Activism Across America

Last night at the Democratic National Convention, Senator Claire McCaskill delivered a purposeful and nasty insult to her nonreligious constituents, declaring that the people of Missouri are “God-loving” and asserting that the United States of America is a nation “under God”

It wasn’t an accident that these words came out. They were scripted in a purposeful rhetorical move to appeal to right wing Christian voters, and to try to push secular Americans out of the Democratic Party.

Let’s get this straight, Senator McCaskill. Facts are facts. There are a large number of people in Missouri who don’t believe in God at all. See as an example the Community of Reason - based in Missouri.

The USA is by no means a nation “under God”. There is no mention of God in the Constitution, the defining document of our nation. The Constitution does state, however, that there shall be no religious test for public office, and that there shall be no government establishment of religion.

All Americans, religious or not, should pay attention to Claire McCaskill’s theocratic agenda, because it’s tied to a larger right wing agenda. Oh, sure, at the Democratic National Convention, Senator McCaskill can give a good speech, but it’s only talk. In the Senate, McCaskill has earned a right wing legislative score that is nearly double her progressive legislative score.

Senator McCaskill and her ilk are dragging the Democratic Party backwards into the past, using the appeal of religious discrimination against secular Americans to whip up popular support. That’s an ugly, discriminatory vision of the Democratic Party that I want no part of.

When it comes to the ways of the Senate Democrats, California has the best and worst of what’s available. Senator Barbara Boxer does what a Democrat is supposed to do - upholding progressive values, and defending the Constitution. Dianne Feinstein, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to give a damn about anything other than the calculus of power.

Let’s take the recent vote on the FISA Amendments Act as an example. The FISA Amendments Act represents one of the worst aspects of the presidency of George W. Bush. It retroactively legalizes a program that spied on the personal communications of millions of law-abiding American citizens - without a search warrant or any other judicial oversight. The law allows this abuse to continue. It wrecks the protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

Barbara Boxer did the right thing. She voted against the FISA Amendments Act.

Dianne Feinstein did the wrong thing. She voted in favor of the FISA Amendments Act.

California, you have my congratulations… and my sympathy.

New York’s U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey represents an oddly-shaped district that twists from Poughkeepsie on the eastern shore of the Hudson River all the way along the border with Pennsylvania up to Ithaca, New York in the Finger Lakes. Yet, he represents his constituents well, defending the constitutional freedoms in which residents of his district place their trust.

On June 20, 2008, when so many other Democrats in the House of Representatives panicked and ran into the arms of the Republicans, voting for George W. Bush’s FISA Amendments Act, Congressman Hinchey kept his head. He voted against the FISA Amendments Act.

Hinchey explained,

“The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been in effect since 1978 and provided every president and his administration since that time with the tools and resources needed to effectively monitor the activities of those wishing to harm the United States. I recognize the need to modernize our surveillance laws and have been willing to make adjustments to improve them, but sacrificing our basic civil liberties and granting de facto immunity to telecommunication companies that may have violated the law to appease the Bush administration is simply unacceptable.

The United States government should have all the tools it needs to keep us safe, but we must recognize that we can definitely achieve that goal without sacrificing the defining principles of the Constitution. Privacy rights must not be compromised simply because this administration is trying to scare everyone into believing such actions are necessary.”

Maurice Hinchey is right. The government should have all the tools it needs to keep Americans safe, provided that those tools do not violate the Americans’ rights.

The FISA Amendments Act is not a necessary tool for America’s security, and it deprives Americans of freedoms that are essential to the survival of democracy in the USA. On both counts, Maurice Hinchey did the right thing in voting NO on the FISA Amendments Act.

Thanks to Maurice Hinchey for doing the right thing, and voting with his head instead of pandering to the politics of fear.

Al Franken likes to depict himself as a well-informed, straight-talking kind of guy. Franken says that if he is elected to the United States Senate, he will stand up for the rights of voters in Minnesota.

So why is it, then, that Al Franken refuses to take a position on the FISA Amendments Act?

Go ahead and search through Al Franken’s Senate campaign web site. Search the news. Search the blogs. Nowhere does Al Franken even mention the FISA Amendments Act.

This proposed law threatens to take away Americans’ constitutional rights, and to destroy the system of checks and balances that keeps our democracy alive. The FISA Amendments Act represents one of the worst policies of George W. Bush - spying on millions of Americans without a search warrant or any other form of judicial control. The FISA Amendments Act is corrupt to the core.

So, why won’t Al Franken take a stand? Has Franken been too lazy to bother to read the FISA Amendments Act, or is he just too afraid to condemn this latest abuse from the politicians of fear?