The arrest of noted Harvard African-American scholar and The Root co-founder Henry Louis Gates, Jr. spread like wildfire across the blogosphere this week. Today, there are a few additional updates. First, the Smoking Gun obtained and posted the actual arrest report. Second, Slate enlisted the help of the ACLU in explaining away a lot of the charges made against Gates by the Cambridge police. And finally, last night’s prime time press conference on health care saw President Obama delicately wading into the issue in his last press answer, stating:

Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.

The story is fraught with political and policy significance on so many levels that it’s no surprise that it spread so quickly. Washington is debating the confirmation of the first Latina Supreme Court associate justice — the same woman who has sparked a firestorm of conservative commentary concerning her judicial decision about affirmative action in New Haven and her comments regarding the jurisprudence of a “wise Latina” being better than a white male. Some commentators pointed out that the arrest happened just as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote a piece saying that race-based affirmative action had to be abolished. Finally, the arrest happened the same week that CNN had been scheduled to run a special with Soledad O’Brien entitled Black in American 2. The political irony is almost palpable and seems to beg the question: does being black in America mean being arrested for disorderly conduct on your own front porch after getting a little miffed?

First, it’s pretty clear that the police acted inappropriately — at least if Gates’ version of the story is to be believed in its entirety. As Slate pointed out, it is a requirement that Massachusetts police show ID when asked. Second, a disorderly conduct charge in the state usually refers to conduct that will spark a riot. Blowing your cool on your front porch hardly seems to endanger polite civil society. Finally, as the Slate Explainer pointed out, getting upset and shouting at a police officer about being racially profiled is about as explicitly political as you can be — and thus count as protected speech under the first amendment.

But if it’s true that the Cambridge police acted foolishly and probably illegally, it could be equally true that this arrest says very little about the overall state of race relations in America or the many public policy debates surrounding it. As President Obama pointed out, racial profiling is a problem across America. I see it everyday in my Washington D.C. neighborhood. But at the same time, does the arrest of one prominent scholar in Massachusetts really negate Douthat’s point that perhaps affirmative action has run its course? Is one anecdotal case in one Massachusetts city really emblematic of the struggles of a whole race of people?

Race in America is a touchy subject, still. The latest Internet meme from today refers to a prominent AMA physician accused of forwarding racist photoshopped caricatures of President Obama as a witch doctor. It’s currently the lead story on Talking Points Memo. What these incidents do reveal is an American public hungry for a frank conversation on race and a media class only perfectly willing to oblige with stale, simplistic race-baiting. What they don’t reveal is a racist, bigoted society rotten to the core.

The rise of Americans like Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama, Henry Louis Gates Jr. and others is more than just the tokenism that Martin Luther King Jr. warned Americans to avoid when talking about race. Women comprise a solid majority of college graduates at convocations every spring, and their salaries in major urban areas amongst unmarried, childless women are higher than men in almost all the major urban areas. The President of the United States is an African-American, who garner 66.8 million votes — 8.5 million more than his white, American male rival. Prior to his election, the previous two top foreign policy makers in the Bush Administration were both prominent and well-credential black Americans. There is a large and well-heeled black middle class in this country — one often marginalized in popular culture depictions of urban life media stereotypes and hip-hip rags-to-riches glory stories.

It does us no favors as a society to turn an unfortunate incident at Cambridge into a microcosm for all of American society. There is ample evidence for real and sustained racial progress, and America has mostly moved beyond some of the baser prejudices that haunted her for centuries. There are some barriers to achievement still, just as there are some opportunities for those of any skin color, gender or creed. Just as the election of one African-American hasn’t made racism disappear, the arrest of another hasn’t brought it back in vogue.

With the support of his parents, the thirteen year-old in question is refusing chemotherapy because the family believes in “natural” healing (they are Roman Catholic but also believes in the teachings of a Missouri sect which advocates healing techniques used by some American Indians). The boy has Hodgkin’s lymphoma which is considered highly treatable with chemotherapy. But he quit after one treatment and now a Minnesota district judge has ruled that the parents are being medically negligent and the boy should be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by cancer specialists. To complicate matters more, the boy and his mother have fled and are hiding from authorities.

The questions here are: Can the state force a minor to undergo a debilitating treatment which could save his life? And, is it negligent, from a legal standpoint, to allow your child to choose to forgo treatment of a serious disease?

Mind you, I think the parents are making a terrible mistake. But I don’t think the questions above are easily answered. Do you?

This is Mike Fritz and David Murdock from ANP.

Senator Lindsey Graham was a passionate critic of the Bush Justice attorneys during this past summer’s Armed Services Committee hearings on interrogation.

Lately, however, Graham seems to have had second thoughts on the matter. At a recent Judiciary subcommittee hearing investigating the torture memos, Graham mounted a feisty defense of Jay Bybee, John Yoo and the lawyers who provided legal cover for detainee abuse.

This performance sent producer Mike Fritz back to the ANP archives to confirm that this was indeed the same Lindsey Graham we remembered from the summer, and sure enough, it was. As this video reveals, same guy – different message.

Click to view the whole story at Huffington Post.

That said, the posts (and subsequent responsive comment) with which E.D. and Mr. Schwenkler take issue is emblematic of something that has been particularly frustrating to me over the last several days or so. Specifically, I’m frustrated at the certainty with which proponents of waterboarding and various other procedures outlined in the OLC memos proclaim that those procedures were clearly “not torture.”

The fact is, whatever one thinks of the legal acumen demonstrated (or, more accurately, not demonstrated) in the OLC memos, and especially the Bybee memo, they do not provide a basis for concluding that waterboarding, et al – especially when combined in one continuous program – are “clearly” not torture. The Bybee memo itself states quite explicitly that waterboarding in particular is pretty damn close to being torture, going so far as to say that it is a “predicate act” for a finding of torture. So if you’re going to rely on the Bybee memo as an accurate depiction of the law (which it isn’t – seriously, I’ve seen associates fired for less shoddy memos), then at the very least you have to acknowledge that these actions come pretty damn close to being torture, and that there is hardly anything outrageous or unhinged about calling these acts torture.

