And given the evidence above, and the fact that the defendants never appeared in court to contest the charges, this should have been a slam dunk case for the Department of Justice. Normally, this should have been dealt with quietly, and disappeared from the headlines. But here we are, heading on two years later, and Fox News is resurrecting this story practically daily thanks to a whistle blower named J. Christian Adams.

Of course the easy solution would be to immediately discount the allegations made by Adams, given the fact that he is now engaged in writing on politics for Pajamas Media. But perhaps that isn’t wise. Pajamas Media is nothing if they’re not loyal, and they’ve provided readers with a list of former Department of Justice officials willing to make public statements in support of what Adams has said, or simply in support him personally and professionally.

And the problem is that while the Bush Administration levied the charges against these men, the Obama Administration has chosen to drop the charges. This is not “news”. Of course, there’s debate on whether or not it deserves major coverage. There is plenty for one to read on this throughout the conservative media outlets, but it’s buried deep on sites like MSNBC. But this is an issue of law – not politics – or at least it should be.

Beyond the politicking within the current administration, there is the problem of the radicals involved in the initial crimes – voter intimidation. Glenn Beck, for better or worse, decided to devote his entire program today to this issue. Of course he is drawing many lines between otherwise unconnected individuals and situations. But the most important point that he has bothered to point out is the historical significance of this situation. It is repetition of our past of racism, and the fact that unfortunately, racism knows no bounds. It is neither the property of Democrats nor Republicans alone, but both, as long as “we the people” stand by and allow it.

In the coming days and weeks, there will undoubtedly be more information brought to light about this situation. There are some journalists out there that are determined to find out precisely how high this decision to ignore the rule of law went in the administration. It has been a great many years since we’ve had a man sitting in the Oval Office that was honestly willing to stand up and say what needs to be said in a situation like this. “The President–whoever he is–has to decide. He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.” His name was Harry S. Truman, he had a placard on his desk that said “The Buck Stops Here”, and he was a Democrat. That placard still sits in the Truman Library – has been there since 1957. Perhaps the curators there will let Obama borrow it for inspiration.

Personally, since the dust has somewhat settled, I am thinking that the mainstream media and most bloggers alike would have been better off focusing on the crazy lady. First of all, the whole situation was blown out of proportion primarily because Barton’s speech was too long, and that made it possible for the press to edit at will. Now, if he’d said just one sentence – “I’m sorry that our President has found it necessary to dispense with the use of our court system to settle the financial end of this disaster” – the headlines, and the situation, would be much different. Primarily, I suspect that the crazy lady would have been lead on the evening news.

Hayward has been tripping over his tongue since the explosion, and it is easy to understand why just about everyone has no desire to see anyone play nice with him. While the GOP has been blaming Obama for not meeting with Hayward until nearly 60 days after the explosion, there’s room to wonder whether or not the BP executive had anything to do with the delays.

If one bothered to keep up with the British press, one would know that as of June 6th, Hayward was saying there was no need to meet with Obama. Of course this is coming from a man who in mid-May was severely downplaying the entire situation. All in all, Hayward is a public relations nightmare, and even Slate.com has taken a stab at evaluating the company from that perspective.

And that brings us back to Congressman Barton and his beleaguered statement. Although I can’t pretend to understand precisely what prompted the Congressman’s apology, I can figure out that it probably stung Hayward rather severely. Since Hayward was so arrogant about our legal system, I can understand why he wouldn’t be comfortable with any of our leaders suggesting that he be left to its not-so-tender mercies.

“This is America—come on. We’re going to have lots of illegitimate claims. We all know that.”

That statement was met with a fair amount of righteous indignation when it was made early on in the situation. But apparently it was forgotten, or not even considered in the context of Barton’s statement. We were stuck on being called “little people”, or something like that, I suppose. And while creating a Federal fund out of monies from BP to disburse to those affected by the spill might sound like a lovely idea in comparison with the long process of lawsuits, perhaps that’s precisely what BP wants. Maybe it will be like the age-old question – which came first, the chicken or the egg? – did BP offer billions to Obama before or after the president came up with the idea to handle the finances of the clean-up without lawsuits against BP?

