Kasich Wants a Propaganda Department to Spread "Judeo-Christian Values"

Driving home I heard John Kasich being interviewed and the topic of defeating ISIS and Islamic extremism came up.  In addition to advocating "boots on the ground" (and then evasively  dancing around naming the number of American lives he'd throw away), Kasich shockingly indicated that he would establish a propaganda department to spread "Judeo-Christian values" to win the war of ideas against ISIS.  That statement along proves to my mind that Kasich is unfit for the White House.  If one looks at history, it is the values and ideas of The Enlightenment that moved mankind forward and which are the real basis of modern Western civilization.  Religion and Christianity in particular have a bloody track record of giving the world, hate, bigotry and the murder of those with differing beliefs.  Be it the annihilation of other Christian sects during the early years of Christianity, the Crusades, Europe's wars of religion, the extermination of native peoples in the Americas, Judeo-Christian values have proven deadly.  The Washington Post looks at Kasich's ridiculous proposal.  Here are article highlights: 

During a speech Tuesday at the National Press Club, Ohio Governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich offered a litany of ideas meant to broaden the influence of the United States and combat the rise of the Islamic State. Among them was one that, on its face, seemed to contradict the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting have lost their focus on the case for Western values and ideals and effectively countering our opponents' propaganda and disinformation. I will consolidate them into a new agency that has a clear mandate to promote the core, Judeo-Christian Western values that we and our friends and allies share: the values of human rights, the values of democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association."

Curious about the constitutionality of such a thing, we called New York University civil liberties professor Burt Neuborne, former legal director of the ACLU and founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice.

"The 'Judeo-Christian' phrase, my sense is, is an unfortunate phrase by the governor," Neuborne said. "What he really means is historically the values associated with Western culture.

A President Kasich, though, "couldn't create an agency designed to promote strictly religious values," Neuborne said. "To the extent he's insisting in making it a religious institution, he's making it harder on himself. But my bet is that's not what he intended."

Apparently, Kasich failed to notice that Bobby Jindal's self-prostitution to the Christofascists did not save his campaign.  And, as noted above, he is apparently so ignorant of history that he doesn't understand that it was The Enlightenment - which embraced knowledge and reason and rejected religious based ignorance and bigotry - that is the basis of what we now consider to be western values. Sadly, the author of the Post piece is seemingly as ignorant as Kasich on this point.

Air Force Forcing Members to Swear Religious Allegiance

Past posts have looked at the problem of Christofascists in the senior ranks of the U.S. military who have tried to force their religious beliefs on subordinates - a year or so ago, there was an incident at nearby Ft. Eustis here in Virginia.  The problem continues and once again the U.S. Air Force appears to be a major center of Christofascist efforts to force service members to swear religious affiliation.  It goes without saying that such actions are in direct contravention of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which officers have sworn to uphold.  It is yet another example of the Christofascists' belief that they are above the law as the pursue their theocratic agenda.  A piece in Salon looks at the latest problems in the Air Force.  Here are excerpts: 

Somewhere a high-ranking (but confused) general in the U.S. Air Force has lost his damned mind.  The Air Force has instituted a completely illegal, illogical and unconstitutional mandatory religious oath in order to serve.  A technical sergeant stationed at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada is being denied reenlistment unless he agrees to swear “so help me god.”

Modern attempts to force “god” into inappropriate parts of the public sphere is a Cold War relic. Think of the ’50s when “Under God” was unceremoniously shoehorned into the Pledge of Allegiance.  Contrary to popular belief, George Washington did not utter “so help me god” when taking office.  Despite irritating and ongoing attempts to force god into every orifice of the state, there has been a secular option for decades to “affirm” rather than swear to god. Until now.

This sergeant, who remains anonymous, is only the first of a soon-to-be avalanche of conscientious service members.  Today, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent a letter to the Department of Defense with 17 more Air Force noncommissioned officers (NCOs) who want to reenlist without having to conform to government-imposed religiosity. 

This latest attempt at religious conformity by military “leadership” is only the most blatant in an ongoing battle for the soul of the U.S. armed forces.  The Air Force always seems to be at the wrong end of this debate, and the MRFF [Military Religious Freedom Foundation] often fields calls and complaints from service members who are often pressured to convert to a very warped view of fundamentalist Christianity or being punished for not doing so, said Weinstein.

