Mikael of ImpeachforPeace Empowering citizens to hold our elected (or otherwise in power) servants accountable

Ann Coulter is often touted by the neo-conservative Republican Christian Right as a respectable spokesperson for their views. I just read an interview with her which I link below and then respond to. My thoughts and musings are added in parenthesis’. I edited out a few of the exchanges and changed a couple of her parenthesis’ into commas to keep my thoughts clearly separate. I include a link to the original article as a comparative resource:

Church Militant: Ann Coulter on God, Faith, and Liberals

BeliefNet.com Interview with Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, a constitutional lawyer turned conservative pundit, makes her living saying outrageous things about what she deems the outrages of the left. She is the author of five best-selling liberal-bashing books, including her latest, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” in which she argues that liberalism is a form of atheistic religion. Beliefnet editor Charlotte Allen recently interviewed Coulter via email.

You title your book “Godless.” Are all liberals atheists?

No, but it increases the odds. (Source, links Ann?)

What portion of liberals would you say are religious in the more conventional sense of the word: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, even Wiccans?

Hmmm, so you consider Wiccans “religious… in the conventional sense”? That would definitely get liberals’ numbers up! I’d have no way of knowing (that would require research), but make no mistake: Liberals are everywhere, in every religion, denomination and spiritual practice–especially Wiccans! (That’ll play well in inspiring fear and loathing among the uneducated, red state voters).

We’ve done some polls here at Beliefnet, and a surprising number of Democrats at least say they are religious. Some 61 percent say they pray daily and 72 percent attend worship services once a month or more. How would you explain that?

Just curious: What percentage of them know which Testament the Book of Job is in? (It is in the Old Testament. Coulter asks a question as a baseless accusation, without any statistical link or traceable source).

When you say that most liberals don’t believe in God, what is your evidence? According to a Fox News poll last year, 92 percent of Americans believe in God. And nearly half of Americans voted Democratic in the 2004 election. So doesn’t that suggest that most liberals do believe in God?

First let me say that I think it’s terrific to hear a journalist citing a Fox News poll as authoritative evidence and would like to encourage this development (as would all loyal Neo-con propagandists more interested in their agenda being pushed forth than actual fact-based journalism). I don’t say “most liberals don’t believe in God”; I say liberalism is a godless religion. Some liberals don’t understand the underlying religious dogma and principles of liberalism–if they did, they would flee the building.

You write: “Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul.” (I am a politically progressive christian who believes in each human being possessing an immortal soul. I state this inclusively of men and women, although Ms. Coulter does give me just pause to reconsider my own beliefs) Yet our Beliefnet polls show that 58.7% of Democrats believe in life after death. Doesn’t that disprove your statement?

No, I think it proves it–58.7% of all Democrats? That’s pathetic. (Anyone who disagrees with Ms. Coulter is considered “pathetic” from her perspective) Also, you forgot to ask them the follow-up question: Is that because you hope to come back as a snail darter?

Will most liberals go to hell or heaven?

I really can’t improve on Jesus’ words: “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” (How clear is the hypocrisy of “christian” Ann Coulter being lockstep supportive without question of an administration that openly condones the use of torture and denying detainees and prisoners of war their Geneva Convention and Nuremberg Principles protections? Jesus of Nazareth, whose country was occupied by a foreign power, was arrested in the middle of the night, taken away from friends and family, rendered from place to place, tried without being afforded due process in line with the laws of his own country nor the laws of his occupiers, convicted, tortured, publicly shamed and put to death. Who would Jesus torture, Ann?)

You cite opposition to the death penalty as a key tenet of the Church of Liberalism. Yet Pope John Paul II stated that the death penalty should be rarely, if ever, applied: only “in cases of absolute necessity.” How do you square this with your assertion that “adoration of violent criminals” is the main factor behind opposition to the death penalty?