Now that’s the practical end of the situation, and Barton waded into the murky ideological end. While it might be tempting to immediately assume that because Barton is a Republican and received monies from oil companies directly related to the disaster, he was speaking from greed, that isn’t necessarily a correct assumption. If one bothered to listen to the entire speech that is now splattered all over the web, Barton talked about taking money as a Congressman in consideration for a favor as an example paralleling what Obama is doing with BP. He was pointing out that Obama was allowing BP to side-step legal actions by paying what can only be considered at this point as an out-of-court settlement on behalf of thousands of litigants that were never granted the ability to obtain legal counsel.

The problems in our legal system, particularly the fact that lawsuits of this nature can take years to settle, are the first justifications for this course of action. It is a fair argument, but so is the case for limited Federal intervention in the legal system. There is no reason to simply ignore the option of temporarily creating deadlines for settlements of cases against BP. Extra personnel would be needed, and that would cost money – however it is already typical for court costs to be bundled into settlements. BP could be left footing the bill for judges, magistrates, and court personnel. States and localities could be given the ability to appoint and hire the people needed temporarily. Since BP has already demonstrated that they are willing to pay for the clean up, there is no reason to think that monies could not be acquired from them to pay for these people up front. Regardless, this is a far better option than telling the world – and businesses – that we have no problem with dispensing with silly things like due process for the sake of politicians saving face.

Consider this situation any way you like, inserting whatever group you like – switch Muslim and Israeli, if you like. Or maybe insert Christian and Atheist, or vice versa. Perhaps even Democrat and Republican. Then consider how outraged you happen to be with each situation.

The bottom line is that these students intentionally orchestrated an activity with the specific purpose of disrupting a school activity. The fact that it involved two specific racial groups that happen to be at war with each other exacerbated the situation, and raised the situation to not only a simple offense against school policies, but also made it an offense against laws forbidding hate crimes. They got lucky that they didn’t end up facing harassment and disturbing the peace charges with any applicable counts under hate crime statutes.

They should also consider themselves lucky that they are not at a school with much more stringent policies when it comes to making a mockery of the institution. That is precisely what they did. UC Irvine has suffered at least a little from this entire situation – it does nothing for their reputation with Israel, and undoubtedly other governmental entities.

The really disturbing situation is that student leaders have come out in defense of this group of students. Apparently the reputation of their institution is meaningless to them. If it was a matter of these students assembling outside the hall where this speech was given, carrying protest signs, it would be absolutely justifiable to defend their right to do so, assuming that they did so peacefully, without accosting anyone, or doing damage to any property. But interrupting a speaker on campus with hate-filled speech is utterly inappropriate, and indefensible.

But, on Nebraska, I have to say that I remember better drafted pieces of legislation in our National Forensic League competitions. Beyond stating that there were teens in the 1980s capable of writing meaningful legislation, I honestly don’t know what to say. It is mired in repetition, the apparent goal is close any perceived loophole, forcing another junk science finding – this time claiming pain of fetuses – down the throats of the people to prevent women from controlling their own lives. Like all other anti-choice legislation out there, it does not address the obvious consequences of the situation. Beyond stating what penalties doctors should suffer for non-compliance, there is nothing about what the people and government of Nebraska are supposed to do with the resulting unwanted children.

And therein lies the problem. Sure, these legislators care about the fetuses – even try to get people to stop calling them by their scientific names to elicit more emotional responses from the masses. They want to state that it is wrong to inflict pain on fetuses, and have recruited psuedo-scientists to back them in their endeavor. Ironic, since at the same time, we’re faced with headlines about adoptions gone wrong. The worst part is that while they are claiming to take the moral high ground, it is nothing more than hypocritical, sadistic, unethical, unfeeling, and irresponsible posturing. The legislators have no clue about the reality of life, are incapable of understanding the concept of motherhood, and have no desire to follow through on their convictions by providing the life-long support and social programs that would be necessary to deal with an increase in “damaged” population. People from good homes, with good support systems, and no financial difficulties don’t end up seeing the women from their families going to have abortions. It’s the women without help, without money, and without stability in their lives that end up going to the abortion clinics – or they are just plain too young to deal with motherhood in the first place. (Please don’t insult yourself, and bring up the exceptions to that, because they are statistically anomalous.)

