Like her hero Joseph McCarthy Michelle Bachmann has a list of names of
Feb 9, 1950:
McCarthy says communists are in State Department via History.com
"During a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican-Wisconsin) claims that he has a list with the names of over 200 members of the Department of State that are "known communists." The speech vaulted McCarthy to national prominence and sparked a nationwide hysteria about subversives in the American government."
To be sure, McCarthy was not the first to incite anxiety about subversive communists. Congress had already investigated Hollywood for its supposed communist influences, and former State Department employee Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury in January 1950 for testimony dealing with accusations that he spied for the Soviet Union during the 1930s. But McCarthy went a step further, claiming that the U.S. government, and the Department of State in particular, knew that communists were working in their midst.
"McCarthyism," as the hunt for communists in the United States came to be known during the 1950s, did untold damage to many people's lives and careers, had a muzzling effect on domestic debate on Cold War issues, and managed to scare millions of Americans. McCarthy, however, located no communists and his personal power collapsed in 1954 when he accused the Army of coddling known communists. Televised hearings of his investigation into the U.S. Army let the American people see his bullying tactics and lack of credibility in full view for the first time, and he quickly lost support. The U.S. Senate censured him shortly thereafter and he died in 1957.
Unfortunately there are millions of Americans who now believe in the Muslim Conspiracy Theory which claims that Obama is a secret Muslim and /or Muslims have infiltrated (penetrated ? freudian slip?) all levels of American government and Hollywood and the Media waiting for the signal to take over or to do it step by step stealth campaign .
Muslims Taking Over U.S. Government - Michele Bachmann
Published on 25 Jun 2012 by TheYoungTurks
"Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is no stranger to outlandish conspiracy theories but the former GOP presidential primary candidate took her theories to a new height in an interview earlier this week with the American Family Assocation's Sandy Rios. Bachmann claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated various department of the U.S. government...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks down Bachmann's absurd conspiracy.
We may be too willing to discount this conspiracy nonsense spouted by Michelle Bach Mann and others but such nonsense can be used to justify not just hate or fear but also committing acts of violence assaults on the so called Muslim Enemy in our midst and those who defend and shelter these supposed enemies. Islamophobia like any such bigotry can lead to tragedy as in the case of Norwegian Anders Breivik who murdered 77 people whom he believed were giving cover and comfort to this Islamic "Enemy within" or "fifth columnists".
Breivik in his twisted mind believes that the liberals, progressives and others who believe in an open society that is in pluralism and multiculturalism are aiding the Muslims in the West to destroy Western Civilization. He believes he was killing the enemies ie young socialists who are the enemies of White Christian Europe once known as Christendom. Those who preach such hate in their books and in the media helped to fuel Beiveks paranoid delusions so that he can actually in his mind portray himself as a hero the last or the first of the new Knights Templar.
Breivik took his cue from the writings and speeches of known Islamophobes who's over the top rhetoric hysterically warns of "Stealth Jihad" in order to institute according to their over-worked imaginations Sharia Law throughout the West including Europe And America. One need only listen to the Islamophobia leaders or spokesperson to see how they stir the pot possibly hoping for violent acts to be committed against innocent Muslim citizens in America and the West. So Breivik in many ways is their creation. One could point the finger at Michelle Bachmann, or Pam Geller of AtlasShruggs and of Stop The Islamization of America ,Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch or Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck and a host of others who make their living off of selling irrational fear to their easily manipulated followers who buy their books, donate to the cause , pay these self-proclaimed Islamic experts to speak at various venues.
Mass killer Breivik demands medal from Oslo court
Published on 6 Feb 2012 by Euronews
http://www.euronews.net/ Anders Breivik, the man who admitted killing 77 people in a bombing and shooting spree in Norway last year, has appeared before the cameras for the first time since the murders as he attended his final detention hearing before his trial begins in April.
He called on the Oslo court to award him a medal for the attacks and he added "I acknowledge the acts but I plead not guilty."
SCOTUS on Arizona immigration laws are pro state rights and the sovereignty of states but then reverses on Citizens United case saying no state has the right to challenge Corporations for giving money to political campaign.
Supreme Court Reverses Anti-Citizens United Ruling In Montana
Published on 25 Jun 2012 by TheYoungTurks
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana's century-old limits on corporate political spending, putting an end to the state's resistance to Citizens United and effectively expanding that controversial ruling to the state and local elections. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in January 2010, struck down federal limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions as violations of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, reached the bold conclusion that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption," and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations"...".* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down, including the conservative hypocrisy on states' rights.
Van Jones: Protecting Society from Corporate 'Tyranny'
Published on 25 Jun 2012 by ForaTv
Complete video available for purchase at http://fora.tv/2012/04/17/Van_Jones_Founding_President_Rebuild_the_Dream
Van Jones, Founding President of Rebuild the Dream, criticizes the influence corporations and special interests have on our political system. Jones argues that "the Tea Party is correct, our liberties are under threat," but their "negative" rhetoric is misguided.
Citizens United upheld by SCOTUS while there is a double standard when it comes to groups such as unions.
