Politics

I had previously been aware of Fox News “The Big Story” anchor John Gibson’s book, The War on Christmas, as well as former National Review author John O’Sullivan’s 2001 article on the subject, and of course Bill O’Reilly’s repeated misrepresentations on the subject. But until I read Max Blumenthal’s article, “Who Started the War on Christmas?," I wasn’t aware of VDare founder Peter Brimelow’s role. Turns out he blames it on the Jews. (Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.)

Lest there was any remaining doubt that the 1954 insertion of “under God” into the pledge of allegiance was explicitly religious, the news has covered the death of the Rev. George M. Docherty, a Presbyterian minister from Scotland, noting that it was his sermon heard by President Dwight D. Eisenhower that prompted the change: “I didn’t know that the Pledge of Allegiance was, and he recited it, ‘one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,’” he recalled in an interview with The Associated Press in 2004. “I came from Scotland, where we said ‘God save our gracious queen,’ ‘God save our gracious king.’ Here was the Pledge of Allegiance, and God wasn’t in it at all."He delivered his sermon calling for “under God” to be added to the pledge first in 1952 with little effect, but delivered it again on February 7, 1954, while Eisenhower was in attendance at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C., near the White House. Eisenhower immediately let Congress know he wanted it to happen, and Rep. Charles G. Oakman (R-MI) introduced a bill the very next day to make that addition, which Eisenhower signed into law on Flag Day. Michael Newdow currently has a second lawsuit working its way through the courts to remove “under God” from the pledge on the grounds that Congress’s action was a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. His first lawsuit went to the Supreme Court, where the justices declined to rule on the merits of the argument, and instead reasoned that he lacked standing to bring the suit because he was involved in a custody dispute over his daughter, who was the plaintiff because she was required to recite the pledge in school. That ruling, like Eisenhower’s signing of the original unconstitutional bill, was delivered on Flag Day (in 2004).

The case of Philip J. Berg v. Barack Hussein Obama, filed in the eastern district of Pennsylvania in an attempt to argue that Obama cannot become president because he is not a U.S. citizen, has been joined by Paul Andrew Mitchell, a “private attorney general” and 9/11 truther known for filing nonsensical papers with the courts. The character of Mitchell’s filing can be seen on p. 5, where he writes that “I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the ‘United States’ (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct …” The italics and bolding are as in the filing. Mitchell is one of the crackpots who argues that the United States of America is distinct from the United States and that he’s not subject to the laws of the latter, including the income tax, because he’s a “sovereign citizen." Mitchell used to be a customer of Primenet, an Internet Service Provider based in Phoenix, that was my employer. He named us in one of his lawsuits, along with numerous other ISPs, on the grounds that one of our users had the temerity to put a link on his web page to a copy of Mitchell’s “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue.” Mitchell insisted that he didn’t authorize that copy of his work, and that our user’s link constituted contributory infringement of his copyright. When I pointed out that the link was actually a dead link and didn’t point to anything at all, this did not persuade him that Primenet shouldn’t be sued. He never bothered to properly serve Primenet with papers, and the case was thrown out of court. Mitchell is or was also a member of the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” organization; I’ve previously written more about Mitchell and that organization on this blog. ...

The FFRF’s “Imagine No Religion” billboard in Rancho Cucamonga, California, is being removed by General Outdoor Advertising after they received a request to remove it from the city. The city asserts that it requested the removal but did not demand it, and therefore did not violate the First Amendment. The contract no doubt gives General Outdoor the ability to back out of the contract and refund the money in response to controversy. FFRF says the company has agreed to refund the money. The city reports that they received about 90 complaints. Has anyone ever heard of a religious billboard in this country being removed after a government request? UPDATE (November 25, 2008): FFRF plans to sue Rancho Cucamonga for this infringement of its freedom of speech. The city’s Redevelopment Director, Linda Daniels, apparently realizes now that she has done something wrong, and has changed her story: Last Thursday, Redevelopment Director Linda Daniels said a member of her staff had informed the sign company about the 90 complaints the city received regarding the billboard. ...