In other words, if you’re going to rely upon a piece of legal analysis as proof that something is clearly “not torture,” then you probably shouldn’t rely upon a piece of legal analysis that (shoddy as it may be) concludes that said something is pretty damned close to being torture.

Cross-posted at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen.

Today he was asked again. Wishy washy it is.

I take this as, more or less, reassuring.

It reaffirms my belief that Obama is, at worst, opportunistic, a fair weather civil liberties advocate. That sounds like damning with faint praise, and it is, but it’s also a heckuva lot better than the previous administration, for whom opposition to civil liberties was not a matter of convenience shimmying but of hardened ideology, and who took accountability as beginning and ending with an election every four years.

What Obama is indicating, and has indicated, is that he’s not particularly eager to have this matter be center stage, but nor is he particularly eager to get on the wrong side of it, and at the end of the day, he is willing to be persuaded/pushed.

For the record, that position does make clear that we should not expect Obama to take a principled, courageous stand on civil liberties. For those of us who voted for him on the hope that he would stand tall and do the right thing, because it was the right thing to do…eh, not so much. We civil libertarians have been waiting with bated breath to see what kind of a President Obama was going to be in these respects. His campaign rhetoric indicated he might have greatness in him. Some of his actions in office (continuing the Bushian line on habeas corpus, for instance) have caused us to fear that he might be a wolf in sheep’s (or a sheep in wolf’s clothing, I suppose). The reality that is starting to settle in is he’s just another politician.

However, I take his statement today more or less at face value. He is not, personally, particularly inclined towards prosecution, but he’s also more or less not willing to exert overt political pressure to close the door on it. He won’t grease the wheels, but he won’t throw up impediments either. I would certainly vastly prefer it if he were inclined towards positive action on the principle of it, but if the worst we’re going to get out of him is a blank slate waiting for the writing on the wall, I’ll take it.

Obama is clearly not going to be a messianic figure on this matter; he is not going to lead us to the promised land. But nor is he going to stand in the road with his hand to us yelling “stop”. We clearly can’t expect Obama to do the right thing. But I think we can also not expect him to do the wrong one. In that sense, this is not a “good news” sort of situation; it is an absence of bad news. And maybe that shouldn’t strike a positive chord with me, but my bar has been so lowered on civil liberties that I’m positively thrilled at the absence of bad news. At this point, I’ll take it, and it’s also worth noting that where action does hit the President’s desk, so far, his rhetoric has been mealy-mouthed but his actions have tended towards the right. That’s worth something too.

If at the end of the day all we get is immediately stopping the practice and the executive branch not standing in the way of further inquiry/action, that’s not ideal, but it’ll do pig, it’ll do.

—–

So where that leaves things is, ultimately, with the onus on us, the American public. So, let me suggest three courses of action.

The first: FireDogLake has a petition making the rounds, to be delivered to the Attorney General on Thursday. It says simply:

Given the seriousness of these crimes, we the undersigned call for Attorney General Eric Holder to immediately appoint a special prosecutor to determine if criminal proceedings are warranted for Justice Department lawyers who legalized these crimes, and the high level executive branch officials who ordered them.

I suggest you sign it.

Second, the only reason the OLC memos were released at all is the dogged pursuit of them by, more or less, a single organization, which has been in the trenches fighting the good fight for many years. I’m talking about the American Civil Liberties Union. Obama’s skittishness on this matter is a good reminder why the work they do is crucial no matter which party is in power or which way the winds are blowing. Instead of making a donation to a candidate this cycle, consider sending some help their way

And third, get candidates on record. Obama has made it pretty clear that he considers this whole thing to be a headache he’d just assume not to deal with. But he’s wrong in one critical respect: we can’t move forward until we faced our past (and hell, our present). If Congress doesn’t want to deal with it, fine, but make them put their names to that. One interesting path to that: start pushing for impeachment proceedings against John Bybee. It won’t pass, but make those f’ers vote on it.

Obama is not The One. He’s not Scott Bacula, jumping into the Presidency to right the wrongs of the guy whose shoes he’s stepping into. If we want action on this, we have to take it.

Today, the Supreme Court heard an important case that could greatly affect the McCain-Feingold campaign laws. It involves a movie highly critical of Hillary Clinton which was originally scheduled for release during the Democratic primaries but was stopped by judges concerned with its legality.

This case illustrates the inherent problems with McCain-Feingold. Namely, it forces judges to make decisions about what is and isn’t free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court must now decide the line between an allowable documentary and an illegal campaign ad.

Arguing that a movie and a campaign ad are the same could have adverse consequences for the McCain-Feingold law, Justice Anthony Kennedy said. “If we think that the application of this to a 90-minute film is unconstitutional, then the whole statute should fall,” Kennedy said.

Citizens United wanted to pay for its documentary to be shown on home video-on-demand, and for ads promoting the movie to be shown in key states while the former New York senator was competing with President Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

No one is arguing that this movie isn’t an attempt to discredit and politically damage Hillary Clinton. The question is: do the makers have a right to advertise and distribute their movie as any other movie-maker would OR are they practicing a form of restricted speech that must conform to specific rules about when and how the message can be shared?

Do we really want to be giving judges the power to decide what is and what is not allowable political speech? McCain-Feingold may have arisen from a noble enough urge (to keep money from corrupting politics) but its effect has been to dampen free speech. For those who support the law, let me ask: have elections been any “cleaner” or has money played any less of a role in the years since McCain-Feingold became law? Even if the law is, in principle, “good,” it hasn’t been good enough in practice to justify the restrictions it creates.