I agree with the pope. I also believe that it is an “absolute necessity” to execute cold-blooded murderers (Does that include 9/11 insider conspirators as well as those whose policies are leading to torturing detainees to death and whose pre-war lies led to hundreds of thousands of innocent lives being lost for their profits and the profits of their cronies?) and, rapists, and child molesters. (Does that include any of the following Republicans, Ann, or just “liberal perpetrators”?:

Republican Sex Scandals

or those who let Jack Abramoff pay for travel overseas to the Marianas Islands in order to have sex with underage prostitutes? :

Conrad Burns Pulled Closer into Abramoff Probe)

As your own question indicates, opposition to the death penalty is not a “key tenet” of even Catholicism. That would be a difficult position to maintain inasmuch as God himself commanded the Israelites to go to certain cities and kill every living thing. If memory serves, the pope was also opposed to abortion. Liberals are not. (Not even close to universally true, actually. Very few Americans, liberal or otherwise, believe in abortion-upon-demand without restrictions. Very few Americans support a comprehensive abortion ban either.) How would you explain opposition to the death penalty for heinous murderers, but not for innocent children? (Ummm… I am opposed to the death penalty for heinous murderers as well as opposed to the death penalty for innocent children… You might want to re-write this paragraph Ann).

You say that the Episcopal Church is “barely even a church.” Why?

Because it’s become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video. (Another completely unsubstantiated, stridently specious and grossly inaccurate smear – the Coulter specialty).

Are churches that don’t agree with your politics or religious beliefs not really churches?

Correct: They’re called “mosques.” (Which are most often filled with brown-skinned people who hold different beliefs than Ms. Coulter, reasons to merit death by any means in CoulterWorld).

Actually, the answer to that question is contained in what those in the publishing industry refer to as the “title” of my book, which is: “Godless: The CHURCH of Liberalism.” (Anyone who doesn’t agree with Ms. Coulter’s radical opinions is “godless” in her mind. It is indeed a narrow door. I would propose that the judgmentally intolerant might have a tough time squeezing through.)

In a footnote, you say: “Throughout this book I often refer to Christian and Christianity…but the term is intended to include anyone who subscribes to the Bible of the God of Abraham, including Jews and others.” Isn’t it odd to define “Christians” as including people who are Jewish?

Yes, that would be very odd, but I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m not defining Christians as Jews or Jews as Christians or zebras as elephants. I’m informing the reader that when I use the term “Christian,” I am using it to include anyone who believes in the God of Abraham because it got a little wordy to keep saying “Christians, Jews and anyone else who believes in the God of Abraham” throughout the book. I don’t know how that could be any clearer. If everyone who believed in the God of Abraham were a Christian, I wouldn’t have needed the footnote. (She adamantly states that she is not mixing christians with jews and then immediately attempts to explain and justify why she did it. The denial/justification isn’t just eerie and odd, it seems indicative of a deep-seated confusion bordering on mental illness. If she wanted to be more clear, she would have made a consistent distinction between “christians” and “jews”. Of course, linking Neo-con Republican christians with jews plays well with the Zionistic and militarily imperialistic political forces whom she serves over and above the patriotism and devotion to God that she gives lip service to. Oh, and by the way, Ann… muslims also are considered part of the “Abrahamic tradition” because they are among those who believe in the God of Abraham.)

And don’t many people whom you would classify as belonging to the Church of Liberalism define themselves as Christian or Jewish? Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Michael Lerner of Tikkun claim to be applying authentic Christian and Jewish theology to political and social questions. Are such people not really Christians or Jews?

Yes, the percentage of liberals who define themselves as practicing Christians or Jews goes up in direct proportion to their proximity to elective office. (Neither Jim Wallis nor Michael Lerner hold political office, are seeking political office nor are they closely linked to anyone holding or seeking political office to my knowledge. How many times has Ms. Coulter visited the White House or met with Bush Administration officials?)

Tikkun (Rabbi Michael Lerner)

Sojourners (Pastor Jim Wallis)

I cannot speak to individual cases–only God knows who is truly following Him–but claiming to be Jewish or Christian doesn’t immunize one from bad ideologies. (AMEN, SISTER!!!) Some slaveholders claimed to be Christians, too. (As do many of those those who are fighting to keep the right to hire Mexicans at “slave wages” at the expense of American workers and are attacking Unions across America – hell bent on taking worker’s rights back a hundred years) Howard Dean, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry all belong to a church that believes it’s okay to stick a fork in a baby’s head. (Link? Source? Cite?) To the extent one is practicing liberalism, one is not practicing the religion of our Father. (One and one is two. Two and two are four, ergo sum… everyone who disagrees with me, Ann Coulter, is the anti-Christ).

Is it possible to be a good Christian and sincerely believe, as Jim Wallis does, that a bigger welfare state and higher taxes to fund it is the best way in a complex modern society for us to fulfill our Gospel obligation to help the poor?