This attempt to force service members to swear a prescribed religious oath is the single biggest blunder by Christians since the Salem witch trials. It is an obvious loser, which is what I cannot understand.  How can anyone, Christian, Muslim or atheist (or nothing at all), think that any government or private institution other than a church has the right to require religious oaths?

Only the Air Force of all the service branches tries to “go rogue” and fails so spectacularly.

If this is a guaranteed loser, why do it?  The answer lies in a culture of Dominionism rampant in the armed services.  The Wikipedia definition of this is helpful here: “Dominion Theology or Dominionism is the idea that Christians should work toward either a nation governed by Christians or one governed by a conservative Christian understanding of Biblical Law.” This small slice of extreme Christianity exerts ever more power and influence in the nation’s capital among not only befuddled old generals but defense contractors, consultants, nonprofits and, most of all, badly educated Congress members, like Michele Bachmann.  Like the war between Muslim factions in Iraq that hurts mostly Muslims, most of the victims of Dominionism are other Christians.

This ham-handed religious coercion is so stupid that it would be funny, except horrible, permanent damage has already been done to individuals. Imagine that you are a person of a minority faith, like Buddhist or Hindu, or a person of no faith at all. Would you feel welcome in an organization that tried to force you to declare allegiance to not only a service branch but also to a monotheistic god and against your will?

An obvious first step is to fire the generals and senior officers behind this effort.  A severe example needs to be made of them to send a message that officers either support the U.S. Constitution first and foremost and their sick version of Christianity second or they need to leave the U.S. military.  Far right Christians continue to constitute a clear and present danger to the nations form of constitutional government.

Snowden Denies Suggestions That He Was a Spy

Some of the usual suspects in Congress are alleging that Edward Snowden was a spy working for Russia, something that Snowden specifically denies.  In my view, it is a case of trying to change the subject away from the illegality of the actions of the National Security Administration and tar the whistle blower.  I continue to believe that Snowden did Americans a huge service by exposing what our government has been doing - all in our name, of course.  As for Senator Dianne Feinstein's remarks, she'd best not ask me for any money or anything else any times soon.  The New York Times looks at the accusations and Snowden's denial.  Here are excerpts:

Edward J. Snowden on Tuesday adamantly denied as “absurd” and “smears” the suggestion by the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that he might have been a Russian spy when he downloaded archives of classified National Security Agency documents and leaked them to journalists.

In an interview with The New Yorker, Mr. Snowden declared that the accusation — advanced in particular by Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee — was “false,” saying he had “clearly and unambiguously acted alone, with no assistance from anyone, much less a government.”

In the latest jostling over how to frame the public debate that Mr. Snowden’s leaks created, Mr. Rogers said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Mr. Snowden should be seen not as a whistle-blower but as “a thief, who we believe had some help.”

Officials at both the N.S.A. and the F.B.I. have said their investigations have turned up no evidence that Mr. Snowden was aided by others. But Mr. Rogers, asserting that Mr. Snowden had downloaded many files about military activities that do not involve issues of civil liberties, pointed to the Russian Federal Security Service, known as the F.S.B., the successor to the Soviet K.G.B. He offered no evidence.

“I believe there’s a reason he ended up in the hands, the loving arms, of an F.S.B. agent in Moscow,” he said, adding: “I believe there’s questions to be answered there. I don’t think it was a gee-whiz luck event that he ended up in Moscow under the handling of the F.S.B.”

Mr. Rogers made his remarks two days after President Obama embraced some calls to reform certain N.S.A. activities brought to light by Mr. Snowden. In particular, Mr. Obama said he would impose greater court oversight on the once-secret program in which the agency has been collecting records of every American’s phone calls, and that he intended to eventually get the N.S.A. out of the business of gathering such records in bulk.

On Sunday, the “Meet the Press” host, David Gregory, also asked Mr. Rogers’s Senate counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, whether she agreed with his suspicions that Mr. Snowden had been helped by the Russians. She replied: “He may well have.”

Mr. Snowden criticized news organizations for treating such remarks as newsworthy.  “It’s not the smears that mystify me,” Mr. Snowden told The New Yorker, “it’s that outlets report statements that the speakers themselves admit are sheer speculation.”