I doubt the Supreme Court will strike down McCain-Feingold, even if they rule in favor of Citizens United. But maybe they’ll chop away a good bit of its power. It’s a law which borders too closely on unconstitutionality for us to feel comfortable with it wielding a lot of power.

While President Obama has publically opposed reinstating the arcane rule that required equal time on the airwaves for opposing political views, Republicans wanted to make sure the Democratic-controlled government didn’t recreate the law as an attempt to quiet conservative talk radio. For once, Rush Limbaugh was right about something.

With the wide variety of media sources and endless variety of opinions available on TV and the Internet, there is no conceivable reason we need the Fairness Doctrine. Free speech might be messy, but it’s a cornerstone of democracy. I’m glad the Senate made sure the FCC will stay out of the business of regulating political speech.

Although I agreed with the diagnosis, I could not concur with the treatment. The toxic side effects of Single Party Rule presented a greater risk than the potential benefit of curing the Bush/Cheney unitary executive disease. In particular, the prospect of the new President inheriting the expanded Bush/Cheney presidential power while his party held even larger majorities than enjoyed by George W Bush and the Republicans was particularly frightening. Those fears were confirmed last week, when Obama steamrolled a very bad stimulus bill over a neutered Republican party, handing future generations more debt and putting the economic future of the country at risk.

That said, I expected to enjoy a couple of civil liberty consolation prizes with the Obama victory. First and foremost, balance would be maintained in judicial appointments and on the Supreme Court, and second – Obama would indeed roll back some of the worst offenses of the Bush administration. While I still have high hopes for the first consolation prize, early indications are not promising for the second. Not promising at all.

I know it has only been a month, but Obama works fast. It is not too early to checkpoint how President Obama is progressing on “undoing the damage” of the Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency. The most egregious offenses of the Bush/Cheney administration fall under the umbrella of expanding executive branch power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, with a commensurate erosion of constitutional protections. There are some positives. The executive order to close Guantanamo in a year or so is great news. The executive order on torture sounded great, as long as you ignore the loopholes. But on balance – So far… all is not so good.

The Obama administration supports Bush era invocation of state secrecy to protect rendition and torture.

The Obama administration supports Bush era state secrecy claims to deny torture victims their day in court.

The Obama administration supports Bush era state secrecy claims to protect executive orders for illegal wiretapping and domestic surveillance.

Out of fairness, I should point out that this last should not be a surprise. It is completely consistent with the July, 2008 version of Barack Obama who voted against the rule of law and in support of immunity for the Telecom companies that cooperated with illegal government wiretap requests. OTOH it is a complete flip-flop from the January 2008 version of Barack Obama who promised to support a filibuster to prevent granting immunity to Telecom companies.

The Obama administration opposes torture, but not all the time.

The Obama administration continues Bush era faith based initiatives undermining the principle of Separation of Church and State.

White House Political Office, Politicizing the White House Counsel, Executive Privilege – The more things change…

Other early items where the Obama administration appears to moving closer to the style and substance of the previous administration include: Obama continues the much reviled White House Political Office – former home of Karl Rove; Obama appointed a political hack to the office of the White House Counsel, further opening the administration to comparisons with the Bush/Rove White House and charges of politicizing the office; – and – as long as we are on the topic of Karl Rove; The Obama administration will apparently not challenge the constitutionally questionable Bush administration claims of “executive privilege” shielding Karl Rove from testimony before the legislature in the matter of U.S. Attorney General firings

There are more than a few liberals who have not hesitated to to call BS, most notably Glen Greenwald, as he takes to task those whose loyalty is not to principle but to a personality:

Greenwald’s analysis is instructive. It explains why so many on the left greet Obama’s support and active defense of the Bush/Cheney model of the unitary executive with a yawn. It is not the principle of checks, balances and constitutional protections that inform their view of the world. For some on the left, it is about blind loyalty to a leader and a party. From their perspective, the Bush/Cheney model of executive power is not a problem if Obama is in the White House. Apparently, with the ring of power in Barack Obama’s benevolent hands, the Bush/Cheney executive power will only be used for good. So – just put your trust in Barack – not in the rule of law – not in the Constitution – but in the man. These Obama supporters resemble nothing so much as the right-wing apologists for Bush administration excesses.

Greenwald says it best:

Under the current incarnation of One Party Rule, the Republicans are impotent in the face of Obama and his large Democratic majority. The only hope for any moderation of the power of this presidency, must come from principled Democratic legislators in Congress (Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy are stepping up). The only hope for economic sanity, must come from Democratic fiscal conservatives like the few Democratic representatives in the House of Representatives that voted against stimulus porker.

It’s only been a month.

Obama still has plenty of time to correct course.

That is my (faint) Hopeâ„¢.

^{Excerpted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“}

And without a doubt, the basic tenets of neo-conservatism, with its emphasis on the spread of democracy as an end unto itself, are tenets with which I profoundly disagree. But it’s also worth remembering that neo-conservatism, at least in its most philosophical form, is very much concerned with a positive, idealistic worldview just as any other true political philosophy is. And while, just as other strains of conservatism and libertarianism, many prominent neo-conservatives have fallen under the spell of “talk radio dogmatism,” the actual philosophy of neo-conservatism itself – again much like other strains of conservatism and libertarianism – has deep intellectual roots.

Perhaps nothing provides a clearer example of the distinction between this “talk radio dogma” neo-conservatism and actual philosophical neo-conservatism than the reaction in conservative circles to the impending nomination of Leon Pannetta to head the CIA. As an outspoken critic of torture (aka “harsh interrogation techniques”) and the intelligence failures of the last 8 years who has no previous connection to the CIA, the Pannetta nomination has unsurprisingly drawn the praises of civil libertarians of all stripes – including Greenwald, Sullivan, Schwenkler, and Hilzoy.

