Looking for Dirt in All the Wrong Places

 

GOP Congressman Darrell Issa, head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is a regular in front of the cameras and on the Sunday talk shows. He will investigate President Obama's role in the IRS actions, the attack on Benghazi, Wikileaks and a host of other hoped-for misdeeds.  Issa is zealous about finding dirt on the President.  “I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks,” Issa said.

A look back in our history tells us that Congressional investigations aren't always what they appear on the surface.




It was 1953.  Eisenhower was President. The Republican Party had just won the majority of Senate seats. Chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), the Senate launched an extensive investigation of the State Department, the Army and even Voice of America.  McCarthy had regularly accused the previous Democratic president of collusion with Communists. There were 161 hearings and 395 witnesses called. The hearings were eventually discredited.

It was 1973. President Nixon had just won re-election. Democrats had won majorities in the Senate and House. The burglary of the Democratic campaign offices in 1972 was investigated by the Senate in hearings that lasted over a year and that showed clear responsibility by the Nixon White House. Nixon was impeached and resigned in disgrace in 1974.

It was 1987.  Reagan was President. Republicans controlled the Senate and Democrats the House. We learned of an elaborate arms for hostages deal, supplying weapons illegally to Iran while also secretly arming the Contras, in violation of laws passed by Congress.  A joint committee of both houses launched an investigation of the role of Reagan and White House officials. 14 indictments and 11 convictions included the Secretary of Defense and two of the President's National Security Advisors.

It was 1995. Clinton was President. The Republican Party had just won control of both houses of Congress.  The Senate began a yearlong investigation into the Whitewater land deal in Arkansas, hoping to uncover criminal activity by the Clintons. No smoking guns were found.  The House began the most expensive (costing $23 million) and time-consuming investigation in US history, looking for evidence of illegal Chinese contributions to Clinton's campaign. After 18 months and over 1000 requests for information, no smoking gun was found.

It was 1999. Clinton was still President. The House Oversight Committee launched a 13 month investigation of Attorney General Janet Reno over the Waco incident, duplicating what a special prosecutor had already investigated.  No fault was found.

For the entire 8 years of Clinton's presidency, special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and committees of the Senate and House promoted and investigated controversies ranging from Travelgate to adultery. In spite of a full staff devoted entirely to finding dirt on the Clintons, Starr was only able to make one charge stick: lying under oath about a sexual dalliance. Clinton was impeached in 1998 by a Republican Senate.

It was 2007. Bush Jr. was President. The House had been under Republican control for his both of his terms. Congressman Davis (the same who investigated Waco) headed the Oversight Committee.  Davis refused to hold hearings or investigate any potential White House misdeeds. 9/11, Cheney's secret energy task force, Abu Ghraib abuses, the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the rush to war against Iraq, the torture memos, the Abramoff corruptions, Enron -- no hearings were held on any of these.

It is 2013.  In 2011, the Republican Party regained its House majority.  Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) has a full summer of subpoenas and investigations planned to attack the Obama administration.

Hearings, subpoenas and investigations have been among Congressional powers forever.  But when Republicans control the House and a Democratic President is in office, they take on an entirely different flavor.  Hearings about the tobacco industry or pharmaceutical abuses are replaced with fishing expeditions to find something, anything to discredit the President. It happened throughout Clinton's term (he had Republican Congresses) and has been the Republicans' main agenda since winning the House in 2011.

There are serious executive branch abuses worthy of this attention -- Watergate and Iran-Contra. Then there is raw politicking.  Nothing gets an obscure Congressman more attention that the power to charge and subpoena.

Never mind today's news that Issa himself has a pretty shady history (indicted for auto theft, arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, a hit and run and accusations of arson). 

I'm ready for "oversight" to mean responsible oversight of government, including the President.  I'm sick of over-dramatized "investigations" that bog down both branches of government at great expense to taxpayers. When Congress and the President are from opposite parties, investigations happen -- in spades.  When they're the same party, abuses like the torture memos and the lies that got us into Iraq get free passes.  If you're conducting too many hearings without finding substantial wrongdoing, you're wasting time and money. Watergate and Iran-Contra proved actual administration wrong-doing. The rest was just obstruction, preventing presidents from attending to the nation's work.