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available: Episode 011 Atheism and Feces-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Shyness, Group News,Election Post-Mortem, Email from Shawn of Tough Questions Podcasts, Winter Solstice, Musings on Rhetorical Debate Styles, Ridiculous Marriage Amendment.My comments: Duane Gish was vice president of the Institute for Creation Research. Nice listener email on the FLDS members pretending to be truck stop hookers–I like the listener feedback. Obama opposes same-sex marriage. On proving a negative, please see this and/or this.

Lawsuits by the National Security Archive of George Washington University and the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have won a ruling from a U.S. district court judge that the White House can be forced to recover the five million “lost” emails that were deleted between March 2003 and October 2005. Those emails were required to have been preserved under the Presidential Records Act. Another set of emails from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney from September 30, 2003 to October 6, 2003 were found to be “lost and unrecoverable” by an Office of Administration investigation. 65,000 backup tapes have been preserved as part of the litigation, and those tapes will apparently be available for review to recover some of the five million lost emails. More details at IntelDaily.

John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog writes: Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.I find it difficult to imagine the amount of delusion and cognitive dissonance that can produce such a paragraph. George W. Bush is the man whose spoken words have produced multiple books of “Bushisms," and multiple years of “Bushism” calendars with a quotation for every day of the year. The Sadly No blog responded to this paragraph with a series of YouTube videos vividly depicting Bush gaffes. I prefer this Andy Dick contribution: ...

Day one steps are closing Guantanamo Bay, ceasing and prohibiting torture, ceasing and prohibiting extraordinary rendition; steps for the first 100 days include ending warrantless spying, watch lists, the Ashcroft doctrine on FOIA requests, monitoring of activists, the Real ID Act, the abortion gag rule, the death penalty, and faith-based initiatives. At least one of Obama’s transition teams is, at the very least, reviewing Bush’s executive orders for constitutionality, which covers some elements of the above. Most, however, have been implemented by act of Congress, which will require Congressional action to repeal. ...

Newsweek reports some interesting tidbits from behind the scenes of the election process in both the McCain and Obama campaigns: Both the McCain and Obama campaigns had computers compromised by “a foreign entity or organization [which] sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions.” And that entity was successful in collecting such data, apparently. Palin’s shopping spree was more extensive and expensive than has previously been reported: “While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards.” The spending was allegedly tens of thousands of dollars more than reported. McCain rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and although she wanted to speak in Phoenix along with McCain for his concession speech, this was vetoed by McCain’s campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt.The Secret Service reported “a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied."Palin attacked Obama about his connection to William Ayers before the campaign had finalized its plan about that issue–McCain had not given his approval, and a top advisor was resisting it.Hillary Clinton was on much better terms with McCain than with Obama, and McCain feared that Hillary Clinton would be named as Obama’s VP, and was glad when he chose Biden.There are lots of other interesting bits in the article, as well.

Good: Washington joins Oregon in allowing doctor-assisted suicide, South Dakota rejects further abortion limits, Michigan allows medical marijuana and stem cell research, California rejects further abortion limits, Colorado rejects the definition of person as beginning at conception. Bad: California, Arizona, and Florida ban gay marriage with constitutional amendments, Arkansas bans gay couples from adopting children. (Results at CNN.) UPDATE: Ed Brayton notes at Dispatches from the Culture Wars that the California result on gay marriage was evidently due to religious bigotry: In California, exit polls showed that those who attended church regularly voted against marriage equality 83-17%. Those who attended church only occasionally voted for marriage equality 60-40%. Those who do not attend church at all voted for marriage equality 86-14%.The same was true in Arizona, where exit polling found that: Protestants generally supported the measure but that Catholics were fairly evenly divided. Nonreligious voters were solidly against it. … Proposition 102 had slight leads among Whites and among Hispanics. … The youngest voters were split for and against, with support for Proposition 102 increasing among voters in older age groups. Voters age 65 or over were solidly for the amendment.Prop. 102 will ultimately be overturned as the older generation dies off. ...