Clemency for Edward Snowden, Whistle-Blower

Many - especially in the far right - are calling Edward Snowden a traitor and are calling for life imprisonment or worse for him.  In contrast, I see Snowden as a patriot who believed that Americans and the Constitution were being brutalized by a government surveillance system run amok. Therefore, he decided to be a whistle blower and let the public know what was being done supposedly in their name.  I believe that often the bravest patriots are those who will speak out and challenge wrongs as opposed to those who wrap themselves in the flag (and often religion) and fall into an "America, love it or leave it" mindset.  The New York Times looks at the revelations that Snowden provided and calls for clemency in how he is treated.  Here are editorial excerpts:

Seven months ago, the world began to learn the vast scope of the National Security Agency’s reach into the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the United States and around the globe, as it collects information about their phone calls, their email messages, their friends and contacts, how they spend their days and where they spend their nights. The public learned in great detail how the agency has exceeded its mandate and abused its authority, prompting outrage at kitchen tables and at the desks of Congress, which may finally begin to limit these practices. 

The revelations have already prompted two federal judges to accuse the N.S.A. of violating the Constitution (although a third, unfortunately, found the dragnet surveillance to be legal). A panel appointed by President Obama issued a powerful indictment of the agency’s invasions of privacy and called for a major overhaul of its operations. 

All of this is entirely because of information provided to journalists by Edward Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor who stole a trove of highly classified documents after he became disillusioned with the agency’s voraciousness. Mr. Snowden is now living in Russia, on the run from American charges of espionage and theft, and he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. 

Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight. He may have committed a crime to do so, but he has done his country a great service. It is time for the United States to offer Mr. Snowden a plea bargain or some form of clemency that would allow him to return home, face at least substantially reduced punishment in light of his role as a whistle-blower, and have the hope of a life advocating for greater privacy and far stronger oversight of the runaway intelligence community.

 As noted before, Americans now live in a near police state in terms of the domestic spying that envelops us.  America ranks with China and Russia in terms of the lack of personal privacy from the government.  This is NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.  I find the NSA's domestic spying to be both troubling and frightening.

New York Times: Reign in the Lawless NSA

Numerous posts on this blog have looked at the unrestrained domestic spying that has gone on under the National Security Agency that has left no American's telephone or Internet usage free from scrutiny.   Sadly, until Edward Snowden released massive amounts of information most citizens foolishly thought they enjoyed at least some small amount of privacy.  A commission appointed by Barack Obama has released a report that calls for numerous reforms to reign in the lawless behavior of the NSA.  It is also important to remember that this lawless behavior began under the Bush/Cheney regime, one of the most lawless in history.  The New York Times endorses the commission findings and calls for action in a main page editorial  Here are editorial excerpts:

In the days after one of the biggest national security leaks in United States history revealed the existence of vast, largely unchecked government surveillance programs, President Obama said he would “welcome” a robust national debate over the appropriate balance between protecting national security and respecting individual privacy and civil liberties. 

he answer has now landed squarely on Mr. Obama’s desk, with the release late Wednesday afternoon of a remarkably thorough and well-reasoned report calling on the government to end its bulk phone-data collection program and to increase both the transparency and accountability of surveillance programs going forward. 

The recommendations demonstrate how far afield the National Security Agency has wandered in its zeal to vacuum up the phone and Internet data of virtually every American, not to mention world leaders and other non-American citizens.

They also show the lack of regard for the Constitution that has led those efforts, and the virtual absence of supervision and restraint by Mr. Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush. 

 

The most far-reaching recommendations are also the most common sense. For example, the report calls for legislation requiring the government to meet a higher standard before it can order a company to turn over private customer records.
It also calls for an end to the government’s mass storage of those records, recommending that they be kept by the companies themselves or a private third party in order to prevent government abuse. Otherwise, the report warns, “high-level government officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily sensitive private information is there for the plucking.” 

Among its many other important recommendations, the report singles out the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose judges hear arguments in secret from the government alone, with no opposition, and issue classified rulings on significant constitutional issues. The panel said Congress should establish an advocate to argue in those hearings for the privacy and civil liberties interests of the public. And the selection of the court’s judges, which now resides solely in the hands of the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts Jr., should be divided among all the justices of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps most damning of all, the report calls into doubt the central justification for the surveillance dragnet: preventing terrorism. Echoing the finding of a federal judge who ruled on Monday that the phone-data collection program was probably unconstitutional, the report said the data sweep “was not essential to preventing attacks.” 

Mr. Obama need not wait for Congress to act to implement the reforms he said he wants. He can quickly adopt his panel’s recommendation and end the ineffective and constitutionally dangerous dragnet surveillance. 