It’s possible, but not likely. Confiscatory taxation enforced by threat of imprisonment is “stealing,” a practice strongly frowned upon by our Creator. (Anyone found guilty of tax evasion in America risks imprisonment. So all taxation is godless, Ann? The IRS is “of the beast?”) If all Christians and Jews tithed their income as the Bible commands, every poor person would be cared for, every naked person clothed and every hungry person fed. Read Marvin Olasky’s “The Tragedy Of American Compassion” for further discussion of this. (We might actually have something we agree on. I would be curious to see research into the tithing habits of Republican christians and Democratic christians. This would be tough with the wealthiest as so much is hidden from public eye and so many accountants play “cup and balls” magic tricks with their client’s finances).

You devote four of your eleven chapters to evolution, and say that Darwin’s theory of evolution is “about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor.” So what do you think really happened? Did God create the world in six days? Did he create each species separately? Did he set a chain of causation in motion? Did he “cause” evolution in the sense that all the species are related to each other but God guided their descent?

These are unanswerable questions–except the latter. (NEWSFLASH!!! Ann Coulter labels as “unanswerable” questions about the veracity of Exodus 20:11!!!: “…for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day …”) God did not “cause” evolution because evolution doesn’t exist. (There is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study to my knowledge that questions the existence of intra-species evolution. Animals evolve over time inside of their own species. That is a universally accepted scientific fact proven many times over in many studies of many species. Inter-species evolution, in which the DNA of one species transforms into a new DNA conformation, such as ape-ape-ape-human, is the one that is questioned, debated and challenged in the scientific community. There does not exist, to my knowledge, scientific confirmation of this ever having taken place.) Thus, for example, He also didn’t “cause” unicorns. (OUCH!!! conversation whiplash!!! Where the heck did THAT come from??!?!?) My faith and reason tell me that God created the world and I’m not particularly interested in the details. (Those darn facts are so problematic, aren’t they Ann?) I’ll find out when I meet my Maker. (By your own “death sentence” measure, if held accountable for your aiding and abetting this administration’s multiple war crimes and misdemeanors, that will come sooner rather than later and may be permanent in its effect on your soul).

Can there be such a thing as “intelligent design” without a divine designer?

Yes–you should read my book! (NEWSFLASH!!! ANN COULTER CLAIMS CREATION MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CREATOR!!!!) As I describe in my book, Cambridge astrophysicists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as well as Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, didn’t believe in God, but realized Darwin’s theory was a crock. (I am not immediately familiar with their work, but I strongly doubt that they used the word “crock” in their scientific critique of Darwin’s work.)

Many arguments in favor of Darwinian evolution strike me as actually being arguments against the existence of God–that is, why would a creator create tapeworms, disease viruses, and other bad things? Why do you think such things exist in a world of intelligent design?

Your question is incomprehensible. I assume you are trying to ask me: “Why would God create tapeworms?”

My answer is: God also created mosquitoes, which I hate. But purple martins love mosquitoes and would probably all starve without them. It’s kind of a “big picture” thing. Of course that doesn’t explain why He created Michael Moore. (Cheap shot… but at least she didn’t call him “fat”‘ this time. “Judgment is mine, sayeth Ann Coulter” ~Coulter 9:11) For that, I have no explanation. My guess is that disease, pestilence, and Michael Moore are all perversions of the good that God created, a result of sin entering the world through Adam and Eve. (Ms. Coulter appears to hold a canonical belief in the inerrant, literal truth of Genesis and the rest of the bible with the striking exception of Exodus).

While I agree with you that the “Jersey Girls” turned themselves into political opportunists, one of your statements about them does strike me as over the top: “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” By contrast, you admit the genuine nature of Cindy Sheehan’s grief, even though you’re pretty hard on her–and you haven’t been criticized for what you said about her. Is there anything you’ve said about the 9/11 widows that you wish you hadn’t said?

(She ignores the first question question completely. Apparently she is happy to live with her quote “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” regarding American citizens who dare to insist that they have a right to know the whole truth from our “public servants” about why their husbands died in 9/11 in an attack on the World Trade Center Towers.)

Well as long as you bring it up, I think Cindy Sheehan is enjoying the celebrity status her son’s death afforded her too. Thanks for pointing that out–I’ll correct it in the paperback edition.