What is, however, surprising is the way in which the pick has split the portions of the political Right that hold to a more-or-less neoconservative view of international relations. On the one hand, some of neo-conservatism’s biggest intellectual heavyweights, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, are almost completely supportive of the nomination – in spite of Panetta’s harsh criticism of policies that Feith and Perle either pushed or excused. The common thread for this group seems to be an acknowledgement of the failures of the last eight years, and a belief that those failures arose due to systemic, institutional problems within the Agency. To them, these problems can only be fixed by someone outside the Agency with strong managerial skills, and preferably, it would seem, a critic of the Agency. At base, this group recognizes that a neo-conservative agenda cannot succeed unless there is some sort of comprehensive reform of our intelligence services – and it is that idealistic (if, in my view, deeply flawed) neo-conservative agenda that remains their ultimate concern and goal.

But the GOP dogmatists, who do not understand the intellectual roots of the fundamentally neo-conservative foreign policy they advocate, have taken a vastly different tack.

Ed Morrissey, who is as close to an intellectually honest dogmatist as you will find:

Even the notion of “change” doesn’t apply here. Obama has no executive experience in government, and neither does Panetta, but Panetta hardly represents a breath of fresh air in Washington. He’s another Clinton-era retread, only in this case, put in charge of an organization about which he knows nothing. He’s there to exercise Obama’s political will and nothing more.

Similarly, Wizbang calls the pick the equivalent of the Bush decision to choose Mike Brown to head FEMA, while Ace of Spades says Panetta’s only qualification is “being a lifelong partisan hack.” And, of course, Michelle Malkin says “Another day, another clueless Clinton crony named to a top job for which he has no experience. The unqualified fish rots from the head down, after all. ”

Notably missing from any of the discussion amongst the dogmatists is an acknowledgement of the systemic problems faced by the CIA, whether it be in terms of the moral issues related to interrogation techniques or in terms of the embarassing intelligence failures in recent years.

Cross-posted at Publius Endures.

Remember that Obama’s first floated choice for CIA Director, John Brennan, had to withdraw his name from consideration due to a mostly blogosphere-induced backlash against his previous advocacy of Bush positions on wiretapping, torture, and the like. While it remains unclear how complicit Brennan actually was in any of that (probably not very, in truth), those of us hoping for a clear indication of new direction were happy to see him go.

But that left Obama in a difficult bind. For CIA director, you kind of need somebody who has been working at a high level in the intelligence community. But, given that that would have been under Bush’s tenure, that also would be someone who almost certainly, on some level, had a hand in the aforementioned abuses.

Obama appears to have squared this circle by bypassing it entirely, nominating instead a man with not one iota of intelligence experience–former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta.

NBC News has confirmed that President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA.

Panetta was a surprise pick for the post, with no experience in the intelligence world. An Obama transition official and another Democrat disclosed his nomination on a condition of anonymity since it was not yet public.

Panetta was director of the Office of Management and Budget and a longtime congressman from California.

If you have to make a quick trip to wikipedia, I don’t blame you.

However, despite the fact that he has no intelligence background, I find myself a bit optimistic about his appointment.

For one, it indicates that Obama is very serious about changing direction–he was responsive to the Brennan criticism, and in response he has gone out of his way to choose an outsider. A way, way outsider. As Andrew Sullivan notes, Panetta is clearly “significantly, detached from the torture regime and its apparatus in a way that anyone involved in the CIA in the last eight years would not be.” And as Glenn Greenwald adds, “it does seem clear that the Obama team was serious about avoiding anyone who had any connection at all to the Bush torture, surveillance and detention programs.”

For another, Panetta does have some thoughts on the germane issues of the post. Atrios uncovers a March op-ed by Panetta (and here’s a related one in the Washington Monthly) in which he more or less unequivocally condemns torture, wiretapping, and in general using fear as a justification for legality. It’s a thin record, to be sure, but at least it’s in the right direction.

And finally, what I think is thus far being missed, is the decision to choose not a spook, but a manager for the post. Panetta’s history is that of a human resources guy, a liason problem-solver. To that end, the smartest early take I’ve read yet on his appointment comes from Marc Ambinder. Panetta is there to clean house and, like much of what Obama does, to provide competent, pragmatic, and not-particular-ideologically driven leadership. In other words, like Obama himself, the hope seems to be that Panetta is being appointed to be the adult in the room at Langley, with the considerable added benefit of not having any particular baggage or loyalties himself.

Since nobody knows much about Panetta (at least not of the bloggers I read) and this is an entirely new role for him, it remains to be seen if he’ll prove effective or not; we can really only make generalized guesses. But as somebody who’s been watching this one decision closely, I’m cautiously optimistic.

This is Lagan from ANP,

We sat down with James Risen, the New York Times national security corespondent who broke the domestic wiretapping stories, to talk about the dilemmas Obama faces with the unparalleled executive power he will inherit.

Dick Cheney recently said that Obama would appreciate all of the power they are handing over, but Obama has railed against some of the Bush administration’s policies such as the warrantless wiretapping that Risen helped uncover.

A few days after this interview was filmed, one of Risen’s key sources, Thomas Tamm, was featured on the cover of Newsweek as “The Fed Who Blew the Whistle.” Risen spoke with us about the rise in executive power during Bush’s tenure and how the media failed to be vigilant in the wake of 9/11.

From his perch at the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist James Risen has been at the forefront of uncovering some of the Bush administration’s worst abuses of power. As a result, he has been hauled before a grand jury and pressured by the government to name his anonymous sources.

I thought California’s Proposition 8 would fail and California would become the first state where the voters themselves actually voiced approval for gay marriage. Obviously, I was wrong.

