LINKS


Magpie Watch courtesy of
Media Matters.org



CONTENT

Arthur is a contributing editor at
Washblog.com


Veterans Group
Arthur is a social worker, author and freelance writer


Willapa Bay
Washington State
You are not logged in. Log in


Local Media

Aberdeen Daily World
Chinook Observer
Montesano Vidette
Pacific County Press
Willapa Harbor Herald
KXRO 1320 AM



Favorite National News & Blog Sites AMERICAblog

Army Wife 101

Crooks & Liars

Daily Kos

Democracy Now!

FiredogLake

Hoffmania

Huffington Post

Media Matters

Raw Story

Slate Magazine

Talking Points Memo

TPM Muckraker

Truth Digg

ZNet



U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD
Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator



Click on image above for our sister site
Custom Search

Bay Center, Washington from U.S. Hwy 101

Friday, 27 July 2007
Wake up calls or Urban Legends
Now Playing: You decide... You want to buy the bridge or pretend it isn't there?
Topic: Constitutional Issues
Cheney determined to strike in US with WMD this summer; only impeachment and removal, or a general strike, can stop him
By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Jul 23, 2007, 01:04

 

The greatest threat now is "a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities." --Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007

A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here.

 


 

 

Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?


Global Research, June 24, 2007

 

Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets" (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)


The US media consensus is that "the United States faces its greatest threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks"  (USA Today, 12 February 2006) The American Homeland  is threatened by " Islamic terrorists", allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus. 

America is under attack" by an illusive "outside enemy". 

Concepts are turned upside down. War becomes Peace. "Offense" becomes a legitimate means of "self-defense". In the words of President Bush:

"Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response: We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them." (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007) 

The intent is to seek a pretext to wage a preemptive war. 

A "terrorist attack on America" could be used to justify, in the eyes of an increasingly credulous public opinion, on "humanitarian grounds", the launching of a major theater war directed against Iran and Syria. 


 


Posted SwanDeer Project at 7:06 PM PDT
Updated: Friday, 27 July 2007 9:14 PM PDT
Bookmark and Share
Monday, 23 July 2007
MORE OF THE SAME CONCERNS: EMERGENCY MEETING IN SEATTLE
Now Playing: "Such a statement can now get me arrested, disappeared, and stripped of all assets."
Topic: Constitutional Issues
the Rev. Rich Lang is pastor of Trinity United Methodist Church in Seattle, Washington.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Lang
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 11:47 AM
Subject: Emergency meeting

Hi folks,

This e[mail] was originally meant to promote the Living Faith Now radio program
(www.livingfaithnow.org)
but I first wanted to simply sound an alarm.

We are in a grave constitutional crisis with a President who seemingly wants to be king.

This administration is building, plank by plank, the framework for military dictatorship.

Already in place is a global governing philosophy that uses the military as muscle for invading other nations for the purpose of social engineering and massive Corporate profits.

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006 empowers the President to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist incident.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 permits the President to command National Guard troops without the consent of state governors.

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive gives the President dictatorial powers in the event of a “catastrophic incident”.

The Military Commissions Act suspends the right of habeas corpus.

This short list doesn’t include wide spread wire tapping of citizens, construction of concentration camps, Black-shirt private armies, an ever expanding military budget, increased government secrecy, non co-operation with Congress, and the inevitable bankrupting of domestic budgets. And now, the latest grab for power has the Executive announcing that “our property” can be seized for dissent against the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

a.) New Bush Executive Order Kills Right to Property


b.) Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

c .) Friday, July 20, 2007 We ARE In A Constitutional Crisis

We are in a very grave constitutional crisis folks. I encourage every one of you to make a noise in the offices of Murray, Cantwell, and your congressional representative. Silence is the death of democracy.

But I think we also need to begin the process of organizing some form of resistance, protest, and/or strategy for impeachment.

Our politicians are fiddling while democracy burns.
Feeding from common Corporate money sources they are no longer worthy of our trust. Indeed, they have betrayed us.

For example, almost daily some media figure or political operative drops a hint that our country might be hit again by the terrorists.
Ask yourself, in the event of another catastrophic occurrence can you trust this government to stay true to the idealism of democracy, and the laws of limited checks and balances of power, encoded in the Constitution?
Can you trust Congress to represent the people?


I certainly cannot.

We are, I repeat, in a grave, surreal even, constitutional crisis.

We are dealing with a spirituality of tyranny; an unleashing of ruthless, arrogant power that corrupts all it touches.

It’s time to get angry and cast out this unclean spirit from our land.

Such a statement can now get me arrested, disappeared, and stripped of all assets.

Is this America?