(Is there no end to Ann Coulter’s lack of compassion?)

You make fun of journalists who predicted that AIDS would become a heterosexual threat: “It’s been twenty years, and we’re still waiting for that heterosexual outbreak.” While it’s true that here in the U.S., AIDS is an overwhelmingly gay disease – about 80 percent – that’s not so true worldwide, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 40 percent, perhaps up to 48 percent, of those with HIV are women, according to U.N. figures. What do you make of that?

(One million Americans are living with HIV and 40,000 new infections happen each year. Twenty percent of that would be 200,000 heterosexuals living with HIV and 2,000 newly infected heterosexuals per year. What is the definition of “outbreak”? The Bush Administration/FoxNews pushes for us to be afraid of anthrax? Bird Flu? Mad Cow Disease? How many cases of each of those have been confirmed? Shall we bother Ann with that darned “truthiness” again?):

Until There’s a Cure

Same lie, different continent–with the same evil consequence: Millions of lives being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. Could we get back to Fox News polls and dispense with U.N. studies? (That darn truth having a definite liberal bias again, Ann?) AIDS is overwhelmingly spread by anal intercourse and dirty needles. In the U.S., dirty needles come mostly from junkies; in Africa, dirty needles come from medical workers. See, e.g.:

Craig Timberg, How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated, Washington Post
Michael Fumento, Why Is HIV So Prevalent in Africa
Michael Fumento, The African Heterosexual AIDS Myth
By the way, those journalists I make fun of were talking about AIDS in the U.S. So the above information is merely for your edification.

(And as a distraction from the point at hand, perhaps? Why are the only links she provides in an entire e-mail interview exchange not “on point”?)

You say: “The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind.” (Another statement she allows to stand by. Can anyone really continue to believe this is a rational human being?) But in February the National Association of Evangelicals, including such signers as Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Chuck Colson, etc., issued a statement urging Christian stewardship of the environment, “creation care,” and so forth. Are these people godless liberals who hate mankind?

Of course not–but I’m beginning to suspect you are. As Dobson and Colson say: God asks us to be good stewards–a statement that presupposes we are stewards of the plants and the animals, they are not stewards of us, as liberals prefer. (One more ridiculous statement with no substantiation. It is purely divisive, baseless, hateful crap. She would be laughed out of any decent graduate school classroom.) We are commanded to worship the Creator of the environment, not the environment. As Jesus said, we are of “more value than many sparrows” – Matthew 10:21.

You say you’re a Christian. Do you think Jesus would want you to be nicer to your political opponents?

Who knows? (Should I even bother to begin quoting scripture here? Not only does Ms. Coulter ignore and deny any scientific fact that gets in the way of her baseless and calcified opinions, she selectively edits scripture that might challenge her to be more like Jesus Christ and less like Andrew Dice Clay.) Maybe He’ll say I was too tough or maybe He’ll chastise me for not being tough enough on those who hate Him. (Jesus’ final recorded words on the subject: “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”) Ask the money-changers in the temple how “nice” Jesus was. (One single example in which Jesus physically turned over tables of those who had set up profit-ventures in the temple of worship. Jesus definitely had strong opinions about those who mix profiteering with religion. How is the ‘spreading hatred in the name of Christ’ business going for you, Ann? Selling lots of books?) Maybe He’ll say I needed more jokes or fewer adjectives. I’ll just apologize for not getting it right and thank him for dying for my sins. (The classic evangelical “salvation switch” theological perversion in which everything is promised to be forgiven so any behavior can be justified).

If the Church of Liberalism lets you do anything you want, why do you think the divorce rate is higher in red states than in the godless blue states?

Assuming that’s true, probably because marriage is more popular in the red states than in the blue states and because of all the blue-staters living in the red states. (Interesting hypothesis. I won’t hold my breath waiting for her to back up this pipe dream with any facts or links or sources or statistics.)

Is it important to you as a woman to be standing up for positions that many people, especially liberals, think are unrepresentative of women: opposing abortion, favoring the death penalty, and so forth?

The answer to any question beginning “Is it important to you as a woman” is: No. It’s important to me as a Christian and an American to take the positions I take, but I would hold the same positions if I were a man. And by the way, despite your nearly mystical fascination with polls in earlier questions, you have apparently not brushed up on the abortion polls if you think opposition to abortion is “unrepresentative of women.” No matter who takes the poll or how the questions are asked, women almost always oppose abortion more than men do. Abortion is a convenience for men who want to be able to have sex with women without consequence. Women love and protect children.

