How does a law that allow police to arrest you if you don’t show an ID *and* requires a loyalty

oath *and* discourages municipalities from expressing opposition to the USA PATRIOT ACT (a deceitful name) — how does such a law get

passed “with barely a word of dissent”? Because people are scared and legislators are scared of the people. We have nothing to fear but

fear itself. mjh

FOXNews.com –

Politics – New Ohio Law Allows Cops to Request ID

Ohio Republican Gov. Bob Taft on Wednesday signed a bill into law passed by

the state legislature with barely a word of dissent. Supporters of the state’s security measure, which takes effect in 90 days, say

it’s a tool the state can use in fighting terrorism. …

But dissent is building over authority given to police officers, who can

now ask, “What’s your name?” as a tool to fight terrorism. Failure to identify oneself could land an individual in jail.

Critics

call the measure the Ohio Patriot Act. The law also requires those applying for state driver’s licenses to sign a form that they

haven’t supported terrorist organizations.

mjh’s

blog — Let Me See Your ID

US News Article | Reuters.com
By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) – The U.S. government

paved the way on Wednesday for oil drilling in an Alaskan region used by migrating caribou and birds, three weeks after Congress blocked

energy development in the nearby Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Interior Department gave final approval to develop the

Teshekpuk Lake region, setting up an oil-lease sale in September. The decision came a year after the Bureau of Land Management

recommended drilling in the region, which lies west of the wildlife refuge on Alaska’s North Slope.

Teshekpuk’s 389,000 acres

had been protected from oil exploration since the Reagan Administration. In 1998, when former President Bill Clinton opened some areas of

the North Slope to the oil industry, the Teshekpuk Lake area was kept off-limits.

Alito’s club ties prove

troubling decades later Ruben Navarrette Jr.

I’m troubled by three things in all this: that Alito could have been a member of

such an exclusionary group in the first place; that he saw fit to brag about being a member to win favor with the right-wing

hard-liners in the Reagan Justice Department, many of whom took on the dismantling of affirmative action programs as a pet project; and

that he refuses to own up to this now by claiming that he doesn’t remember the first thing about the group.

That, I don’t like.

Alito Disavows

Controversial Group
Nominee Touted His Membership in 1985
By Dale Russakoff, Washington Post Staff Writer

As a Princeton

alumnus and professional basketball player, Bill Bradley in 1973 renounced his membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, calling it a

“right wing” organization that opposed the admission of women and minorities to the school.

Two years later, another distinguished

alumnus and future U.S. senator, Bill Frist, co-wrote a report denouncing the group for “grossly inaccurate” attacks on the school’s

policies and a “narrow ideological perspective” that had done “a disservice to the university.”

Bush says some war critics irresponsible By Steve

Holland

“A country that divides into factions and dwells on old grievances cannot move forward and risks sliding back

into tyranny,” Bush said.

Wow. Of course, in the quote above, Bush was referring to Iraq.

In the same speech, he advised his adversaries to “watch their words.” Spoken like a true tyrant. mjh

Bush to critics: Don’t

‘comfort our adversaries’ BY JENNIFER LOVEN

President Bush warned Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Tuesday

to watch what they say or risk giving ”comfort to our adversaries” and suffering at the ballot box in November.

Democrats said Bush should take his own advice.

There are still 10 months left before congressional elections; a recent AP-Ipsos

poll found Americans prefer Democratic control of Congress over a continued GOP majority by 49 percent to 36 percent. But Bush is wasting

no time engaging the battle. …

He said he welcomed ”honest critics,” but he termed irresponsible ”partisan critics who

claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil or because of Israel or because we misled the American people,” as well as ”defeatists

who refuse to see that anything is right.”

With that description, Bush lumped the many Democrats who have accused him of

twisting prewar intelligence with the few people, mostly outside the mainstream, who have raised issues of oil and Israel. …

Democrats said Bush has no business trying to define what sort of talk is acceptable.