Is this the country in which we have been raised?

And how long, friend, until you yourself awaken only to discover that there is now a knock on your door?

On Wednesday evening, August 1st, at 7pm, you are invited to a gathering at:
Trinity United Methodist Church,
(6512 23rd Ave. NW Seattle, 98117).

There we will begin to strategize how to reclaim the power of the people, the birthright we share from our heritage of democracy.

Knock. Knock.

Rev. Rich Lang
(oddrev@yahoo.com)



P.S. Note this happening:


Friday, July 20, 2007
JEFF KOSSEFF
The Oregonian Staff

WASHINGTON -- Oregonians called Peter DeFazio's office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure "bubbleroom" in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

 

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says.


Homeland Secur ity Co mmittee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.blockquote>"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access:
"We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive."


Norm Ornstein, a legal scholar who studies government continuity at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee.

"I find it inexplicable and probabl y reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House," Ornstein said.


This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio said.

Posted SwanDeer Project at 7:01 PM PDT
Updated: Monday, 23 July 2007 7:13 PM PDT
Bookmark and Share
Saturday, 16 June 2007
the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.
Now Playing: God said that Native Americans weren't part of the deal... Information Clearing House
Topic: Constitutional Issues

Here's what's wrong when a religious point of view informs and authorizes robbery and subjugation by declaring that God approves. And this at a time when separation of church and state was for the most part strictly observed in most other venues. 

From Information Clearning House 

Five Hundred Years of Injustice: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice 

 
Saturday, 16 June 2007

by Steve Newcomb

When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to "take possession" of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus' "discovery" has taken on mythological proportions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of "possession" was based on a religious doctrine now known in history as the Doctrine of Discovery.

Even fewer people realize that today - five centuries later - the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.

Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery

To understand the connection between Christendom's principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus' historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.

Under various theological and legal doctrines formulated during and after the Crusades, non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, in the bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonso to "capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," to "put them into perpetual slavery," and "to take all their possessions and property." [Davenport: 20-26] Acting on this papal privilege, Portugal continued to traffic in African slaves, and expanded its royal dominions by making "discoveries" along the western coast of Africa, claiming those lands as Portuguese territory.

... During this quincentennial of Columbus' journey to the Americas, it is important to recognize that the grim acts of genocide and conquest committed by Columbus and his men against the peaceful Native people of the Caribbean were sanctioned by the abovementioned documents of the Catholic Church. Indeed, these papal documents were frequently used by Christian European conquerors in the Americas to justify an incredibly brutal system of colonization - which dehumanized the indigenous people by regarding their territories as being "inhabited only by brute animals." [Story:135-6]

The lesson to be learned is that the papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the "Christian Powers," or "different States of Christendom," viewed indigenous peoples as "the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors." [Wheaton:270-1]

In fact, the Christian "Law of Nations" asserted that Christian nations had a divine right, based on the Bible, to claim absolute title to and ultimate authority over any newly "discovered" Non-Christian inhabitants and their lands. Over the next several centuries, these beliefs gave rise to the Doctrine of Discovery used by Spain, Portugal, England, France, and Holland - all Christian nations.

The Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. Law


In 1823, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was quietly adopted into U.S. law by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case, Johnson v. McIntosh (8 Wheat., 543). Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed "ultimate dominion" over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that - upon "discovery" - the Indians had lost "their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations," and only retained a right of "occupancy" in their lands. In other words, Indians nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands. [Johnson:574; Wheaton:270-1]

... Most of us have been brought up to believe that the United States Constitution was designed to keep church and state apart. Unfortunately, with the Johnson decision, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was not only written into U.S. law but also became the cornerstone of U.S. Indian policy over the next century.

... The myth of U.S. "plenary power" over Indians - a power, by the way, that was never intended by the authors of the Constitution [Savage:115-17] - has been used by the United States to:

1. Circumvent the terms of solemn treaties that the U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite the fact that all such treaties are "supreme Law of the Land, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding."


2. Steal the homelands of Indian peoples living east of the Mississippi River, by removing them from their traditional ancestral homelands through the Indian Removal Act of 1835.

3. Use a congressional statute, known as the General Allotment Act of 1887, to divest Indian people of some 90 million acres of their lands. This act, explained John Collier (Commissioner of Indian Affairs) was "an indirect method - peacefully under the forms of law - of taking away the land that we were determined to take away but did not want to take it openly by breaking the treaties."

4. Steal the sacred Black Hills from the Great Sioux nation in violation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which recognized the Sioux Nation's exclusive and absolute possession of their lands.