(Men bad. Women good. Ann Coulter was never more real than with those last two statements. I’ll pay for the counseling Ann, please, just go… work out your hatred for half the human race.)

Godless men–like Herod in Jesus’ time, the Pharaoh in Moses’ time, and Bill Clinton in our time–target babies for destruction.

(White phospherous bombs target babies for destruction. Apparently babies that live near oil fields and pipelines are especially guilty and must be put to death indescriminantly by the Rumsfeld/Bush war machine. Godless men such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush target babies for destruction daily, aided and abetted by God-less women such as Condoleezza Rice and Ann Coulter.)

As a woman, do you long for that source of great fulfillment for many women: a husband, a family? Or do you see your life’s vocation as primarily in the public arena?

As a journalist, do you long to have a sense of decorum? Or do you see your life’s vocation as primarily asking strangers utterly inappropriate personal questions?

(Oooooohhhhhh… touched a nerve there, didn’t she? I didn’t see that as a particularly invasive question. Am I wrong? When I am asked why I am not married in public, I do not feel threatened, nor do I get instantly defensive.)

I found your book enormously entertaining. But when I finished, I asked myself: What was the point of this book? What would you say the point of “Godless” is?

It is a clarion call, a flashing neon sign warning people that liberalism is the opposition party to God. And by the way, I had the same reaction the first time I read the Bible: Sure, it’s fascinating and wise and full of important information, but what was the point of it exactly?

(In Ann Coulter’s mind, Bible = Ann Coulter’s book)

What does it mean to be a good Christian, and do you consider yourself to be a good Christian?

To believe with all your heart at every moment that God loved a wretch like you so much that he sent his only son to die for your sins. Most of the time, I’m an extraordinarily good Christian. (Wow. Quite a statement. Sounds like most of the time, she doesn’t need a saviour.)

What’s your favorite Bible verse, if you have one, besides “By their fruits you shall know them”?

I don’t have a favorite, they’re all pretty good. Among some I like are:
So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. (So there is hope for the Jersey Girls that they will get from God what has been refused to them from the Bush Administration?) What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. – Matthew 10: 26-28

Do you have a favorite prayer?

Yes, as our Creator taught us: “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name…” and so on.

(Yes, Lord… Deliver us from evil… www.ImpeachforPeace.org)

A five minute documentary video of the State of the Union protest in Minneapolis on Groundhog’s Day, January 31st, 2006 at which I met Jodin, Dave and D.L. Corvin, now all foundational members of our chapter in Minneapolis. They are the original three at the Federal Building in the video clowning around before the guy with the long straight hair shows up. It was about 12 degrees and blustery cold as those who know the Upper Midwest can relate to.

I read about the protest on the World Can’t Wait web site and can be seen standing closest to Jodin on a “grassy knoll” as he speaks through a megaphone later in the video toward the end of the “Say Goodbye” song overlay:

Drowning Out the Lies

A FAUXNews van came, set up a camera, videotaped the bunch and likely sent the video directly to Homeland Security as it never showed up on television that I heard about.

Condoleezza, Condoleezza, the family made you
You’re so unlike the lady, wraith agenda vile
Is it only ’cause you’re lying about Plame, you?
Or that Condoleezza strangeness in your smile?

Do you smile to hide a guile, Condoleezza?
Smoking gun a mushroom cloud of fantasy?
9/11 secrets have been brought to your doorstep
You just lie there and truth dies there
Are you warm, are you real, Condoleezza?
Or just a cold and lonely kelpie piece of work?

…

Do you smile to hide the treason, Condoleezza?
Human shield facade for tyranny?
Downing Street secrets have been brought to your doorstep
You just lie there and soldiers die there
Apparition, what’s your mission, Condoleezza?
I could swear you are a chimera, Faustian piece of art.

Condoleezza, Condoleezza

The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the Bush Administration’s claim that defining Guantanamo Bay detainees as “enemy combatants” justified denying them legal protections and due process as specified under Geneva Convention Accords and Nuremberg Principles.

