This social season led

us out a second night in a row, this time to the annual Bill of Rights Dinner for the ACLU in New

Mexico, for whom I am the webmaster.

A few hundred folks gathered in a large room at the Hotel Albuquerque at Old Town

(formerly the Old Town Sheraton). For many, it was a chance to see old friends seldom seen otherwise. The crowd was more old than young,

but less so than at a PBS fund-raising concert. It was a drastically white crowd, hovered over by a largely Spanish-speaking wait-crew.

Some may have been drawn specifically by Phil Donahue, whom we can blame for starting the whole day-time talk(back) show concept.

Like it or not, Phil’s love-child is Jerry Springer or, shudder, Tyra B(l)anks.

But, what do you know, an old white guy who

frequently references his Catholicism opposes the corporate takeover of America with the assistance of the Army of God, the Radical

Religious Right. A guy who must have enriched more than one corporation finds himself shutdown for speaking up. If the Right can revere a

spoiled, failed faux-Texan, it’s no worse that the Left might support a daytime talk show host. Only in AmeriCo.

I appreciated

hearing that his first guest 40 years ago was Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist’s messiah (sorry, that would only

irritate her). It was good to be reminded that 50 years ago the ACLU supported Jehovah’s Witnesses who refused to pledge allegiance to America. Between Supreme

Court decisions against and in favor of the abstainers, Jehovah’s Withnesses were beaten, scorned, and churches burned. Finally, the

Supreme Court decided that under the Federal Constitution, compulsion is not a permissible means of achieving “national unity.” These

days, Fox News does the job.

Court Decisions – West Virginia State Board of

Education v. Barnette

Symbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas. The use of an emblem or flag to

symbolize some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a short cut from mind to mind. Causes and nations, political parties, lodges

and ecclesiastical groups seek to knit the loyalty of their followings to a flag or banner, a color or design.

The State announces

rank, function, and authority through crowns and maces, uniforms and black robes; the church speaks through the Cross, the Crucifix, the

altar and shrine, and clerical raiment. Symbols of State often convey political ideas just as religious symbols come to convey

theological ones.

Associated with many of these symbols are appropriate gestures of acceptance or respect: a salute, a bowed or

bared head, a bended knee. A person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man’s comfort and

inspiration is another’s jest and scorn.

O, the times they keep a changin’.

I was particularly touched by Donahue’s observation that he used to wonder how we could have rounded up Japanese Americans for

internment but now understands how fear drives us to do our worst, drawing an apt parallel. I hope he was wrong in believing things will

get much worse — I take hope from seeing so many of BushCo’s excesses challenged by the left and right. mjh

Court Decisions – Religious Freedom Page

FIRST AMENDMENT CYBER-TRIBUNE

Capitol Hill Blue: Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a

goddamned piece of paper’

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could

further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the

Supreme Court.

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr.

President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I’ve

talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the

Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.”

Well,

millions like me have been branded “the worst elements in our culture” by the self-righteous Wm Donohue, a notorious bigot. And notice

Duhbya isn’t born-again enough to satisfy some. I hope the Radical Religious Right get so disgusted they don’t ever leave home again.

But, seriously, I’m delighted to have the festive season disturbed by these ogres. The louder they bray like asses the more they

undermine their efforts to establish the Christian Republic of America.

Happy Holidays, everyone! peace, mjh

‘Holiday’ Cards Ring Hollow for Some on Bushes’ List By Alan Cooperman,

Washington Post Staff Writer

[S]ome conservative Christians are reacting as if Bush stuck coal in their stockings.

“This

clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in

our culture,” said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Bush “claims to be a

born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn’t act like one,” said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site

WorldNetDaily.com. “I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it.” …

“Ninety-six percent of Americans celebrate

Christmas,” Donohue said. “Spare me the diversity lecture.”…

Mary Evans Seeley of Tampa, Fla., author of

“Season’s Greetings From the White House,” said the first president to send out true Christmas cards, as opposed to signed photographs

or handwritten letters, was Franklin D. Roosevelt. “Merry Christmas From the President and Mrs. Roosevelt,” said his first annual card,

in 1933. …

[mjh: Alert the Right: Roosevelt was the first to send out true Christmas cards! Time for all

conservatives to oppose the sending of Christmas cards!]

