Tag Archives: interview

Sharron Angle: Jefferson “Misquoted Out of Context” on Separation of Church and State

01 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Congress, Conservatives, Constitution, Politics, Republicans

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In an interview with Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Sharron Angle, was asked to defend a 1995 statement in which she said, “the tenet of the separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine.” Angle’s response was that “Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted…out of context.” Watch:

OK, here’s Thomas Jefferson in context, from his often-quoted letter to the Danbury Baptists:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Jefferson repeats verbatim the text of the First Amendment, that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” followed his own words, “thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Look up any definition of “thus” and you will see synonyms such as therefore, hence, and consequently. Substitute any of those words for “thus” in Jefferson’s letter and the meaning is crystal clear.

That’s Jefferson. What about the widely-acknowledged “Father of the Constitution” and the man who proposed the Bill of Rights to the first Congress—James Madison. What were his thoughts on the subject?

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Madison even saw the appointment of chaplains as a violation of the establishment clause:

“Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

Ms. Angle, when it comes to matters of the Founders and the Constitution, speak not of what you know not. And don’t believe everything you read on a sign at a Tea Party.

Advertisement

The Most Dangerous Man in the World

20 Tuesday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In an April 3 post at Baseline Scenario, Simon Johnson called JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “The Most Dangerous Man in America.” Johnson wrote:

“There are two kinds of bankers to fear.  The first is incompetent and runs a big bank.  This includes such people as Chuck Prince (formerly of Citigroup) and Ken Lewis (Bank of America).  These people run their banks onto the rocks – and end up costing the taxpayer a great deal of money.  But, on the other hand, you can see them coming and, if we ever get the politics of bank regulation straightened out again, work hard to contain the problems they present.

The second type of banker is much more dangerous.  This person understands how to control risk within a massive organization, manage political relationships across the political spectrum, and generate the right kind of public relations.  When all is said and done, this banker runs a big bank and – here’s the danger – makes it even bigger.

Jamie Dimon is by far the most dangerous American banker of this or any other recent generation.”

Following an interview with German newspaper Welt am Sonntag on Sunday, that should be amended to read “the most dangerous man in the world” as Dimon issued this not-so-veiled threat on the possibility of stricter bank regulations:

“When profits fall too sharply then capital will move somewhere else, where there is more money to be earned, for example non-regulated markets. The question is, is that what regulators want?”

Blackmail, anyone?

“[Dimon] also said the banking industry could do with more influence on politicians.”

More influence? According to the White House log, since October 30, 2009 Mr. Dimon has made 8, count ‘em 8, visits. What do you want to do, Jamie? Move in?

Proud of War Crimes?

14 Sunday Mar 2010

Posted by in Politics, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Proud to be war criminals—the sad, and sadly enduring, legacy of the Bush administration, which the so-called “brain” of that dark period in our history continued to attempt to rationalize and justify in a recent interview with the BBC:

“A senior adviser to former US President George W Bush has defended tough interrogation techniques, saying their use helped prevent terrorist attacks…In a BBC interview, Karl Rove, who was known as “Bush’s brain”, said he “was proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists”…He said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, should not be considered torture.”

…Mr Rove said US soldiers were subjected to waterboarding as a regular part of their training…A less severe form of the technique was used on the three suspects interrogated at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, he added.”

“Simulates drowning” and a “less severe from of the technique?” Not so says someone who has been there, Malcolm Nance (emphasis added) :

“As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.

Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique – without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

In the media, waterboarding is called “simulated drowning,” but that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.”

I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.

Rove reiterated his pride later in the interview:

“Yes, I’m proud that we kept the world safer than it was, by the use of these techniques. They’re appropriate, they’re in conformity with our international requirements and with US law.”

No they aren’t. Our “international requirements” [the Convention Against Torture] and U.S. law [U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113 C]  both forbid and prescribe punishment for torture.

“Mr Rove has just written a memoir, Courage and Consequence, in which he defends the two terms of the Bush administration as “impressive, durable and significant.”

BJ Bjornson at Newshoggers:

“Well, I’ll go with significant, at least. Significant in that Bush’s two terms took the US from the acknowledged leader of the Free World, respected if not loved, to just another world hegemony that most people won’t mind seeing pass into history at this point. While Obama has repaired a bit of the damage Bush has done, the lack of any prosecutions over the war crimes that people like Rove and Cheney now flaunt to the world has left most of us rather less than impressed.”