What isn’t being widely discussed is that this decision makes perfectly clear that the way these detainees have been treated since they were first sent there in early 2002 (Washington Post: January 9, 2002) constitutes a four year trail of systematic war crimes being planned, encouraged, supported and carried out by the President and members of his cabinet, members of the Pentagon’s top brass and on down the military chain of command to individual American soldiers. This in addition to the following Alternet story which reveals that:

A former Nuremberg trials chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying President George W. Bush for the ‘supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.’:

AlterNet: War on Iraq: Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

While I am thrilled by this recent Supreme Court decision, it is deeply disturbing that the vote wasn’t unanimous. It was 5-3, with Chief Justice Roberts recusing himself due to his involvement in an earlier lower court decision in the same case in which he made clear that his vote would have joined the minority.

We are one “Ken Lay heart attack” away, one “Paul Wellstone plane crash” away from Bush appointing one more radical conservative jurist to the Supreme Court, clearing the way for the American Executive Branch being given a green light to resume enacting and enforcing policies for which German and Japanese soldiers and politicians were indicted, convicted and executed after World War II.

From “The Call” on the first page of the web site of World Can’t Wait–Drive Out the Bush Regime! of which ImpeachforPeace.org is the Minneapolis chapter:

“People look at all this and think of Hitler — and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.”

Are you going to act now or stand on the sidelines and watch?

For my birthday in June a friend gave me a wonderful gift: my very first ever remote-controlled airplane. I quickly christened it “The Wellstone” and each and every day since I have gone outdoors with it at least once, twice or even three times to resume my childhood. This Independence Day afternoon was no exception, despite the strong and gusty wind. It should have been no surprise then that it eventually caught an updraft and then a nor’wester, soaring up, up hundreds of feet and away on the way toward Lake Nokomis, or perhaps it had begun seeking clearance for an emergency landing at MSP airport just a bit further south. It was a beautiful sight, flying freely many times higher and farther away than it had ever flown before until, on a dead run, I lost sight of it beyond the treetops. I searched for half an hour over a three city block square through alleys and roadways, looking in yards and in trees and on rooftops, but to no avail.

I lost a good friend and a mentor yesterday.

With his wife Lynda, Jesse Smith was the co-franchisee of the Arthur Murray Edina studio where I first studied ballroom dance and worked for seven years. His 3 1/2 year struggle with Hodgkins Disease ended in peace yesterday morning at home with family. Jesse is also survived by his young son Dayton and his even younger daughter Elyse, both very early into their educational years.

As professional ballroom competitive partners, Jesse and Lynda were American Nine Dance Champions for consecutive years before they were married, having met when Jesse came to work at the studio Lynda owned as a skinny 19 year-old with immense talent and potential and a radiant, magnetic and extremely good-natured presence.

He was an internationally reknowned coach and judge, known as the gracious “Golden Boy” of Arthur Murray franchisees. He was universally well-liked, well-respected and admired.

For me, more importantly, he was magnanimously generous of spirit, of intelligence, of humor and especially generous of his knowledge and talents, spending countless hours training, teaching and coaching his staff before, during and after regular business hours.

Jesse (far left) with his staff in the winter of 2004:

I have only one e-mail in my mail book from Jesse and it is in response to my e-mail announcement that I was forming a Minneapolis chapter of World Can’t Wait–Drive Out the Bush Regime!, which led to this blog’s creation. Here is Jesse’s e-mail in its entirety:

~~~
Mikael,

I have read your recent e-mail and I applaud your initiative in opposing the hypocrisy of our administration. I hope you had a successful meeting. Have you read the “Memo” article by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker Magazine? It is about the General Counsel of the Navy’s attempts to end the abuses at Gitmo and how he was brushed off by the people in the highest levels of the administration. It is on their website and worth the read. Sounds like you not only bought your new house, but have moved in-that’s great.
Again, good luck with your chapter and keep me informed.

Best,
Jesse
~~~

Jesse taught me a lot. This has become his final message to me. I am passing his gift on to you:

“THE MEMO” by JANE MAYER – How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted.