Court Strikes Down NSA Phone Record Gathering

This blog has frequently lamented what in my view is the unconstitutional violations of American citizens' right to privacy and freedom from unlawful searches and seizures.  Now, a federal court has agreed that the National Security Agency's blanket gathering of phone call records and even the locations of cell phones as unconstitutional.  While the government may well appeal the ruling, round one has been won by the forces that favor freedom and limitations on the growing police state in America.  It bears repeating that but for the leaks by Edward Snowden, we may well have never known the extent of the NSA's illegal domestic spying The Washington Post has coverage.  Here are highlights:

A federal district judge ruled on Monday that the National Security Agency program that is systematically keeping records of all Americans’ phone calls most likely violates the Constitution, describing its technology as “almost Orwellian” and suggesting that James Madison would be “aghast” to learn that the government was encroaching on liberty in such a way.

Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia ordered the government to stop collecting data on the personal calls of the two plaintiffs in the case and to destroy the records of their calling history. But the judge, appointed to the bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, stayed his injunction “in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues,” allowing the government time to appeal it, a matter that he said could take at least six months. The case is the first in which a federal judge who is not on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which authorized the once-secret program, has examined the bulk data collection on behalf of someone who is not a criminal defendant. 

“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” Judge Leon wrote in a 68-page ruling. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
 

In a statement from Moscow, where he has obtained temporary asylum, Mr. Snowden praised the ruling.  “I acted on my belief that the N.S.A.’s mass surveillance programs would not withstand a constitutional challenge, and that the American public deserved a chance to see these issues determined by open courts,” Mr. Snowden said in his statement.

Judge Leon’s ruling is not a final judgment on the program, but rather a preliminary injunction to stop the collection of data about the plaintiffs while they pursued their case. He also wrote that he had “serious doubts about the efficacy” of the program, saying that the government had failed to cite “a single instance in which analysis of the N.S.A.’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack, or otherwise aided the government in achieving any objective that was time-sensitive.” 

Judge Leon also pointed to a landmark privacy case decided by the Supreme Court in 2012 that held it was unconstitutional for the police to use a G.P.S. tracking device to monitor a suspect’s public movements without a warrant. 

Although the court decided the case on narrow grounds, five of the nine justices separately called into question whether the 1979 precedent was still valid in an era of modern technology, which enables long-term, automated collection of information.

NYPD Designated Entire Mosques as Terrorism Organizations

A story out of New York City underscores the danger of allowing police and government authorities to engage in domestic spying under the guise of "fighting terrorism" and/or protecting "national security."  The New York Police Department ("NYPD") has used the excuse of "fighting terrorism organizations" to designate entire mosques and all congregants as potential terrorists.  One can only imagine the outcry if certain extreme Christian churches and organizations such as the Family Research Council were treated in this manner.   Despite one's total innocence, you could unwittingly find yourself the subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance.  I find this growing police state atmosphere to be disturbing to say the least.  Here are highlights from a piece in the Virginian Pilot:

The New York Police Department has secretly labeled entire mosques as terrorism organizations, a designation that allows police to use informants to record sermons and spy on imams, often without specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Designating an entire mosque as a terrorism enterprise means that anyone who attends prayer services there is a potential subject of an investigation and fair game for surveillance.

Since the 9/11 attacks, the NYPD has opened at least a dozen "terrorism enterprise investigations" into mosques, according to interviews and confidential police documents. The TEI, as it is known, is a police tool intended to help investigate terrorist cells and the like.

Many TEIs stretch for years, allowing surveillance to continue even though the NYPD has never criminally charged a mosque or Islamic organization with operating as a terrorism enterprise.

The documents show in detail how, in its hunt for terrorists, the NYPD investigated countless innocent New York Muslims and put information about them in secret police files. As a tactic, opening an enterprise investigation on a mosque is so potentially invasive that while the NYPD conducted at least a dozen, the FBI never did one, according to interviews with federal law enforcement officials.

The revelations about the NYPD's massive spying operations are in documents recently obtained by The Associated Press and part of a new book, "Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD's Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden's Final Plot Against America." The book by AP reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman is based on hundreds of previously unpublished police files and interviews with current and former NYPD, CIA and FBI officials.