5. Pay the Secretary of the Interior $26 million for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone lands, because the Western Shoshone people have steadfastly refused to sell the land and refused to accept the money. Although the Western Shoshone Nation's sovereignty and territorial boundaries were clearly recognized by the federal government in the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, the government now claims that paying itself on behalf of the Western Shoshone has extinguished the Western Shoshone's title to their lands.

As Thomas Jefferson once observed, when the state uses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is "hypocrisy and meanness." Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court's use of the ancient Christian Doctrine of Discovery - to circumvent the Constitution as a means of taking Indian lands and placing Indian nations under U.S. control - has proven Madison and Jefferson right.


Steve Newcomb is an American Indian of Shawnee & Lenape ancestry. For over a decade, he has studied the origins of United States federal Indian law and international law dating back to the early days of Christendom. He is the author of a book on his findings titled, Pagans In the Promised Land: Religion, Law, and the American Indian.

Posted SwanDeer Project at 11:20 AM PDT
Bookmark and Share
Sunday, 20 May 2007
Attacked By Vampires in the Night: Ashcroft Rebuffed Gonzales
Now Playing: Maybe Ashcroft Wasn't As Bad As We Thought
Topic: Constitutional Issues

www.freedomfiles.org/war/ashcroft.JPG 

Excerpts from Washington Post online article

Ashcroft's Complex Tenure At Justice

On Some Issues, He Battled White House

 Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, May 20, 2007; Page A01

As attorney general, John D. Ashcroft was the public face of an administration pushing the boundaries of the Constitution to hunt down terrorists, but behind the scenes, according to former aides and White House officials, he at times resisted what he saw as radical overreaching.

Testimony last week that a hospitalized Ashcroft rebuffed aides to President Bush intent on gaining Ashcroft's approval of a surveillance program he had deemed illegal provided a rare view of the inner workings of the early Bush presidency and the depth of internal disagreement over how far to go in responding to the threat of terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to former officials, it was not the only time that the former Missouri senator chosen for the Bush Cabinet in part for his ties to the Christian right would challenge the White House in private. In addition to rejecting to the most expansive version of the warrantless eavesdropping program, the officials said, Ashcroft also opposed holding detainees indefinitely at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without some form of due process.

... In the end, the officials said, the conflicts contributed to Ashcroft's departure at the conclusion of Bush's first term, when the president replaced him with a close friend from Texas, Alberto R. Gonzales, who presumably would be more deferential to the White House.

... "All of us wanted to err on the side of public safety after the attacks," said former deputy attorney general Larry D. Thompson. But even while taking an "aggressive stand" on the Patriot Act and other measures, "John was completely devoted to the Department of Justice and completely devoted to the Constitution," Thompson said.

...the account of a nighttime hospital confrontation between Ashcroft and Bush aides -- provided Tuesday by Thompson's successor, James B. Comey, to the Senate Judiciary Committee -- prompted something of a reappraisal of Ashcroft by some on the left last week.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) praised his "fidelity to the rule of law." The Wonkette Web site posted the headline: "Ashcroft Takes Heroic Stand." Under a similar headline, "John Ashcroft, American Hero," Andrew Sullivan expressed astonishment on his Atlantic magazine blog that "John Ashcroft was way too moderate for these people. John Ashcroft."

...former officials said Ashcroft also rejected ideas he considered extreme. When one aide made such a suggestion, colleagues said Ashcroft replied, "I know I asked you to think outside the box, but I don't want you to think outside the Constitution."

By the time Bush won a second term, Ashcroft had decided to step down and the White House made clear that was fine. But he feared internal rivals would leak his decision, so he wrote his resignation letter by hand and personally delivered it to Bush on Election Day, Corallo said.

"He was not going to trust these people to spin his resignation and backstab him any more," he said. "In the end, the only one he trusted was the president."

End of excerpts. Read the entire article online at washingtonpost.com 

 

 

 


Posted SwanDeer Project at 12:38 PM PDT
Updated: Sunday, 20 May 2007 12:41 PM PDT
Bookmark and Share

Newer | Latest | Older


What does it mean to be Christian in America?
Arthur's blog on religion & Spirituality

I'm glad you asked that question.


Published by SwanDeer Productions
Arthur and Lietta Ruger, Bay Center, Willapa Bay in Pacific County Washington

Willapa Magazine ©2007 is an internet journal based in Bay Center, Washington.
The opinions expressed by Arthur or Lietta Ruger are the writers' own.
Willapa Magazine recognizes Fair Use law and publishes original writings in their entirety based on
'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Permission of Willapa Magazine is required for reprinting original Willapa Magazine writings and the original author(s)
for material posted under fair use law.