Sedition

Is it legal to advocate for the violent overthrow of your government?

The new president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is an attorney and certainly ought to know the answer. Granted, his law practice focused on defending gun manufacturers, but still, this should be basic legal background.

The answer, of course, is no.  The specific charge is sedition.

In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. (Wikipedia)

Specifically, the Smith Act prohibits:

...with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or...organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof. (Title I: Subversive Activities)

Recently, the Wisconsin branch of the NRA published and distributed a newsletter explicitly calling for armed revolt against the elected government.

"..ELECTIONS ARE NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEM; ELECTIONS ARE THE PROBLEM!.."  (Source)

The newsletter endorses the Oath Keepers, an organization labeled domestic terrorists by the FBI, precisely because they advocate the violent overthrow of the US Government.

Offensive rocker Ted Nugent is an NRA Board Member.  A complete catalog of his seditious comments would take volumes.  But perhaps a sample (one of the few without profanity or obscenity) will do here:

During a live interview at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting on April 14, 2012, Nugent called the administration of President Barack Obama “vile,” “evil,” and “America-hating.” He also stated, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” (Source)

The Brady Campaign has compiled statements from gun advocates about using political violence to get their way.  You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU6837Gye20

And now, a new NRA president, Jim Porter.  Well not entirely new, since he was an NRA vice president and follows his father who was a previous NRA president. And like Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Oliver North and others in the NRA's leadership, he also advocates arming yourself to overthrow the tyranny of the current government.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The NRA has been very fortunate so far. Their brand of sedition and treason have not been prosecuted. The rhetoric has become so pervasive that it's dismissed out of hand by all but the most ardent followers. Yet seditious talk it is. And if you're aware of this posturing by the NRA and still maintain your membership, where do you stand?  It might be worth your while to carefully read the legal language here.

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or 

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or 

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— 

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. (Cornell Law School excerpt of the Smith Act)

Peddling the violent overthrow of the US government is sedition, by any definition. It's time to rein in the rhetoric or call the offenders to account.  Wait.  Aren't these the guys who lament ad nauseum the non-enforcement of current laws?

Ignore the Twenty Somethings at our Peril

Tweet

Have you heard of Epigenetics? Epigenetics is genes expressing themselves in different ways. This happens because of environmental influences and without changing the genetic makeup. Epigenetic changes can be profound in a growing organism, like an embryo.

A pregnant woman's stress and nutrition can dramatically affect the development of the embryo growing inside her. Malnutrition, domestic violence and other stresses (measured by cortisol levels) in the first 100 days of pregnancy have epigenetic effects, resulting in a lower birth weight baby with underdeveloped organs, including the baby's brain. These babies often later develop attention deficit disorders, anxiety disorders and other problems. On into adolescence, they are more likely to succumb to unhealthy and risky behaviors such as substance abuse, early sexual activity and recklessness.

All because of stressors experienced by their mothers before they were even cognizant. So who are these mothers?

• In the US, a woman gives birth the first time (on average) when she is 25 years old. Most American women without college degrees have children in their 20s. 5% give birth in their teens. (Source)
• Women ages 20-24 are at the greatest risk of nonfatal intimate partner violence.
  (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. 1993-2004, 2006.)
•  One-third of young adults lack health insurance. (Source)
•  Almost 40% of all car accidents happen to drivers ages 20-34. (Source)
• Young earners in the 20-to-24-year-old age range earned a median salary of $446 a week ($23,000 per year) in 2010, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.(Source) Almost half were below the poverty level for a family of three.
• Teens and young adults are more likely than persons of other ages to be murdered with a gun.  (Source)

Given the importance of protecting young mothers -- young adults of either sex -- they must be a high priority for us as a nation. The emotional, mental and physical health of young adults ripples to the next generation. Yet other than some provisions in the Affordable Care Act, few government programs provide benefits to twenty-somethings.