So now we get to wait and see who ends up on the bench next. Hopefully the balance will not be tipped, simply because of this sort of case. Sadly, that will leave many other cases – on important issues like financial reform, immigration, and privacy issues beyond abortion – being decided on the liberal side. And a woman’s right to choose will remain a hot button issue when it comes to judicial appointments for the foreseeable future because of the hypocrisy of the radical right-wing and its blind obsession with legislating morality. But it’s worth it, right?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That is the full text of the First Amendment, as anyone can see it on the Federal Archives Charters of Freedom website. I know it by heart, but looked it up for the benefit of any that may not have done the same – and to verify that I honestly comprehend what it means. Now, my ninth grade Civics teacher was very kind, and managed to beat into our adolescent skulls that while we were granted these rights by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that didn’t mean that we could run about willy-nilly and do whatever we pleased. He was very adamant and clear when he said (and made us parrot back to him many times over) that our rights were limited. Every citizen’s rights end where the rights of another citizen begin.

That said, I’m definitely beginning to wonder about the wisdom of at least a few people in this country that supposedly know at least a little about our laws – namely some judges and legal experts that get paraded on the various news networks. Silly thought keeps occurring to me – the rights of the military families to assemble, and exercise their rights to observe their particular religious faiths through burial ceremonies with the privacy and/or solemnity that their religions typically prescribe are definitely being impinged upon when a group decides to assemble nearby and scream obscenities at them. Now, I doubt that my ninth-grade Civics teacher lied to us all about those limits to rights, primarily because I regularly have seen references to that concept in many court rulings.

There is a time and place for everything, and bluntly, military funerals are not the time or place to protest homosexuality, or gays in the military. The rights of the families to observe their funeral rites in peace are no less important than the rights of protesters. Ironies abound in this situation, from the un-Christian-like behavior of the church members, to the fact that the people being buried died to protect the rights of the protesters. That alone is enough to make one ponder precisely why this organization is finding it necessary to mount these protests at all.

But motives are not the issue here. What is at issue is the fact that there is anyone out there seriously questioning the rights of military families in this situation. If these protests were being held anywhere but at these funerals, I would be defending them, albeit begrudgingly because I was raised to have deep respect for people that serve our country in the armed forces. The saddest part of the situation is that anyone needs to consider whether or not we should exercise our First Amendment rights and petition our lawmakers to pass a law that would specifically protect military funerals from protests. Let those that want to speak against dead military personnel’s choices in life do so in a more appropriate place – The Pentagon.

The other day, a friend on Twitter posted a couple seemingly unrelated links in one message. She was of the opinion that there was some common ground between them, and I agree. The first was an article on The New Apostolic Reformation (or The Family). If this is the first time that you’re seeing those names, it’s highly unlikely that it will be the last. When Muslims bring up the concept of Holy War, people immediately think of the word “jihad”. When Christians do, more likely than not, one thinks of the Crusades. That might be about to change to “The Family.”

While Stack and Bedell are symptoms of the general unrest in this country right now, The Family is part of the disease that is moving extremist actions like theirs from the fringe to the mainstream. That is not to say that either man was ever associated with The Family, but that future Stacks and Bedells may very well be. So the coming attractions in the realm of extremist behavior will probably involve an organization that is proselytizing that they have found a cure for AIDS (sorry, but absolutely not true), and are already behind the anti-homosexual legislation in California and Uganda (yes, they’re already a world-wide organization.)

While the press runs about chasing tea parties, this group has been building connections in all sectors of society. Of course the GOP has been associated with them already, notably Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, Sam Brownback, and Sarah Palin. Their goals are simple enough – take over, community by community.