The disclosures come as the NYPD is fighting off lawsuits accusing it of engaging in racial profiling while combating crime. Earlier this month, a judge ruled that the department's use of the stop-and-frisk tactic was unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and two other groups have sued, saying the Muslim spying programs are unconstitutional and make Muslims afraid to practice their faith without police scrutiny.

 

Both Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly have denied those accusations. They say police do not unfairly target people; they only follow leads.

"As a matter of department policy, undercover officers and confidential informants do not enter a mosque unless they are following up on a lead," Kelly wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal. "We have a responsibility to protect New Yorkers from violent crime or another terrorist attack - and we uphold the law in doing so."

An NPYD spokesman declined to comment.

The NYPD did not limit its operations to collecting information on those who attended the mosques or led prayers. The department sought also to put people on the boards of New York's Islamic institutions to fill intelligence gaps.

We've seen this type of conduct before - in the Third Reich.   I can just imagine how real Islamic terrorist will use this conduct by NYPD to recruit enemies of America.

Bob McDonnell's Gift to Virginia - $1 Billion Bill for Tunnel

The antiquated Mid-Town Tunnel

In general rather than raise taxes and revenues for transportation, Governor Bob McDonnell and the Republican Party of Virginia have pursued "public-private partnership" projects which generally equate to private interest being given the right to screw the taxpaying public.  A case in point is the deal for construction of a second Mid-Town Tunnel tube that basically gives taxing powers to VDOT and private interests.  On Wednesday, a circuit court judge ruled that the deal violates the Virginia Constitution.  The result?  Virginia may be on the hook for the $1 billion project.  This disaster, combined with the growing Star Scientific scandal, would seem to make McDonnell's national aspirations about as unsinkable as the Titanic.  An article in the Virginian Pilot looks at the court ruling and possible fall out.  Some of the comments are delicious and would underscore that McDonnell's "legacy" may be tanking fast.  Here are some highlights:

The state would be on the hook for more than a billion dollars of debt if a judge's ruling striking down the Midtown and Downtown tunnel tolls stands, according to a ratings agency.

Portsmouth Circuit Judge James A. Cales Jr. declared the tolls unconstitutional Wednesday, saying the General Assembly exceeded its authority by delegating to the state transportation department "unfettered power" to set the rates "without any real or meaningful parameters."

Gov. Bob McDonnell said the state will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia, and representatives from the Virginia Department of Transportation and its private partner said work will continue on the $2.1 billion project.

 

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit that led to Cales' ruling have maintained since filing their challenge in July that the state was proceeding with the project at its own risk.

Fitch Ratings told investors in an April 9 report that if the litigation stopped Elizabeth River Crossings from collecting tolls, the state would be required by its contract to repay the debt that has been incurred for the project.

That amount includes $663.75 million in private bonds that were issued in April 2012 and a $422 million federal loan, according to the Fitch report. Elizabeth River Crossings bears the risk of repaying that debt under the normal terms of its agreement with the state, with tolling.

Fitch assigned a rating of BBB- on the debt, the lowest rating for investment-grade debt. Ratings lower than that fall into a category that investors consider speculative, said Scott Zuchorski, Fitch's primary analyst on the Elizabeth River Crossings account.

 

"If it's not resolved by the end of next January, then it could become more interesting," Zuchorski said.  Ratings downgrades cause the price of bonds to fall, potentially leading to losses to investors.

Again, for real fun, read subscriber comments on the piece.

Kucinich Seeks Meeting With Bradley Manning

We've noted on this blog before the U.S. military's questionable treatment of Private Bradley Manning and the military's apparent lack of success in connecting Manning to documents released by Wilileaks - not that it has made any difference in Manning's treatment. Indeed, the Obama administration appears to be continuing some of the outrageous conduct launched by Chimperator Bush in its failure to stand behind the judicial process and the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. One can even wonder at times whether the military doesn't want to push Manning over the edge because he may further elaborate on military war crimes if and when his trial comes about. Now, Congressman Dennis Kucinich is seeking to meet with Manning and inspect first hand the military's actions and Manning's condemnation to solitary confinement. Personally, I find it troubling that the military brass are more focused on punishing Manning than they are in punishing those who committed atrocities and murdered innocent civilians. Here are highlights from Gay City News on the development:
*
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, . . . . has written to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting a meeting with Private First Class Bradley Manning, who is being held as a criminal suspect in the leaking of classified documents to WikiLeaks at the Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia.
*
Late last year, Glenn Greenwald, writing on Salon.com, reported that the gay soldier is forced to endure solitary confinement 23 out of 24 hours each day, and is given “regular doses of anti-depressants… to prevent his brain from snapping from the effects of this isolation.” The Pentagon denounced the Greenwald piece, but the author maintains that the government failed to challenge specific factual assertions it contained.
*
Kucinich had earlier written to Gates raising questions as to whether Manning’s confinement violated his Eighth Amendment protections from “cruel and unusual” punishment.
*
The Democratic congressman charged that Manning’s “treatment at Quantico severely undermines the presumption of innocence as enshrined in the US Constitution and raises questions as to whether he is truly able to stand trial.”

