Hypocrisy Alert

Over at "Villainous Company", the self-proclaimed "princess" has her panties in a bunch over Obama, AGAIN, lambasting him for one thing and another, doing her articulate best to portray him as a smearer of ... stuff you smear, a liar, a Führer of digital brownshirts, a ghost-producer and/or financier of YouTube videos.

In typical "princess" fashion, Cass remarks that "This is not to deny that McCain deserves much of the criticism he has received for his distortions about Obama. But not all of it." She is never one to direct her readers' attention to McCain's distortions, or the distortions worked by other Rethugs - Cass's term, mind you, not ours.

She is also not one to acknowledge the on-going Rethug hypocrisy of blasting Obama (and the Dems generally) on their positions on abortion (with which, BTW, HSD is in some disagreement), when it is an acknowledged fact that the Rethugs will NEVER do anything to reduce the availability of abortion in America (besides palaver and cast aspersions) because too many Republican voters think abortion should be a matter of choice between a woman and her doctor. The Rethugs long ago sold their souls to Satan on this issue, however, in exchange for his promise to deliver the Evangelical/Christian/Christianist vote ... . and they hypocritically (quelle surprise!) avoid discussion of practical means of helping women avoid pregnancy.

More on this once we have a chance to go back and rifle through Big Brother's, uh ... VC's ... dusty archives for past pronouncements of princess-ly poppycock.

Are the Wingnuts onto something, or are they just working themselves into a new paranoid frenzy?

A new wingnut frenzy is rolling across the internets - Amir Taheri is accusing Barack Obama of having attempted, for political purposes, to meddle in American foreign policy during his recent trip to Iraq: chiming in with the same refrain are "Betsy Newmark", who styles herself "an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC", and Cassandra over at Villainous Company, who describes herself as "a dyspeptic Marine wife/tech wench". Betsy links to Amir Taheri to support her accusation; Cass links to Betsy to support hers.

Amir Taheri does not have the greatest track record for truthfulness, however, so it remains to be seen whether this is legit, or just more so-called conservative foaming at the mouth. We'll leave our fuzzy-headed knee-jerk liberal inclinations to the side for the moment, and let this story develop over the next few days.

Oy gevalt! There is no rest for the weary blogger! Even John McCain is being accused of violating the Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]). The Logan Act is a federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Click here for other info on Amir Taheri, and here and here.

Well, dear reader, it looks as though (if my sources check out) Obama did not violate the Logan Act. Here, in a discussion of the similar claim made against Nancy "She Needs To Grow a Pair" Pelosi:

The Logan Act, originally enacted in 1799 and amended in 1994, prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. Despite numerous judicial references to the Act, the Congressional Research Service has discovered no prosecutions under the Logan Act in its more than 200 years of existence. It has, however, served as the basis for several political challenges, not unlike those now being launched against Speaker Pelosi.

In 1975, Senators John Sparkman and George McGovern were accused of violating the Logan Act when they traveled to Cuba and met with Cuban officials. In considering that case, the U.S. Department of State declared:

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

The circumstances of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria were similar. The Bush administration was well aware of the "nature and purpose" of the proposed trip, and while President Bush discouraged it and is now harshly criticizing it, the executive branch took no action to prevent Pelosi from leaving the country. Indeed, the White House has not mentioned the Logan Act in relationship to Pelosi's trip.

Some other Americans accused of, but never prosecuted for violating the Logan Act include Ross Perot for his efforts to locate U.S. POWs in Southeast Asia and former Speaker of the House Jim Wright for his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984, Reverend Jessie Jackson's trips to Syria, Cuba and Nicaragua drew accusations of Logan Act violations from President Reagan. And who can forget Jane Fonda's many controversial trips to Southeast Asia in protest of the Vietnam War? Yet, as far as the Congressional Research Service has been able to determine, no American has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

It will be interesting to see what those accusing Obama of violating the Logan Act come up with to prove their accusations. I'm guessing that BHO received permission from the US Government to make his visit, and was probably briefed on the situation before he went. Having temporarily tranquilized my fuzzy-headed jerking knee, however, I welcome any information on this point.

Update: Wingnuts all over have just got their panties in such a bunch over this. If it weren't so infuriating watching them vent their mostly ignorant spleens, it would be enormously entertaining watching them work themselves into a state of unbridled hysteria. I suspect that their motive in this, apart from ODS, is to distract themselves and their readers from the fact that their candidates are doing so poorly overall.

Who Gets To Decide What's "Fair"?

One of the more articulate wingnuts out there is again dredging up that tired old meme about "Supreme Court justices [throwing] out what the Constitution has to say when formulating rulings and [substituting] their individual sense of 'fairness'", suggesting (yawn) that in doing so, they'd be "substituting their individual policy preferences for those of our duly elected leaders in the state and federal legislatures?"

What the self-proclaimed "blog princess" continues to ignore (it's got to be intentional, because otherwise she's a pretty sharp cookie) is that some of the greatest advances in freedom in this country have come from judicial decisions that acknowledged that there are fundamental values woven into the Constitution that are not necessarily spelled out in it (and that in the past have even been specifically denied in it) that rise above the four corners of the document and raise us up above most other countries in the world as better people and better citizens.

It's popular among certain commentators to suggest that so-called "activist judges" took constitutional power away from "the people" when they decided Brown v. the Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade (admittedly a difficult case), Lawrence v. Texas. A number of other cases could also be cited (and when I get the time, maybe I will). Why does it seem, however, that the examples given by these same commentators usually have to do with protecting some political minority from the efforts of a political or religious majority to suppress the minority's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

These are complex issues, for sure, but oversimplifying them does nobody any good. As a constitutional scholar one told me "for every problem there is a simple and erroneous solution". People on the left and the right are guilty of oversimplification. Some of us expect more, however, and we are entitled to more.

Remembrances of 9/11

Throughout the day, we intend to post links to other sites that demonstrate the best and the worst of the 9/11 remembrances we come across, and comments we post there, if any.

THE WORST

Islam in Britains 9/11 Hate Campaign from "Radarsite"

Radarsite's Roger Gardner apparently wants total US government control over the whole world. There is a word for that - fascism - and we can congratulate RG and others like him for bringing the word back into our vocabulary. Some remembrance of 9/11 - RG is letting the terrorists win, by talking like they do about world domination. I bet he won't post this, either.

A Newt One - by Snooper - This guy ought to be re-named "Stupor", he is such an unthinking idiot.

THE BEST

9/11 Tribute - Heartache Still Lingers from "PA Pundits The Relentless Pursuit of Common Sense"

And In This Way By Robert Bateman from WaPo

In Memoriam: September 11, 2001

STILL UNDECIDED

War of Words from Villainous Company

Something Bitchy

One of our "favorite" bloggers, who often delights us with her word-craft, but who more often than not infuriates us with her credulity, has suggested that it would be amusing to collect "loony quotes" from Obama followers. Well, we here at HSD think it will be at least as amusing to collect loony quote from the fuzzy-headed knee-jerk so-called "conservative" booboisie. There is so much material to work with that we fear that our dedication to this entertainment could jeopardize our health, what with the need to avoid alimentation, elimination and sleepification in order to keep up with the flow. We must say that we are relieved to remember that "life as we know it" will keep us from becoming obsessed with this exercise, as tending to our regular duties will keep our feet on the ground.

"Hypocrisy is better than no standards at all" - William Bennett, CNN Larry King Live, June 10, 2001