Turns out the progressive coalition that swept Barack Obama into office is not so progressive, at least not on the issue that many on the left consider the seminal civil rights struggle of our time. So, what does this mean?

The easy answer is that we’re still a nation of bigots and over fifty percent of the electorate, even in liberal California, are intolerant fools. But considering that we just elected a black man president, the “intolerant” argument is, at best, imprecise. In fact, I think it misses the point entirely.

I don’t believe Prop. 8 passed because a majority of the people hate homosexuals or refuse to tolerate them. I think it passed because a significant number of the population didn’t “buy” that gay marriage is a civil rights issues.

The proposition had nothing to do with granting homosexuals voting rights, or allowing them to integrate the school system or even protecting them from workplace discrimination. The issue was the radical redefinition of marriage, of the state telling religious groups that their centuries old beliefs are invalid and that the state knows better than their God. To supporters of Prop 8, the issue wasn’t the civil rights of gays. It was the religious rights of those who do not want to be told how to practice their faith.

Personally, I support gay marriage quite fervently. But the Prop 8 passage has alerted me to the need to pay far more attention and give more respect to the opinions stated above. We cannot ramrod this measure through American society. If we want gay marriage to be accepted in our culture, we have to prove that the act would in no way infringe on religious liberty. Churches that do not recognize the holiness of gay marriage should in no way be obligated or coerced into performing or accepting such marriages — just as we would never expect a rabbi to marry Catholics or a priest to marry Muslims.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. But its implementation raises religious liberty issues. In a perfect world, we could completely separate the granting of the legal rights of partnership with the religious consecration of marriage. The state would issue “partnership” certificates. Religions would bestow marriage. But that’s a farfetched notion and not one we can reasonably pursue.

No, the solution we have now is the right one. But the approach is wrong. Gay marriage supporters should regroup, stop the cries of “intolerance!” and find a way to assuage the concerns of religious communities. Only then do I think we can avoid more disappointing results like the one experienced last Tuesday.

“Palin is as bracing as an Arctic breeze and delightfully elicits the condescension of liberals whose enthusiasm for everyday middle-class Americans cannot survive an encounter with one. But the country’s romance with her will, as romances do, cool somewhat…”

Certainly, McCain is going to need an argument that will attract more moderates, centrists, independents, and libertarians to win. George Will has identified that argument:

“McCain should, therefore, enunciate a closing argument for his candidacy that goes to fundamentals of governance, concerning which the vice presidency is usually peripheral. His argument should assert the virtues of something that voters, judging by their behavior over time, prefer — divided government… Divided government compels compromises that curb each party’s excesses, especially both parties’ proclivities for excessive spending when unconstrained by an institution controlled by the other party. William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the last 50 years, ”government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government.”

An interesting argument. I am surprised we have not heard it before.

Reaction from the left and right blogosphere is… predictable.

From the left – BarbinMD at Daily Kos scoffs:

“George Will thinks that John McCain’s “closing argument” to elect him should be what a divided government would mean to the country. Seriously, that’s the only selling point for McCain that Will could come up with. You can almost feel the enthusiasm.”

From the right – Ed Morrissey considers Will’s divided government argument risky, fearing that it shows the white flag on congressional elections, but finally concurs:

“Will may be right in this case. It’s more likely that the Democrats will keep the House, and there’s almost no way they can lose the Senate, with 23 Republican seats up for grabs and only 13 seats for Democrats to defend. There is little doubt that one-party rule by Democrats will result in both the Fairness Doctrine and Card Check getting written into law. Both of them would severely undermine the American practice of freedom, one by silencing free speech on the airwaves, and the latter by eliminating the secret ballot in union organizing elections. Card Check is a blank check for a spigot of money that will float Democrats in elections for generations, the only reason for its existence. McCain needs to emphasize these two potential outcomes and cast himself as the last defense against these two destructive bills. It doesn’t have to be the only theme he uses, but it should be one of the arrows in the quiver.”

In related news, the most recent edition of “The Carnival of Divided Government“ – a periodic compilation of blog posts and punditry on the subject of Divided Government – has been posted at Divided We Stand – United We Fall .

^{CORRECTION: The quote “from the right” is actually from Ed Morrissey not Michelle Malkin as originally posted. I must have been under caffeinated this morning. I knew it sounded too reasonable for MM. Fixed now.}

From AFP:

A watch list of suspected and known terrorists, compiled by the US authorities, has ballooned and contains more than one million names, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday.

The ACLU said it derived that figure from a Justice Department report on the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, which consolidates terrorist watch list information.

The Center “had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month,” according to a report by the Justice Department Inspector General, the rights group said.

Now, the Transportation Security Administration contends that there are less than 450,000 people on it, but still…450,000? I guess that begs the question: what do you have to do to be put on this watch list?

Well…apparently not much…

Among those on the watch list are deceased people, such as former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein who was hanged in 2005, decorated war veterans, and US Senator Ted Kennedy, the ACLU said.

Simply absurd.

You might not have noticed, as this was only the third most important story yesterday. Based on television news coverage, the most important political story yesterday was Rev. Jesse Jackson caught making crude remarks about Obama on an open mike. The second most important story was John McCain joking about cigarette exports killing Iranians. The third most important story was our elected representatives voting to restrict 4th Amendment protections that have been afforded Americans since the founding of the country and the crafting of the Bill of Rights.

Who cares? After all, what did the founding fathers know about the need to protect individual civil liberties against the overreach of power by a unitary executive? Clearly our Congress and President, and the two senators who want to be our next President know better than the founders what civil protections we really need. So protections that have been in place for over two hundred years are now less than they were. Activities by our government to eavesdrop on conversations of Americans that were illegal yesterday, are legal today (or as soon as GWB signs it into law).