Army's "Spiritual Fitness" Test Comes Under Fire

This blog has focused before on the pernicious influence that some far right Christianists exert within the U.S. military. These religious zealots seek to force others to buy into their often whacked out beliefs. Now another example of this perversion has been exposed in the so-called "Spiritual Fitness" test the U.S. Army has been administering as part of a "Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. Apparently 800,000 soldiers have been subjected to the batshitery. Equally troubling is that the "test" was designed by psychologist who inspired CIA's torture program. Those not scoring well on the "spiritual test" have been led to believe they must take "remedial training" against their will in order to avoid adverse career consequences. The test and remedial training does nothing less than unconstitutionally require enlistees to believe in God or a "higher power" in order to be deemed "spiritually fit." Truth Out has coverage of this program and the efforts of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to end the program. Here are some highlights:
*
An experimental, Army mental-health, fitness initiative designed by the same psychologist whose work heavily influenced the psychological aspects of the Bush administration's torture program is under fire by civil rights groups and hundreds of active-duty soldiers. They say it unconstitutionally requires enlistees to believe in God or a "higher power" in order to be deemed "spiritually fit" to serve in the Army.
*
Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) is a $125 million "holistic fitness program" unveiled in late 2009. . . . CSF is comprised of the Soldier Fitness Tracker and Global Assessment Tool, which measures soldiers' "resilience" in five core areas: emotional, physical, family, social and spiritual. Soldiers fill out an online survey made up of more than 100 questions, and if the results fall into a red area, they are required to participate in remedial courses in a classroom or online setting to strengthen their resilience in the disciplines in which they received low scores. The test is administered every two years. More than 800,000 Army soldiers have taken it thus far.
*
[F]for the thousands of "Foxhole Atheists" like 27-year-old Sgt. Justin Griffith, the spiritual component of the test contains questions written predominantly for soldiers who believe in God or another deity, meaning nonbelievers are guaranteed to score poorly and will be forced to participate in exercises that use religious imagery to "train" soldiers up to a satisfactory level of spirituality.
*
Brig. Gen. Rhonda Cornum's claims that soldiers are not required to participate in remedial training if they score poorly on the spiritual portion of the test were not articulated to Griffith and other soldiers, who told Truthout they feared they would be disciplined by their superior officers if they didn't act on the recommendations they received after taking the exam. In fact, nowhere on the test does it state that such training is voluntary.
*
Last week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent a letter to Secretary of the Army John McHugh and General Casey, the Army's chief of staff, demanding that the Army immediately cease and desist administering the "spiritual" portion of the CSF test.
*
"The purpose of the [spiritual component of the test] though couched in general and vague language, is to strengthen a solder's religious conviction," says the December 30, 2010, letter signed by Caroline Mitchell, an attorney with the law firm Jones Day, who is representing MRFF. "Soldiers who hold deep religious convictions routinely pass the spirituality component of this test while atheists and nontheists do not. The Army cannot avoid the conclusion that this test is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by simply substituting the word 'spiritual' for 'religious.'"
*
Mitchell says the Establishment Clause of the Constitution prohibits such religious testing. "And it's not just the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which is being blatantly violated here," Weinstein said. "Clause 3 of Article 6 of the body of our nation's Constitution specifically prohibits any type of 'religious test' being used in connection with any government service. Thus, this 'spirituality' portion of the Army's CSF test completely savages this bedrock Constitutional prohibition."
*
It seems in my opinion if anyone is unfit for military service it is the religious nut cases who trample on the constitutional rights of others as they try to advance their theocratic agenda.