The other story that piqued that Twitter friend’s interest was on upcoming Supreme Court hearings on gun control laws. Of course the NRA is coming out on the side of not limiting the rights of citizens to bear arms. The piece explores how the high court may end up interpreting the Second Amendment. I’ve never been a huge fan of gun control, and one of the only issues where I’ve really parted ways with the NRA is on assault weapons. Sorry, but I don’t buy that there’s a “legitimate” reason for civilians to have weapons that are made specifically for the purpose of killing people. No, they aren’t by any stretch of the imagination hunting weapons, and unlike handguns, aren’t very practical for personal protection. Throw in the possibility of folks from The Family getting their hands on them, and I’m definitely not sold. The concept of that organization ending up with armed militias is terrifying – honestly, Al Qaeda looks like a quilting bee in comparison, if for no other reason, The Family has a much larger pool to recruit from. There are plenty of Christians out there.

Throw in Bossier Parrish’s new militia and its Operation Exodus, and the U.S. is really starting to look like one of those countries we tend to make war in because religious leaders start crying jihad. Sadly, the Bossier Parrish story is probably going to be overlooked as just wingnuttery hitting law enforcement in the backwoods. I’d love to know if anyone involved in organizing that militia is an “Apostle.”

But we have nothing to worry about. It’s just a lot of unconnected nonsense, that will settle down on its own….

It is possible to create a much longer list on this issue, but here are the top five reasons why terrorists should not be tried by Military Tribunals.

5. We don’t need to give terrorists more recruitment material. From mistreatment in prisons, to Guantanamo Bay itself, we’ve been fueling the fires of resentment against us, and handing recruitment material to terrorists on a silver platter. Bluntly, we’re better than that.

4. The “rights” we would be giving them aren’t real. Be honest. We’ve seen plenty of trials involving heinous crimes in this nation, and we’ve all known very well that when the accused were actually guilty, the trials were often just shows. Does anyone seriously think that any amount of work done by a defense attorney on behalf of the terrorists would cause them to be found “not guilty”?

3. Anything but a public trial would be ineffective in the end. Military Tribunals would be carried out behind closed doors, and only the results would be known to the public. That would do a great disservice to our country. The world needs to see the inner-workings of these proceedings, period. If it is not known, we add to reason five here, and additionally create an environment of distrust worldwide. We’re the freedom nation. Why do we need to hide?

2. Logistics is not an excuse in the age of technology. Security rightfully should be of the highest concern. But why are we even considering this as we would any other sort of trial in the past? We’ve never been in this position before, so we have the opportunity to bend the rules a little. It isn’t even a matter of bending the rules – defendants have attended trials in the past via closed circuit television due to security concerns. Leave the defendants behind bars, and let them view the proceedings via television. It’s not like there isn’t a gaggle of teleconferencing firms out there that have the technology to manage this.

1. Terrorists are not entitled to trials by Military Tribunals. By trying terrorists in Military Tribunals as opposed to civilian courts, we would be validating their cause as a legitimate military action, and would grant them the status of military combatants on a field of battle. The cause of any terrorist organization is not worthy of such status. If that were the case, then we probably should have tried Timothy McVeigh in a Military Tribunal, simply because he felt that he should declare war on the U.S. Terrorists are not military combatants – they are common criminals. They do not wage war on a field of battle – they attack civilians. They are mass murderers, pure and simple. Treating them as anything else would be granting them some level of honor. It’s sad to think that so many Americans want to do just that.

It’s been well over twenty years since a fellow traveler working a local campaign said that to me. He wasn’t a political genius – just a disgruntled pollster on his fifth or sixth round of scotch, trying to drown his sorrows over a recent loss.

I’ve remembered the statement all these years, but rarely dust it off. In spite of the fact that I’m generally a cynic, that one is just a bit more cynical than I usually am. Right now it comes to mind not for its cynicism, but for its truth.

While many warn of the negative implications(2) of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, and some offer potential responses to it, there is very little talk about truly practical solutions. Pointing out that ruling is misguided, or suggesting legislative remedies either do nothing, or leave openings for future similar rulings.