I am not going to belabor this. We have beat this to death at Donklephant in previous posts here, here and here. Just one point – When smart people on the right, left, and academia agree that this is a very bad bill that erodes our freedom and constitutional protections, it does not mean this is a good compromise. It means this is a very bad bill that erodes our freedom and constitutional protections.

No I’m not feeling great. I feel about the way the Senator Russ Feingold looks in this interview on MSNBC’s Coutdown yesterday, where he says:

“This is a sad moment, it really is a black mark, not only on Democrats, but on the Congress, and the history of the United States. This is one of the greatest assaults on the Constitution in the history of our country.”- Russ Feingold

C’mon Russ! Lighten up! It’s only the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Sheesh….

[OK. I give up. There is supposed to be an MSNBC Video Embedded here, but I can't get it to embed. You'll have to go HERE to see the video.]

Some thoughts on this interview. Feingold expresses a hope that a future Congress will take this up and restore our Fourth Amendment protections. What do you think the likelihood that any President or Congress will voluntarily reopen this political can of worms?

I actually believe it will happen, but not without a powerful catalyst. It will happen only after the inevitable abuse of these new powers are revealed to the American people.

Why inevitable? Because every single expansion of government power over citizens is ultimately abused by those entrusted with that power. I don’t know when that will happen, but I know it will happen.

Outrage over executive branch abuse of eavesdropping and domestic surveillance was the reason for the original FISA legislation in 1978. When FISA was modified by the Patriot Act, the loosened restrictions were immediately abused by the FBI, and that abuse continued for years. With these even looser restrictions, there will be more abuse. It is only a question of time, a question of how the abuse will be revealed and a question of how badly and how many Americans must be hurt before enough outraged Americans force Congress to act. Perhaps the abuse will happen under President Obama. Perhaps the abuse will happen under President McCain. Perhaps it will happen under a President four eight or twelve years from now. But it will happen.

It is also interesting that Feingold declined to answer Maddow’s question about the real liklihood of an Obama presidency pursuing criminal liability against the Telcos and administration officials that broke the law. This, as you may recall, was Obama’s CYA fig leaf rationalization for explicitly breaking his promise to filibuster any FISA provision that included Telecom immunity. Feingold did not decline to answer because he does not know the answer. He knows. He knows that Obama is being disingenuous and there is no possibility of a criminal prosecution for law-breaking activity that Congress just made legal.

No, I don’t feel great. I particularly don’t feel like the idea of contributing or supporting either of the Tweedledum Tweedledee presidential candidates who have so little respect for our Constitution and the civil liberties of Americans.

^{UPDATED: Found some more links for the next round of opposition to this “assault on the Constitution”, and have edited the last paragraph to reflect the same.}

Contributions? Instead of the candidates, I’ll make contributions to organizations like the Strange Bedfellows Alliance, a progressive / libertarian alliance that will target legislators that voted to reduce my freedoms. Since the Executive and Legislative branch have no respect for the Constitution, I can only hope the Judicial branch will. The ACLU and Electronic Freedom Foundation are going to test the constitutionality of this law in the courts. I’ve never contributed to the ACLU before, but I will now and I will get behind this program and suggest you do also.

There. I feel a little better, now.

But first, for context, a brief outline of the story so far:

• Barack Obama expresses strong opposition to the Bush FISA executive eavesdropping power expansion with the Telco Immunity provision.
• Keith Olbermann broadcasts a “Special Comment” calling the FISA bill with Telco Immunity fascist.
• Obama flip-flops announcing support for virtually identical FISA “compromise” with Telco Immunity.
• Olbermann and Jonathon Alter praise Obama for “not cowering to the left” on the FISA compromise.
• Glenn Greenwald calls out Olbermann on his hypocritical coverage of Obama.
• Keith Olbermann says he did not read Greenwald, but responds anyway.
• Greenwald does read Olbermann’s post and dismantles his response.
• Olberman says, “Lets change the subject.“
• Olbermann broadcasts this “Special Comment” on Monday saying “Senator Obama wants his cake and eat it too”:

Frankly, I found the Olbermann comment to be somewhat incoherent, as he felt compelled to wrap extensive verbal caveats while inserting two or three shots at Republicans for every mild criticism of the Obama flip-flop. That said, he explicitly calls for Obama to take the “second chance” to do the right thing and either – join the opposition planning to filibuster the bill -or- explicitly state that an Obama administration will pursue a criminal prosecution of the Bush administration and Telco companies for violations of the original FISA law.

Olbermann makes much of the fact that the bill – (both the versions that Obama opposes and supports) only provides immunity from civil prosecution. Greenwald maintains that the possibility of criminal prosecution under this bill to be a fantasy, and remains focused on the bigger issue of stopping the expansion of executive power. In any case, I fully expect Obama to embrace neither of Olbermann’s suggestions. Having already flip-flopped once on the issue, it just would not be politic for him to flop-flip back.

More importantly, Olbermann’s commentary and the Olbermann/Greenwald debate has helped keep a spotlight on this important issue and the impending vote. This has all been made possible because a few Senators like Feingold and Dodd (and unlike Obama) were willing to show real leadership on this issue and keep principle ahead of politics. They succeeded in delaying the the FISA vote until after the Independence Day holiday, allowing time for opposition to build. Stopping or modifying the bill still seems unlikely, but this is politics, and there is no telling what might happen. Who knows? Our elected representatives might even decide to defend and protect the Constitution.

Here we go again. On Wednesday Olbermann completed a pair of remarkably similar and truly jaw-dropping contradictory broadcasts on the issue of FISA, telecom immunity, and of course, Obama’s support for same.

