What do Supporters of Radical Christianity and Radical Islam Have in Common?
July 6, 2005(broadcast stream
) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
Many radical Christian Americans support Bush, not so much because they like his policies, but because they believe him to be a “good Christian.” Many of the more radical conservative Christians have even dubbed the War in Iraq a “War Against Islam.”
And yet, many nationalist Arabs support terrorist leaders because they believe them to be “good Muslims.” And some of the most radical consider a War against America to be a “War Against Infidels” (Christians and Jews).
What is the blindness of many American Christians and many Arab Muslims that prevents them from seeing the other side as decent people just trying to move on with their lives? Americans say we will leave Iraq as soon as the insurgents stop fighting us. Iraqis say the insurgents will stop fighting us as soon as America leaves Iraq. Even Osama Bin Laden considered his attack a response to US occupation of Arab soil. Who is the aggressor here? Who is the aggrieved? (Answer: BOTH sides!)
Can anyone support either policies of Arab terrorism against innocent civilians or U.S. occupation against a country that never attacked us (leading to at least 25,000, if not 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilian deaths)?
And while terror against civilians is never justified, it is justified to fight against an occupying army? Does it matter if the army has acted in response to aggression?
Is much of America as myopic (near-sighted) as much of the Arab world?
When will American Christians learn there is a difference between ignorant, warmongering Arabs who support Islamic terrorists and a billion peaceful Muslims worldwide?
When will Arab Muslims learn there is a difference between ignorant, warmongering Americans who support a jihad against Islam and billions of peaceful Christians worldwide?
As that most unlikely philosopher Rodney King put it, “Can’t we all just get along?”
Debate Tuesday: The Next Supreme Court Nominee
July 5, 2005(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
Mark debates guest Jeffrey Lord, writer and author of The Borking Rebellion.
Jeffrey Lord is a former political director in the Reagan White House where he worked on confirmation fights for five Supreme Court nominees — three that made it (Rehnquist, Scalia, and Kennedy) and two that did not (Bork and Douglas Ginsburg).
Mark’s comment:
Are liberals or conservatives “activist judges”? Is there a way to measure such a thing? There is. Striking down a Congressional law as unconstitutional is the most aggressive, activist thing a member of the Supreme Court can do. It places the justice’s personal view of the Constitution over that of the elected legislature. Clearly it should be done in some cases, but it’s a very powerful tool that should be rarely exercised in a democracy.
So in cases where the constitutionality of a law of Congress was at issue, what percentage of cases has a Justice of the Supreme Court voted to overturn it? Professor Paul Gewirtz from my alma mater Yale Law School has crunched the numbers. And here’s what he came up with:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
Clearly the more right-wing judges are far greater “judicial activists” than the more liberal judges. No surprise to anyone closely watching the court. But someone needs to tell the Republicans and the President that their talking points: “No legislating from the bench” lead to the escapable conclusion that he should appoint more Clinton justices like Ginsburg and Breyer!
We need more strict constructionists and fewer judicial activists. More Breyers and fewer Thomases.
And we need Bill O’Reilly and George W. Bush to shut up and stop lying to the American people.
Happy Independence Day!
July 4, 2005Two hundred twenty nine years ago, our nation was founded. I expect our constitutional democracy, despite everything the Republicans are doing to trash it, will survive it.
Happy July 4th America!
[No show today.]
(more…)
Sunday Weekly Review – War over the Supreme Court!
July 3, 2005(broadcast stream) (.mp3 download Right-click,”Save Target as”,”Save”)
WHY WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED CANADA
The President’s warmed-over rationale Tuesday night for our attacking Iraq is garnering a predictably tepid response.
What he has missed is the larger point: his doctrine can be used as justification to invade ANY COUNTRY ON EARTH. And I think, if we’re going to start anywhere, we should consider Canada. Not only can we get a direct connection to Alaska, but Canada — a country that believes in human rights — might just teach half of America the importance of moral, family values, and equality for all.
THE FUTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT
AND TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS:
1) Should journalists be compelled to reveal their sources if their sources are involved in criminal activity?
2) Can eminent domain (the taking of private property for public use with just compesation) be done where some of that private property for “public use” goes to private interests?
And, if time permits:
— Karl Rove mastermind of CIA-leak to stop Ambassador Joe Wilson
— Canada and Spain allow gay couples to marry
— San Diego Republican Congressman “Bribery Duke” Cunningham is going down
— Sudan, Halliburton, Bolton, and flag-burning…
NEWS FLASH: SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR RETIRES!!!
July 1, 2005With Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court is up for grabs. The Court currently has one liberal Democrat (Ginsburg) one moderate Democrat (Breyer), two moderate Republicans (Stevens and Souter), two conservative Republicans (Kennedy and O’Connor), and three dangerous right-wing radical theocratic nutcases who love corporations and hate civil rights and religious freedom (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas).
With the swing vote gone, get ready for the greatest Supreme Court battle in American history. This is far more dangerous than Rehnquist’s impending retirement. Unless there’s a filibuster, the Republicans now have the votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, to demolish civil rights, to imprison gay people, and to use the Government to force Bush’s particular religious sect down the throats of non-believers.
With O’Connor gone, the balance of the Court will likely swing from conservative Republican to Theocratic Fundamentalism. Batten down the hatches, America, and prepare for war, else the era of the American Taliban will begin. Barring an extremely unusual Supreme Court pick (if Bush picks a conservative Republican, for example, instead of a right-wing nutcase), the filibuster is our only hope.
Prepare for battle, Americans. The next Supreme Court justice will have more impact on your life than 9/11.
- 12/17/2020 The Curse of Alternative Facts
- 12/10/2020 Will the Republican War on Democracy Lead to Violence?
- 12/3/2020 Is There a Religious Right to Kill Others? PLUS: The Grift that Keeps On Grifting
- 11/19/2020 Comedy/Catastrophe: Keystone Coup Causing Countless COVID Casualties
- 11/12/2020 President-Elect Biden v. Frankenstein’s Monster
- 11/5/2020 Take a Deep Breath. Within 24-96 Hours, Joe Biden Will Be President-Elect
- 10/29/2020 Vote Now for a Biden Landslide Beyond the ‘Margin of Cheating’
- 10/22/2020 The End Is Near
- 10/15/2020 You Can End Democracy, Health Care, & Human Freedom With a More Pleasant Demeanor. Ask ACB to Show You How
- 10/8/2020 The Republican Death Cult
- MORE