Seeley dates the politicization of the White House Christmas card

to Richard M. Nixon, who increased the number of recipients tenfold, to 40,000, in his first year. …

Ronald and Nancy Reagan,

similarly, began with a “Joyous Christmas” in 1981 and 1982 but doled out generic holiday wishes from 1983 to 1988.

mjh’s blog — Merry (insert

greeting here)

Of course,

no one can be shocked that BushCo pays for good news. However, it is getting harder to accept their claims that they are “shocked” by

behavior that is clearly inspired by the highest ranks. BushCo is full of PR and advertising flunkies. What’s shocking is how bad they

are at their jobs. mjh

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News By Josh White and

Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writers

The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that

it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a

legitimate campaign to counter insurgents’ misinformation.

In a statement, the command said the program included efforts,

“customary in Iraq,” to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested

that the “information operations” program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in

Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive

accounts. …

Officials said one unanswered question they have is whether the Lincoln Group intentionally misled newspapers by

presenting the articles as freelance journalism, obscuring the fact that the material came from U.S. armed forces.
—–

Press Briefing by

Scott McClellan

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we’ve seen the reports. We first learned about it when we saw the reports yesterday….

Q But this administration also has a history of having some questions made about paying columnists and having packaged news made

available.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President made very clear what his views were on those issues, and some of the practices

that had occurred were stopped, and steps were taken to prevent that from happening again.
—–

class="mine">Remember Armstrong Williams, one of many people paid by BushCo to sell the administration’s view? mjh

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Government Control of the Media

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Fox in the Chicken

Coop

Muted Support for GOP Change Grows By Jonathan Weisman,

Washington Post Staff Writer

Amid Scandals, Some Republicans Push to Permanently Replace DeLay as Leader

Abramoff’s

interactions with DeLay and his staff — including lavish trips to the Northern Mariana Islands and the famed golf course of St. Andrews,

Scotland — has created considerable trepidation among rank-and-file lawmakers, House members and GOP aides say.

In addition,

DeLay was ferried three times in 2003 and 2004 on corporate jets owned by the company of Brent Wilkes, a California defense

contractor who allegedly made illicit payments to Cunningham in exchange for legislative favors. Neither DeLay nor the company

has disclosed the purpose or destination of the trips, which were billed to one of DeLay’s PACs at a commercial flight rate as permitted

under election law.

“The Scanlon thing, the Cunningham thing, I think you have more people waiting for the other shoe to drop,”

said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Justice Department investigators are trying to link campaign contributions to official legislative

actions. Nobody knows how wide a net the investigators will cast, a DeLay adviser conceded. Such charges of quid pro quo are extremely

difficult to prove but very easy to level, in light of the large amounts of lobbyist money sloshing around Capitol Hill.

Even if

DeLay is never implicated, his return to the majority leader’s post would create political “havoc,” said one Republican House member,

who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The lawmaker pointed to DeLay’s decision in October to fly to Texas ahead of his first

courtroom appearance aboard a corporate jet owned by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

“The fact that he flew down on a corporate

jet for his mug shot, and not just any corporate jet but Big Tobacco’s corporate jet, that’s a double whammy,” the lawmaker said. “A

number of my colleagues say he just doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand how this plays.”

site:www.mjhinton.com DeLay – Google Search

You probably already know

about Congressman Richard W. Pombo’s (R-CA) efforts to “modernize” the ridiculously outdated 1872 Mining Patents Act. Many people agree this act does not

charge enough for the resources one can grab through it. So, to his credit, Pombo wants to charge more — up to $1000 / acre, instead of

pennies — though probably not what the minerals or land are really worth.

My gripe is the underlying assumption — widely held in

the GOP — that the public should own less land. They regularly sneer at all the land “the government owns.” Wrong! You and I own that

land and it serves many uses, including just sitting there for the hell of it. It is neither necessary nor healthy to require every acre

of the earth to belong to someone and “produce” something.