Glenn Greenwald called him on it in his Thursday column “Keith Olbermann: Then and Now“, and kicked off a left field food fight in the process. I’ve quoted Glenn extensively in my exchange with Justin on FISA this week, so thought this might be of interest here:

“On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute “Special Comment,” the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to “retroactively immunize corporate criminals,” and said that telecom immunity is “an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email.” Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a “shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism — the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.”… Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing — and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists — everything has changed. Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama’s support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn’t a syllable uttered about “immunizing corporate criminals” or “textbook examples of Fascism” or the Third Reich. There wasn’t a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama’s bravery and strength — as evidenced by his “standing up to the left” in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise…”

No need to add to Greenwald’s analysis, but I will state that in my unbiased opinion, Olbermann’s exhibition was one of the most egregious displays of gratuitous world-class journalistic ass-kissing I have ever seen. I can’t figure out how to embed the videos here, but they are both in my x-post at “Divided We Stand United We Fall” if you want to see them side by side.

Glenn’s concluding comments:

“What’s much more notable is Olbermann’s full-scale reversal on how he talks about these measures now that Obama — rather than George Bush — supports them. On an almost nightly basis, Olbermann mocks Congressional Democrats as being weak and complicit for failing to stand up to Bush lawbreaking; now that Obama does it, it’s proof that Obama won’t “cower.” Grave warning on Olbermann’s show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution. Is that really what anyone wants — transferring blind devotion from George Bush to Barack Obama? Are we hoping for a Fox News for Obama, that glorifies everything he says and whitewashes everything he does?”

This is where it gets interesting. Keith Olbermann then posts a diary on Kos to defend himself:

“I don’t know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn’t read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he’s taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing. Same point, in essence, tonight with John Harwood. It certainly does underscore the degree to which the presumptive nominee trusts his own mind. Did Mr. Greenwald note that I asked if we shouldn’t worry that this Obamaian certainty could turn into something like President “My Way Or The Highway” Bush, or did he leave that out? I do think Mr. Greenwald’s suggestion of some kind of betrayal on my part is simplistic and childish. I’ll take the Dean interpretation of this. If it isn’t the Senator’s game plan, he’ll catch hell from me about it later.”

So - It is on. But in this battle of intellects, I’m afraid that Olbermann brought a knife to a gunfight. Greenwald replies today:

“Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama’s support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:

“Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with — Obama Voted Against FISA — if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.” – KO

How can Olbermann accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he’s rationalizing Obama’s support for the bill and then write the above — which does nothing but justify Obama’s support for the bill? That’s exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday — that Obama should be excused for supporting this assault on core Constitutional liberties and the rule of law because doing so is necessary to avoid appearing Weak on Terrorism. That’s the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it’s that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated. What is most disturbing here is that people (including Olbermann) who for so long have vehemently criticized Democratic leaders for capitulating to Bush and trampling on the Constitution out of fear of looking “Weak” are now invoking that very excuse to justify what Obama is doing here (that’s what Olbermann explicitly did in his Kos reply). To excuse Obama’s conduct on that basis is to perpetuate Democratic complicity. Obama had — and will continue to have — a critical opportunity to reject and debunk that rancid framework, and it is his embrace of that framework here (”I’m going to give Bush what he wants and trample on the Constitution in order to avoid being ‘weak’”) that makes what Obama has done here so harmful and worthy of criticism.”

Heh. Your turn Keith.

As a self described “libertarian-leaning” independent, I have struggled to find satisfaction in the voting booth. I would like to vote for candidates that are not only consistent with my beliefs [To whit: Federal government should be limited in scope, provide for common defense, protect and respect individual rights, spend and tax in a fiscally responsible manner, provide effective oversight of elected and appointed representatives, legislate carefully and slowly, and pass only laws that are tempered in the fire of partisan debate], but also offer hope of having a practical real-world policy impact on the operation of our federal government. This latter criteria excludes voting for a third party like the Libertarians, which, while more consistent with my views, are impotent in implementing actual policy and therefore IMHO a wasted vote.

The closest I have come to a satisfactory voting strategy was outlined in my post “Voting By Objective“. The objectives listed above have historically been most closely addressed by voting for divided government. Problem being, this voting strategy requires holding your nose and frequently casting a vote for candidates with the stench of statist big government policies that are hostile to constitutional freedoms.

Case in point, the 2008 presumptive nominees for President.

^{[Long post continues below the fold and/or at Divided We Stand United We Fall]}

Lets start with the Republican John McCain. How can a limited government advocate support a candidate who has little or no regard for either the First Amendment or Habeas Corpus? George Will asks the right question of John McCain:

“McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, “quote ‘First Amendment rights.’ ” Now he dismissively speaks of “so-called, quote ‘habeas corpus suits.’ ” He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as “the great writ of liberty.” No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison. Hence the habeas right has been at the heart of the centuries-long struggle to constrain governments, a struggle in which the greatest event was the writing of America’s Constitution, which limits Congress’s power to revoke habeas corpus to periods of rebellion or invasion. Is it, as McCain suggests, indefensible to conclude that Congress exceeded its authority when, with the Military Commissions Act (2006), it withdrew any federal court jurisdiction over the detainees’ habeas claims? As the conservative and libertarian Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief in support of the petitioning detainees, habeas, in the context of U.S. constitutional law, “is a separation of powers principle” involving the judicial and executive branches. The latter cannot be the only judge of its own judgment. n Marbury v. Madison (1803), which launched and validated judicial supervision of America’s democratic government, Chief Justice John Marshall asked: “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” Those are pertinent questions for McCain, who aspires to take the presidential oath to defend the Constitution.