Our federal, state and local programs focus instead on children and the elderly.  I tried the benefits finder at benefits.gov, answering the questions as a young family with one child and no college education. Unless the young adults are veterans or active service members, there is very little support available.  Seniors enjoy Medicare, Social Security, extra tax credits and discounted meals and rates at many places.  Children get free education, free health care, free and reduced meals, sports programs, and discounts nearly everywhere.  Young adults, those with the least earnings and the highest risk factors, are eligible for almost nothing. Last hired, first fired too.

It's time for us to refocus our attention on the young adults, those out of high school but not yet established in their careers.  What do we want for them?  How can we help? What kinds of protection would be effective not only for them but for their young children (including embryos) too?

You can't care about babies and children without caring about their young parents. Children's issues are family issues.

And the clincher? That young mother's stressors not only affect the baby in her womb.  If that child is a girl, the same epigenetic influences affect all of her already-formed eggs as well.  It's a triple generation whammy.  (Source)

See also: It's Not 1980 Anymore

Good Enough for Grandpa

Where the Jobs Went

Tweet

Whose Religious Liberty?

"Park cross challenged, Coos Bay gets help from group that fights for public religious displays"

read the headline in the Eugene Register Guard this week. The Vietnam War memorial cross has stood in a Coos Bay park since 1972. The city admits there were challenges to it even then but recently the Freedom From Religion Foundation issued a formal challenge.  Meetings have been packed and emotional.

 A neighbor whose father was injured in the Vietnam War, defends the cross:

It’s the Freedom From Religion Foundation that’s intolerant of religion, Lemmons believes.

“For whatever reason, (the group has) such a negative opinion of Christianity they use the separation of church and state to attack it,” Lemmons said. “I am a practicing Christian, and if I see a Hindu or Muslim shrine, it doesn’t bother me. If it bothers you, don’t look at it. It’s sad to see people can be so fundamental in their beliefs.”

Now the city is accepting help from the Texas-based Liberty Institute which defends religious displays on public property. The Liberty Institute is a non-profit dedicated to "preserving religious liberty" yet a review of Liberty's advocacy record on its website shows a 100% dedication to defending Christian displays, symbols and expression in public places.  I was unable to locate a single case of defending non-Christian rights. Interestingly, the group recommends prayer prominently as a strategy. And they are the advisers for the city government of Coos Bay.

I am reminded of the imagined "War on Christmas", the recent outrage over soda cans that omitted the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance (which never happened), laws against shariah law that arose in communities around the country a few years ago, and a regular succession of outrage over slights real and imagined to America's dominant religion.

Every religion depends on its own persecution history to fan the faithful. Many have legitimate histories of genuine persecution -- Jews, Native Americans, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Tibetan Buddhists.  Others have to dig a little deeper to fan those flames. A recent book recounts Christian mythology regarding persecution. Tales of persecution by the Romans to the early church are challenged by author Candida Moss in The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom.

I had generally subscribed to the early persecution stories.  After all, it's not that unusual for a minority (or new) religious group to be persecuted by the majority one. Rajneeshis, anyone?  The anti-Muslim hysteria over the building of a non-mosque in Manhattan also comes to mind. And those are just American examples -- consider Sudan, Germany, the war over Bangladesh or nearly any other place on earth.

When majority religious interests claim persecution though, eyebrows ought to raise. American Christians who are not permitted to push their religious symbolism in the public sphere are offended.  How dare Jewish, atheist or Shinto soldiers or families protest a Christian cross representing their losses? How dare anyone suggest that Happy Holidays is not a direct attack on Christianity? How dare anyone suggest taking In God we Trust off our currency? To the Liberty Institute and others, the words from the First Amendment -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof -- mean simply that government shall in fact endorse Christianity.

Is Christianity so fragile that if not allowed to adorn every courthouse, every park, every public school

graduation ceremony, it will be forgotten? No, we are a nation founded on principles of multiple religious experiences and faiths, or none at all. No one stops Christians from worshiping however they choose. But they do not have the right to dominate the public square at public expense. Respect for all, not just Christians.

Good luck, Coos Bay City Council. May you find the courage to do the right thing, the Constitutional thing, regardless of public pressure. Yes, you will assuredly be recalled if you do. After this experience, would that be so bad?

See also: True Story: From Fear to Equality

All My Blasphemies

On Being Politically Correct