At this point no matter which side one is on with this issue, it can be assumed that everyone speaking out on this ruling is relying on the veracity of that statement given to me by a not-so-sober pollster. Either one is out there crying to protect the masses from the evil corporations, or rejoicing at the lifting of previous restrictions in campaign advertising. If there is a middle ground where people are demanding that the public be offered more education on the political process, they are being drowned out.

Now more than at any other time in our history, information is currency, and we are awash in it. We are bombarded with it from the moment we wake, until we drift off to sleep. It is impossible to avoid it. That is the crux of the argument for both sides, one claiming that those with the most money will be able to drown out the rest, and the other claiming that the people are entitled to information regardless of the timing or source. The irony is that both are right.

Instead of crying foul or rejoicing in a hollow victory, there should be a general outcry for increased voter education. Losing an election because the masses were influenced by the loudest voices or winning simply because one’s message dominated the airwaves are equal. The first is an obvious loss, but the second is not real victory either. When voters realize that they were bought with lies or distortions or simply a passing fad, the “winner” loses their support in the long-run. Ignorance of the masses can win the day, but rarely earns long-standing loyalty – sooner or later the masses figure out the truth.

As it stands right now, voters often don’t know what they are voting for. Campaign managers rely on this. I’ve spent scores of campaigns working at the polls, and watching voters that didn’t know what the job descriptions were for the local row offices they were electing officials to fill. I learned to hate the little button that lets voters choose a straight ticket. The one thing I loved was answering questions – if someone bothered to ask me about who was on the ballot, or about the offices up for grabs, I knew that at least that person wanted to attempt to make an educated choice.

When I worked to promote voter registration, I would regularly tell people that they should sit down and think about what they wanted their elected officials to do for them before casting their ballots. They should pay attention to the advertisements, but not assume that they were truthful. Finally, if they were still in doubt, I said that they should stop and talk to the pollsters on the way in to the polling place – all of them, not just the ones associated with their chosen party. A few times I actually ended up being questioned at the polls by voters I’d recruited, and those times are easily some of the best memories I have.

The Citizens United ruling is an opportunity. There has been a great deal of rhetoric about change over the past couple years, and now we’ve been presented with a chance to prove whether or not real change is in the wind. Will we roll over and let corporations dictate what voters do at the polls simply by spending money? Or will we take this opportunity to reach out to the masses and drag them out of the ignorance that so many political operatives rely?

In a perfect world, the Supreme Court of the United States would be absolutely immune to political influences. Since that is patently against human nature, that isn’t the case. However, the matter of following history at least a little is generally at the heart of many rulings we see handed down from our highest court. When these references to history are centered around relatively modern circumstances – situations and rulings from the previous century, for example – they are usually quite appropriate. But when a statement begins with something like “the framers of the Constitution intended…”, every fiber of my being wants to scream out in protest.

Stop that!

Stop trying to frame rulings based on what you think the authors of the Constitution were thinking when they wrote the document in the first place. In our society, we tend to poke fun at those silly pay-per-minute phone lines promising insights from beyond with the assistance of “genuine psychics.” Don’t try to put yourself in the same category as the fringe element of this nation that claims they can converse with the dead!

I know it is tempting to try to divine what the framers would do in any given situation – in a way, it’s like leaving yourselves a group of scapegoats that no one can touch. Why not leave the repercussions of your choices on someone who’s long been planted in the earth?

It’s an easy way out, and just like all other shortcuts, it has its own set of problems. Primarily, the issues that we are facing today could never have been predicted by the most intelligent persons on the planet at the time the Constitution was drafted. That said, why in the world would anyone really want to know what people then would think about what is happening now?

The only thing that the framers thought about that is worth considering is the mechanism for change. They were not arrogant enough to think that their words would perpetually remain the law of this land, and they left us instruments for change. That includes you. You are not meant to play time-traveling mind readers. The Constitution is your starting point. The needs of this nation are your primary concern. Respect the memory of the framers not by trying to imitate them, but by expanding on what they started. Mention them only on the anniversary of their accomplishment. There are 364 days left until you need to pay homage to them. Use that time wisely.