It reads, in part:

~~~
The day after (outgoing general counsel of the U. S. Navy Albert J.) Mora’s first meeting with (former head of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service David) Brant, they met again, and Brant showed him parts of the transcript of (detainee) Qahtani’s (Guantanamo Bay) interrogation. Mora was shocked when Brant told him that the abuse wasn’t “rogue activity” but was “rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.” The mood in the room, Mora wrote, was one of “dismay.” He added, “I was under the opinion that the interrogation activities described would be unlawful and unworthy of the military services.” Mora told me, “I was appalled by the whole thing. It was clearly abusive, and it was clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values.”
Mora thinks that the media has focussed (sic) too narrowly on allegations of U.S.-sanctioned torture. As he sees it, the authorization of cruelty is equally pernicious. “To my mind, there’s no moral or practical distinction,” he told me. “If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It’s a transformative issue.”
~~~

“…opposing the hypocrisy of this administration…” is a transformative issue as well. I dedicate and re-commit my ongoing efforts toward this end to the memory of my friend and mentor Jesse Smith.

Eventually I resigned myself to budgeting for the replacement purchase of my plane. I had been thinking about buying one for Dayton anyway. I headed for home up the very alleyway I had first run down as it disappeared. Laying on its back smack dab in the middle of the alley was my plane.

Star Tribune Obituary

For an excellent, albeit gentle and somewhat “iceberg tip only” 90 minute glimpse into the Bush Administration’s covert journey from 9/11 through the invasion of Iraq, take the time to view online:

“The Dark Side” from PBS’ Frontline

Much of the focus of this PBS documentary is on the power struggle between those in the CIA with the integrity to stick to the facts and the courage to speak truth to power and the Cheney/Rumsfeld-led push to follow through on their shared desire to tie Saddam to Al Qaeda and 9/11 as well as to manufacture a Sadaam WMD threat in order to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. What this story doesn’t make clear is their shared passion, pre-dating 9/11, to gain access to what they consider the Middle East’s strategic resources through Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly eventually the country they flank, Iran:

“The Project for the New American Century.” by William Rivers Ritt

Months into a national propaganda campaign in which PNAC signers Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney as well as then National Security Advisor to the President Condoleeza Rice and then Secretary of State Colin Powell knowingly and willingly used distorted and manufactured Central Intelligence Agency and other security source information in order to convince the country that we must invade Iraq, President George W. Bush spoke these now infamous 16 words to the nation:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

A complete transcript of the January, 2003 State of the Union address

President Bush asked the American people and Congress to trust with absolute certainty information that he knew was shaky at best, and in some cases, he, his Vice President and members of his cabinet knew was conclusively false.

2,538 American flag covered coffins, 18,356 physically crippled soldiers, countless emotionally destroyed soldiers and hopelessly damaged families, between 38,822 and 43,251 confirmed dead Iraqi civilian men, women and children (at the very, very least) and completely destroyed post-9/11 international good-will later…

Iraq Coalition Casualty Count

…isn’t it high time to find out why they lied to us, why they lied to Congress, why they lied to the United Nations and why they lied to the world?

If you take a moment to read the short article by Mr. Ritt linked above, he notes that the PNAC group that has siezed control of our country through the bloodless coup d’etat in the Presidential election of 2000, maintained it through the same shadowy means in 2004 and has no intention of surrendering power in 2008 has some stated goals, including to:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the “International Commons” of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Every one of those things is taking place or has already occurred. “The Dark Side” reveals how they “chilled” the CIA and hints of the transfer of International Intelligence authority from the CIA to their own creation headed by their own people: The Department of Homeland Security, removing one of the strongest checks on their ongoing thrust toward the intended global domination PNAC documents made very clear.

This tightly secretive administration now considers America’s military juggernaut their descretionary personal weapon to utilize toward accomplishing their quest for tightly-controlled world military, economic and political domination.

Despite talk of drawing down the U.S. military presence in Iraq, the construction of permanent bases continues unabated. Every request for more money for “Defense” is rubber-stamped through Congress. Our military budget is $463 billion WITHOUT INCLUDING the $300 billion for the Iraq and Afghan wars and is growing with every budgetary voting session. China is second in the world at $63 billion. The combined military budgets of potential enemy “rogue” states North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba is $13 billion. Our military spending is more than all other nations in the world combined, yet virtually none of that spending has done anything to lessen the real threat of a small WMD being transported across our porous borders and being used against American citizens on our soil.

Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers

They are now slowing turning their rapacious gaze onto a wish to “control the “International Commons” of cyberspace”. We may be one “terrorist attack” away from that happening much more swiftly than we would ever imagine.

Save the Internet

Then again, you may never get a chance to read this post.