Read through these 4 articles (two by the same author); the third one

attempts to refute the concerns raised by the others.

Our own Saint Pete may be a key player here. Let him know what you think

about this. mjh

Write Your Representative – Contact your Congressperson in the U.S.

House of Representatives.

U.S. Senate: Senators Home
—–

ABQjournal: Plan for Selling Public Lands Worries Govs. By Jennifer

Talhelm, The Associated Press

Six Western governors, including New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, and a growing number of senators say

they fear a congressional plan allowing the sale of millions of acres of public lands could do permanent harm to everything from

agriculture and the environment to the ski industry.

“It’s got implications for hunters, sportsmen, people who use lands for

grazing and basically anybody who uses public lands,” said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard, one of a

handful of Republican senators expressing concern about the proposal.
—–

House Stealth Measure Sells Off Public Lands BY

MIKE DOMBECK AND JACK WARD THOMAS, Former chiefs, U.S. Forest Service

Sometime around 1 a.m. Nov. 18, the House of Representatives

passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 by a vote of 217-215. Buried in the 680-page
bill was language that lifts an 11-year

moratorium on the patenting, or sale, of public lands to mining companies, and appears to pave the way for the sale of public lands to

mining companies and other development interests for as little as $1,000 per acre.

These public lands are a birthright that

should not be gambled on legislation passed in the dark of the night with an essential absence of any public notice or scrutiny. …

There are few decisions that Congress makes that have irreversible consequences. Selling off our public land legacy is one that does.

…

Some believe that something so valuable should not be owned by all U.S. citizens but should instead be devolved into other

ownership or corporate control. To be certain, it is the prerogative of members of Congress to change laws as they see fit in the best

interest of their constituents. And it is our duty as citizens to ensure they know our views before they vote. Legislation that has the

potential to remove public lands from public hands should only be brought to a vote after a full and vigorous debate. …

But that

debate, and the debates to follow, can and will occur only so long as public lands remain in public ownership. Within the next few weeks,

the public land sales provisions that passed the House of Representatives will be considered in a conference between the Senate and the

House. Members should be urged to strip out the provisions of the House-passed bill that allows for the sale of our public lands — the

heritage of future generations. Then, by all means, let the debate relative to the provisions of the 1872 Mining Act began in the full

light of public scrutiny.
—–

New land rush? Not so fast! by Editor Hering

First,

the person must hold a valid mining claim open to actual mining, having completed all the required state and federal paperwork. Then the

claim must be contiguous to claims where mining has been or is being done. And finally mining on the claim itself must be taking place.

The committee sums things up by citing as fiction: “Real estate speculators, oil and gas companies, foreign mining corporations

or anyone who is willing to pay as little as $1,000 per acre could buy the land and develop it any way they wanted.”

“The

statement,” the committee answers, “fails to pass the laugh test. Unless real estate speculators, oil and gas companies and the like want

to enter the mining industry and begin staking mining claims and developing hardrock minerals, they would not qualify under the

provisions of this bill to purchase lands.”

If you want more or to check yourself, be my guest. The site is resourcescommittee.house.gov.

A few things about the

preceding defense of the proposed changes. First, how many times have we heard “trust us” only to find out later that, oops, we didn’t

realize this might happen. Second, what an odd tone from a congressional committee — the “laugh test”?! Sounds like it was written by

some corporation that has spent millions already and has no intention of letting anything spoil the deal. Finally, if this is such a

noble effort, why is it buried in a 600+ page budget bill? mjh

—–

Greedy

grab for public land

There are plenty of examples of how companies have used the 1872 mining law to get their hands on public

resources. In 1970, Frank Melluzzo “patented” — bought — public land near Phoenix for $150. Ten years later, he sold it for more than

$400,000. Today, the Pointe Hilton Hotel in Phoenix sits on this mining claim. …

Now a few folks in Congress want to turn back

the clock. The results of these policies will be a fleecing of taxpayers and a cheating of future generations of public land.

Roosevelt said: “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased, and not impaired, in value.”