ACLU president draws links between Bush spying, Nixon lying and Martin Luther King

Jr. by Daniel Strumpf

The ACLU recently placed two full-page ads in The New York Times comparing Bush to Richard Nixon.

“I think there is a very strong comparison between the two, in terms of having such an exaggerated sense of the power of the

executive branch to ride roughshod over the rights of people who aren’t even suspected of any crimes at all other than political

dissent,” she said. “To me, that links up directly to Martin Luther King.

“Martin Luther King should be remembered not only for

his towering contributions to social justice and racial equality but also as a victim of government spying and abuses of power by the FBI

because of disagreement with his ideas.”

Strossen points out that King was punished for attempting to exercise his First Amendment

rights and draws a direct analogy to the monitoring of citizens Bush perceives to be enemies of the U.S.

Unchecked Abuse

[I]t might be concluded that the Bush

administration has committed itself to ending the use of practices falling just short of torture that it has used on foreign detainees

since 2002. But it has not. Instead, it is explicitly reserving the right to abuse prisoners, while denying them any

opportunity to seek redress in court. Having publicly accepted the ban on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Mr. Bush is

planning to ignore it whenever he chooses. …

The president made his intentions clear in signing the defense bill

containing the McCain amendment last month. Mr. Bush issued a presidential signing statement saying his administration would interpret

the new law “in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as

Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.” The language refers to the assertion by the

president’s lawyers that his powers allow him, in wartime, to ignore statutes passed by Congress.

Differing Views on

Terrorism By Dan Balz and Claudia Deane, Washington Post Staff Writers

Nearly two in three Americans surveyed said they

believe that federal agencies involved in anti-terrorism activities are intruding on the personal privacy of their fellow citizens, but

fewer than a third said such intrusions are unjustified. …

So far, recent disclosures about domestic spying have not

hurt Bush’s public standing. According to the poll, his job approval rating stands at 46 percent, down one percentage point

from last month. …

Among Republicans, 75 percent said the Bush program is acceptable, while 61 percent of Democrats said it is

unacceptable. Independents called the program unacceptable by a margin of 55 percent to 45 percent.

Listen closely as BushCo tries to paint the Abramoff Scandal as bipartisan. Abramoff was created by

Tom DeLay’s goal to freeze-out Democrats on K-Street — to refuse to meet anyone who gave to both parties and to demand that only

Republican’s benefit from the bribes.

Key point: Abramoff was a major fund-raiser for Duhbya. LOTS more than $6,000. mjh

Bush to give up $6,000 in Abramoff gifts
President Bush plans to donate $6,000 in campaign contributions

from one-time lobbyist Jack Abramoff to the American Heart Association.

Abramoff was a Bush-Cheney Pioneer, someone who raised

more than $100,000 for the Republican presidential ticket. But The Washington Post said that the president will give up only money

donated directly by Abramoff, his wife and one of the Indian tribes he lobbied for.

U.S. Newswire : Releases : “Dean: White House Must Tell the Truth About

Abramoff Ties”

One day after former Republican mega-lobbyist and major Bush fundraiser Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three

federal crimes, the White House gave back merely $6,000 in donations made by Abramoff to the President’s re-election campaign, but kept

the more than $100,000 that Abramoff personally and directly raised for Bush-Cheney ’04. Given what we now know, Abramoff’s shady

business practices and influence peddling calls into question what meetings he set up or organized for his clients with Administration

officials.

Based on news reports alone, it’s clear Abramoff’s network reached deep into the White House and was used to reap

significant fees from his clients. Specifically, Abramoff charged multi-million dollar fees to arrange meetings with Bush as well as

access to senior White House officials for his clients. …

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on the Bush

White House to come clean regarding the extent of the contact between Abramoff and senior White House officials:

“As a

Bush Pioneer, Abramoff bragged about the influence he held at the White House, as did his former lobbying partner who claimed

that Abramoff had direct access to the President. Abramoff also arranged meetings with the President and members of the Bush

Administration for his clients, who later received favorable treatment.