Note that Nichols in his article points out that Unions do not have the same freedom as corporations in spending money on political campaigns and candidates.
Supreme Court Extends Power of Corporations to Buy Elections by John Nichols at The Nation via Common Dreams June 25, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court may still retain some familiarity with the Constitution when it comes to deciding the nuances of cases involving immigration policy and lifetime incarceration. But when it comes to handing off control of American democracy to corporations, the court continue to reject the intents of the founders and more than a century of case law to assure that CEOs are in charge.
Make no mistake, this is not a "free speech" or "freedom of association" stance by the court's Republican majority. That majority is narrowing the range of debate. It is picking winners. To turn a phrase from the old union song, this court majority has decided which side it is on.
The same court that in January, 2010, ruled with the Citizens United decision that corporations can spend freely in federal elections -- enjoying the same avenues of expression as human beings -- on Monday ruled that states no longer have the ability to guard against what historically has been seen as political corruption and the buying of elections.
The court's 5-4 decision in the Montana case of American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock significantly expands the scope and reach of the Citizens United ruling by striking down state limits on corporate spending in state and local elections. "The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
Not with the same freedom or flexibility that they had from the 1930s until this year. Last Thursday, the court erected elaborate new barriers to participation in elections by public-sector unions -- requiring that they get affirmative approval from members before making special dues assessments to fund campaigns countering corporations.
... U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who has emerged as a leading proponent of moves to amend the U.S. Constitution to restore the rule of law in elections, says: “The U.S. Supreme Court’s absurd 5-4 ruling two years ago in Citizens United was a major blow to American democratic traditions. Sadly, despite all of the evidence that Americans see every day, the court continues to believe that its decision makes sense."
When billionaires can "spend hundreds of millions of dollars to buy this election for candidates who support the super-wealthy," argues Sanders, "this is not democracy. This is plutocracy. And that is why we must overturn Citizens United if we are serious about maintaining the foundations of American democracy.
Sanders says he will step up his efforts to enact a constitutional amendment to overturn not just the Citizens United ruling but the democratically disastrous rulings that extend from it.
“In his famous speech at Gettysburg during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln talked about America as a country ‘of the people, by the people and for the people.’ Today, as a result of the Supreme Court’s refusal to reconsider its decision in Citizens United, we are rapidly moving toward a nation of the super-rich, by the super-rich and for the super-rich," explains Sanders. "That is not what America is supposed to be about. This Supreme Court decision must be overturned.”
How might it work? If Wal-Mart wanted to support candidates who promised to eliminate all taxes for Wal-Mart, the corporation could spend unlimited amounts of money. It would not need to gain stockholder approval. It can just go for it.
But if AFSCME wants to counter Wal-Mart argument, saying that eliminating taxes on out-of-state retailers will save consumers very little but will ultimate undermine funding for schools and public services, the union will have to go through the laborious process of gaining permission from tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of members. And, even then, it will face additional reporting and structural barriers imposed by the court.
also check out John Nichols article on new draconian rules for unions for donating money to political campaigns or forming PACs
High Court Produces a Politics of, by and for Corporations John Nichols at The Nation.com, June 21, 2012
The most politically partisan—and politically activist—Supreme Court in modern American history has already assumed that, when it comes to electioneering, corporations have pretty much the same rights as human beings. Indeed, the High Court’s Citizens United ruling has given corporations unprecedented flexibility to act on their own behalf to influence election campaigns and results.
Yet, the same Court has now said that groups of actual human beings—trade unions that have organized public-sector workers—must sacrifice their flexibility in order to meet standards never before demanded of labor organizations.
also see on Arizona Show Me your papers" law
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona's Racial Profiling Law :Today's ruling rejects 3 provisions of Arizona's SB 1070, allows for racial profiing provision by Common Dreams staff,June25,2012
Today the United States Supreme Court has invalidated three of the provisions of Arizona's immigration law but has upheld its controversial "show me your papers" provision.
RT reports that "The high court’s ruling decided that Arizona’s policies of imprisoning undocumented immigrants for not possessing federal registration cards was unjust, and that the state could also not make it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or for state and local law enforcement agencies to arrest immigrants without a warrant."
Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vince Warren finds the Court's decision to uphold the "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's immigration law, which allows police to demand proof of immigration status of anyone they stop or detain, disappointing. "In upholding Section 2(B) of SB 1070, the Supreme Court has legitimized reactionary state law ordinances that encourage widespread racial profiling, multiply wrongful arrests, and spread fear in communities of color. Today’s decision allows individual states to create a patchwork system of immigration enforcement and in effect undoes decades of precedent holding that regulation of immigration is an exclusively federal function. The Supreme Court has sent the disheartening message that it is willing to turn back the clock to a 'states’ rights' era in which the federal courts have no role in protecting the civil rights of people of color," stated Warren.
Angela Maria Kelley, Vice President for Immigration Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, agrees that this provision leads to racial profiling. "This 'papers please' provision will directly lead to racial and ethnic profiling based on the way people look or the way they speak, regardless of whether they have been American citizens all of their lives," Kelley stated today.