But what of the Democratic alternative, Barack Obama? Last week, exercising political triangulation calculus than makes the Clinton’s campaign efforts look like remedial arithmetic, he reversed himself on the FISA “compromise” and announced his support for the bill. In so doing, he threw his support behind a broad expansion of the powers of the executive branch that tramples the 4th amendment, fails to hold anyone accountable for violations of the existing law of the land, and undermines the very concept of Rule of Law. There are many left-of-center blogs, columnists, blogs, organizations, politicians and more blogs that have outlined the problems with this bill, but since we invoked George Will to lecture McCain, we’ll lean on the equally articulate Glenn Greenwald to school Obama:

“It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this “compromise” bill is the telecom amnesty part. It’s true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill’s expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.“

One has to wonder why Obama would be so cavalier about undermining the fourth amendment and the rule of law. I suspect this has something to do with it:

Out of eight categories listed in the poll, Terrorism is the only one where the electorate thinks McCain would do a better job (outside the poll margin of error). In that category McCain leads by a very large margin. As a consequence we see McCain doubling down on his only strength, and Obama working to shore up his only weakness. The resulting “Alice in Wonderland” spectacle – Our two Presidential candidates are competing on the basis of who is willing to remove more constitutional protections and take more of our rights in the name of protecting us from terrorism. Pick your poison.

This is just depressing as hell. Jack Balkin has a different but equally depressing explanation:

“Barack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country… Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway.”

So, between the sitting President and the two candidates to replace him, all believe in expanding the power of the executive branch, even to the point of overruling the protections of the Bill of Rights as they see fit. All three – Bush, McCain, Obama. Actions speak louder than words, and when the rubber meets the road on real bills like the compromise FISA bill, there is no qualitative difference on their views of the unitary executive, regardless of what they say to gullible supporters.

What is Obama’s explanation for this support? His rationale is explicit:

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people.”

He then goes on to explain why he is supporting a bill that does not respect the rule of law, nor the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. Let us be clear – Obama is explicitly and consciously playing the terrorism “Fear Card” to justify this decision. It is the exact same formulation he has campaigned against in the Bush administration, and the very thing that he decried as the “old politics of fear” when criticizing the Clinton “Its 3 AM” ad.

Particularly mystifying are the Obama supporters who were so critical of the Clinton ad (JG), but now give Obama a free pass (JG) on a FISA flip flop that invokes the same fears, but with far more serious and long lasting implications for the rule of law.

Glenn Greenwald goes on to warn of the dangers in this kind of uncritical support for a candidate:

“…no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind — probably more so — when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one… What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He’s supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it… In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed that: “Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions.” Between (a) relying on the limitations imposed by the Constitution or (b) placing faith in the promises of a political leader not to abuse his unchecked power, it isn’t really a difficult choice — at least it ought not to be, no matter who the political leader in question happens to be.”

One of the most seductive arguments against voting to maintain divided government is framed like this: “We need a single party Democratic government for a while, just to restore balance and undo the damage that has been created by the eight years of George W. Bush and six years of single party Republican rule.” That illusion has now been shattered. Instead of undoing the damage, we are seeing the Democratic Party leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid and the Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama lead a Democratic Senate and Democratic House of Representatives to make the problem worse, by dramatically expanding the power of the Presidency at the expense of the Constitution, the courts, the Congress and Bill of Rights. That is the meaning of the compromise FISA bill that Obama and McCain support.

Voting for an all Democratic Government in 2009 with expanded majorities and a potential filibuster-proof Senate is not the answer. It will certainly create more problems than it solves.

For more, Damozel at The Moderate Voice has a good compilation of blogger reaction to the Obama flip-flop, while Ed Morrissey at HotAir outlines Obama’s history on the issue.

What to do?

If you are frustrated as I am about the choices we have for President, and reluctant to contribute to either campaign, Political Action Committees focused on specific issues like stopping the FISA compromise bill provide a more satisfying alternative. A tip of the hat to Ka1igu1a at Freedom Democrat for pointing me to one very interesting example that brings progressives and libertarians together in common cause on FISA – TheStrangeBedfellows Alliance:

“… the Blue America PAC is targeting Blue Dog Democrats like Steny Hoyer for their continued roles as complicit enablers of Bush’s sham FISA bill. However, it should be noted that a more encompassing movement effort has recently sprung up, forged by both progressive and libertarians that will be using the Blue America PAC as a Phase I of of a multi-Phase strategy. It’s being dubbed the Strange Bedfellows alliance. The headliners in this alliance are the ACLU, Glenn Greenwald, The Ron Paul Money Bomb team over at Break the Matrix, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake, Matt Stoller of Open Left, and Ari Melber of The Nation.”

FWIW, the alliance now also includes mw at Divided We Stand United We Fall.

If you are not looking to make a contribution, but still want to help fight the FISA compromise that will come to Senate floor this week, McJoan at DailyKos is tracking the progress of the bill and key Senators to contact. Although the fix is in, and it is likely that this pig will pass (after some Kabuki theater by Harry Reid and Barack Obama to provide themselves political cover) it is important to keep a very bright spotlight on the players in this show.

Also, from somebody at the scene…

Perhaps six minutes into the event, security tried to stop us and kick us out of the memorial. Most of the Jefferson fans questioned the officers to try to understand what authority they citing to use force against us. Unfortunately I wasn’t near the “Jefferson 1” so I can’t tell you what she did or didn’t do but she was hauled away, handcuffed, in a police van and charged with disorderly conduct.

So in the 2008 version of the USA you cannot dance at the Jefferson Memorial without being disorderly it seems.

I’d like for you to think about the country we are living in and how far we’ve drifted from what Jefferson and the founding fathers wanted for us. The wrong people and ideas govern us and we need to change the direction we’re heading in. Not by electing different politicians but by electing to take charge of our own lives and removing a government that controls us to the point where we can’t dance to celebrate the birthday of our hero on public property.

The problem here is that cops are trained to look for things out of the ordinary and stop them. Ultimately, this is an unfortunately policy because it singles out people who don’t go with the flow.

And so it goes…