ACLU Files Class Action for DADT Military Separation Pay

Not only are LGBT service members subjected to religious based discrimination in the form of DADT, but to make maters worse, often they are further penalized upon their discharge by being awarded only half of what others honorably discharged receive in separation pay. It's definitely a case of being screwed over twice - all because these discharged service members refuse to live their lives to please Christianist religious sensibilities. Fortunately, the ACLU has filed a class action law suit seeking redress of this discharge pay travesty. The case is Collins v. United States in which Richard Collins (pictured at left), a decorated former staff-sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, is the lead plaintiff. The ACLU is looking for additional plaintiffs to participate in the class action lawsuit. This includes all United States service members who at any time from November 10, 2004 through the present were involuntarily separated from the military and were, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1174. To determine whether you qualify, please click here. I likely know a number of folks locally who need to look into this case since they may well qualify. Here are more details from the ACLU webpage on the lawsuit:
*
Congress made a judgment that military personnel who serve their country for at least six years and are honorably discharged should get separation pay. The Department of Defense decided to cut that separation pay in half for any service member who is discharged for "homosexuality." The ACLU has filed a class action lawsuit challenging that discriminatory internal policy of the Department of Defense as unconstitutional. The separation-pay policy is not part of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Department can change it immediately without waiting for congressional approval.
*
The lead plaintiff in the case is Richard Collins, a decorated former staff-sergeant in the U.S. Air Force who served for nine years until he was discharged from service under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Mr. Collins's superiors learned that he is gay when two civilian co-workers observed him exchange a kiss with his civilian boyfriend. Mr. Collins received an honorable discharge from the Air Force but discovered after the discharge had been completed that his separation pay had been cut in half on the grounds of "homosexuality."
*
The ACLU and the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network first contacted the Defense Department in November 2009 to request that the separation-pay policy be revised to eliminate the discrimination against gay and lesbian service members, but the department has refused to do so. Because of its refusal to change this discriminatory policy, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Mexico have filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
*
This discriminatory policy is but another example of Christianist religious beliefs being given special rights in the form of punishment against those who do not subscribe to the Christianists' dogma. It's clearly unconstitutional if the First Amendment promise of religious freedom is to mean anything.

California Will Not Defend Prop 8 in Federal Court

It is rare that a state refuses to defend one of its laws - or in the case of Proposition 8 an amendment to the state's constitution - when challenged in federal court. Yet that is precisely what is happening with Proposition 8. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has declined to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8, telling a San Francisco judge that the legality of the anti-gay marriage measure is for the courts to decide. Thus, the Attorney General's office will take no action and any defense of the amendment will fall to others. In my opinion - as has been the case in six states now - equality under the civil laws means full equality, particularly when the only true basis for discrimination comes down to religious based discrimination against LGBT Americans. Here are some highlights from the Los Angeles Times:

*

The governor's decision to remain neutral in a federal challenge to Proposition 8 means no statewide official will be defending the measure in federal court.

*

Supporters of the measure said Wednesday they were disappointed but not surprised by the governor's stance.Ron Prentice, chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com Coalition, said the group was "fairly consistently disappointed with the governor's response to the will of the people in the case of marriage."

*

In declining to take sides in the suit, Schwarzenegger said the case "presents important constitutional questions that require and warrant judicial determination.""In a constitutional democracy, it is the role of the courts to determine and resolve such questions. . . . ," the governor said late Tuesday in his legal reply to the suit. "The Administration encourages the Court to resolve the merits of this action expeditiously."

*

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, going farther than Schwarzenegger, said in his legal response to the suit last week that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. The positions of the governor and the state's top law enforcement officer may leave the defense of Proposition 8 to its campaign proponents, who have asked the court to intervene. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker will consider that request and another to suspend the law pending a trial at a July 2 hearing.

*

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, a group formed by a Los Angeles-based political strategist to launch the lawsuit, praised the governor's action.The "filing by Gov. Schwarzenegger bolsters our call for a swift end to the constitutionally intolerable situation created by Proposition 8," said Chad Griffin, the strategist who started the group.

Answering to No One

I had been waiting to run this photo of Vice President "Darth Vader" Cheney with the right commentary. Walter Mondale's column today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702126.html) set the right stage:

The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.

But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.

This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.

Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts.

The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.

Cheney is a menace and his belief that he is no answerable to anyone is dangerous. He and Bush have done more to subvert the Constitution and deprive citizens of legal protection than any administration in history. Even during World War II the President did not to have the power to have citizens arrested on his say so, with no legal protections to those targeted.