’s been denounced even by Republicans,” Senator Rosen charged. “And the idea that any leaders within our agency responsible for out nation’s security—somebody would be dismissed based on the advice of a social media influencer is alarming to say the least. It’s surely not how we should be running our military.”

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Senator Rosen demanded to know if Hegseth was “consulted” regarding the dismissal of General Haugh.

“Well, Senator, I would not advise believing everything you read in the media,” was Secretary Hegseth’s response.

After a heated back-and-forth, Hegseth declared, “I’m the decision-maker for the department. And we all serve at the pleasure of the President, and we have the prerogative to make those decisions.”

Refusing to state specifically that he personally relieved general Haugh, Hegseth served up a more generic response.

“Anyone at that level who was relieved would be relieved by the Secretary of Defense,” he stated.

Hegseth also refused to respond when asked if there was a specific justification for General Haugh’s dismissal.

“Uh, Ma’am, we all serve at the pleasure of the President and the President deserves the type of Commanders and advisers that he thinks will best equip…to accomplish the mission.”

Hegseth also refused to say if he discussed dismissing Haugh with Laura Loomer.

“I don’t discuss who I talk about anything with, but ultimately, this is my decision, and he serves at the pleasure of the president, and that’s why he’s no longer there,” was the Secretary’s reply.

After another question, Hegseth told Senator Rosen, “Uh, I believe your time is up, Senator.”

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

“Oh,” Rosen vehemently responded, “it is not up to you to tell me when my time is up.”

“Well, the time—” Hegseth continued.

“I am going to say, Mr. Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department. You are unserious. It is shocking. You’re not combating antisemitism within your ranks. It’s a dangerous and pivotal time in our nation’s history,” Senator Ro9sen warned.

“And I don’t appreciate the smirk, sir. You are the Secretary of Defense.”

Watch below or at this link.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Published

on

Legal experts, advocates for transgender youth, and the liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are condemning SCOTUS’s 6–3 decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. All six conservative justices sided with the ban—some going further to disparage scientific expertise, dismiss the value of medical consensus, and signal that transgender Americans should not be granted protected class status.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion upholding the ban, known as SB1.

“An estimated 1.6 million Americans over the age of 13 identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity does not align with their biological sex,” Justice Roberts wrote at the opening of his opinion, acknowledging that transgender youth exist. In his footnotes he also acknowledged their use of pronouns: “We use ‘transgender boy’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is female but who identifies as male, and ‘transgender girl’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is male but who identifies as female.”

Approximately 25 states across the country have some form of ban on medical care for transgender youth. Those bans—including puberty blockers—likely will now stay in place, affecting more than 100,000 transgender youth (as of 2023), according to the Williams Institute.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took extra steps to write that “transgender status” does not constitute “suspect,” class deserving of strict scrutiny, a higher level of judicial review.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status,” she also wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas denigrated what he called “the expert class.”

“There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class,” he wrote. Justice Thomas added, “whether ‘major medical organizations’ agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant.”

“To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere “spectators . . . in construing our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent is being praised by transgender advocates and trans-supporting legal experts. And in her dissent she directly opposed Justice Barrett’s claims.

“To give meaning to our Constitution’s bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

She said in her opinion that Tennessee’s law discriminates against transgender adolescents, and “expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court, Sotomayor wrote, “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,” she noted.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

“This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with . . . sex,’ contains a sex classification,” Justice Sotomayor concluded. “Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a cspade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it.”

“The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel labeled Sotomayor’s dissent, “Clear, concise, and brilliant.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, responding to the ruling, wrote: “Solidarity with trans people today, who are facing growing state oppression here and globally.”

Writer and former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer wrote on the ruling: “The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritizes the discomfort and fear of some non-trans people over the health and wellbeing of trans youth. It disregards science and every major medical authority. It endorses the state controlling parents and doctors. Every resulting suicide is on the hands of these anti-trans justices.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, responding to news of the decision, wrote: “Illinois has enshrined protections to meet this very moment. In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it’s more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. You have a home here always.”

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor to The Atlantic, declared: “In effect, the Supreme Court has given a middle finger to parental rights by accepting a Tennessee law banning gender- affirming care for youth. This is a decision that should be made within the family. They love parental rights when it fits right wing aims.

READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline

 

Image via Shutterstock

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.