“Until he was charged with committing three federal

crimes, Abramoff used his Republican contacts, including his ties to the White House, to create an extensive pay-to-play system where

political money was exchanged for policy outcomes. To begin to clear the growing ethical cloud over the White House, President Bush must

disclose his Administration’s contacts and detail their relationship with this admitted felon. The American people deserve the truth.”

…

Abramoff Was A Republican Insider And Who Had Strong Pull With Bush White House. Abramoff’s lobbying partner boasted that he

is a phone call away from the President. “Jack has a relationship with the President,” Abramoff’s former spokesman and fellow lobbyist

Michael Scanlon once said. “He doesn’t have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one.” Scanlon has

since pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials. (New Times Broward-Palm Beach, 2/22/01; Washington

Post, 11/29/05)

Case

Bringing New Scrutiny To a System and a Profession By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Dan Balz

Jack Abramoff represented the most

flamboyant and extreme example of a brand of influence trading that flourished after the Republican takeover of the House of

Representatives 11 years ago. Now, some GOP strategists fear that the fallout from his case could affect the party’s efforts to keep

control in the November midterm elections.

Abramoff was among the lobbyists most closely associated with the K Street Project,

which was initiated by his friend Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), now the former House majority leader, once the GOP vaulted to power. It was an

aggressive program designed to force corporations and trade associations to hire more GOP-connected lobbyists in what at times became an

almost seamless relationship between Capitol Hill lawmakers and some firms that sought to influence them.

Now Abramoff has become

a symbol of a system out of control. …

With an eye on November’s elections, Republicans have sought to limit the damage to

themselves by portraying the scandal as bipartisan, describing Abramoff as an equal-opportunity dispenser of campaign cash and largess.

So far, the public has not identified corruption as solely a Republican problem. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in November

asked Americans whether they thought Democrats or Republicans were better on ethical matters; 16 percent said Democrats, 12 percent said

Republicans, and 71 percent said there was not much difference between the parties.

But Republicans worry about two possibilities.

The first is that Abramoff, known for his close ties to DeLay, mostly implicates Republicans as a result of his plea agreement. That

could shift public attitudes sharply against the GOP. “People are uneasy about what else is out there,” said one GOP strategist who

requested anonymity to speak more candidly about the possible political fallout.

GOP Leaders Seek Distance From Abramoff
By Jonathan Weisman

With … the highest echelons of the Republican Party increasingly vulnerable to charges, GOP leaders moved yesterday to distance

themselves from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and prepare to combat a growing corruption scandal. …

Republican strategists

expressed some relief that the damage could be limited. Carl Forti, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said

that if Abramoff’s revelations ensnare only one lawmaker and some unknown staff members, Democrats will have little chance of sparking a

political revolt when voters go to the polls in November to elect a new Congress.

Bush Assails Democrats Over Patriot ActBy Jim VandeHei

President Bush accused Democrats yesterday of blocking a full reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act for political reasons, as the

White House stepped up an aggressive campaign to defend the president’s terrorism-fighting authority.

“For partisan reasons, in

my mind, people have not stepped up,” Bush told reporters, with 19 federal prosecutors by his side. “The enemy has not gone away;

they’re still there, and I expect Congress to understand that we’re still at war and they’ve got to give us the tools necessary to win

this war.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, speaking to reporters earlier in the day, said Senate Democrats are simply doing

the bidding of liberal special interest groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the broad surveillance power

authorized by the act. Democrats are trying to “appease” the ACLU “because they want to weaken and undermine the Patriot Act,” McClellan

said. …

Adopting campaign-style tactics, Bush and his aides plan to accuse Democrats of jeopardizing national security to

further their political agenda, a tack that worked well for the White House in the 2002 and 2004 elections. But the political environment

is different now, with Bush less popular and Democrats better organized in opposition.

Secret Surveillance May Have Occurred Before Authorization By

Dafna Linzer

Even before the White House formally authorized a secret program to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining warrants,

such eavesdropping was occurring and some of the information was being shared with the FBI, declassified correspondence and interviews

with congressional and intelligence officials indicate.