The deceit and propaganda which justify both wars are identical, as are the harms they cause

It's a perfect storm. And I'm not talking about the impending dangers facing Democrats. I'm talking about the dangers facing our democracy.

Nothing quite makes neoclassical economists go apoplectic than reading or hearing the argument that an increase in the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment. Just ask David Card and Alan Krueger (here's one example, from Gary Becker).

Those claiming that terrorists don't belong in court -- because some might win -- reject basic American justice

In the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion, the triumphalist verdict of the mainstream media was that the war had been won; Iraq was assured of a benevolent, democratic future. The Times's writer William Rees-Mogg hymned the victory: "April 9, 2003 was Liberty Day for Iraq … It was achieved by "the engine of global liberation," the United States. "After 24 years of oppression, three wars and three weeks of relentless bombing, Baghdad has emerged from an age of darkness. Yesterday was an historic day of liberation."

Andrew Sullivan's defense of President Obama's claimed power to have American citizens assassinated nicely reveals much of the illogic behind, and many of the dangers inherent in, America's Forever War. Let's examine it point by point.

http://mediasanctuary.tv http://www.NationalPeaceConference.org  Renowned linguist and political critic Noam Chomsky delivered this address by pre-recorded video to the attendees of the United National Peace Conference in Albany, New York on July 24, 2010.   Video by Charngchi Way, Authority Smashers Collective http://www.authoritysmashers.wordpress.com Distributed by the United National Peace Conference Media Project, an initiative powered by the Sanctuary for Independent Media and Hudson Mohawk Indymedia Center.

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.) Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze-filled "coffee shops,"

The justifications for Obama's hit list reveal what is missing most from American political thought

A partial defense of Obama's assassination program highlights the corrupted rationale which justifies it

Two new Obama proposals would dramatically expand the government's already vast surveillance powers

When many cynics thought it impossible, the President reaches an all-new low in his abysmal civil liberties record

There are no longer any major institutions in American society, including the press, the educational system, the financial sector, labor unions, the arts, religious institutions and our dysfunctional political parties, which can be considered democratic. The intent, design and function of these institutions, controlled by corporate money, are to bolster the hierarchical and anti-democratic power of the corporate state. These institutions, often mouthing liberal values, abet and perpetuate mounting inequality. They operate increasingly in secrecy. They ignore suffering or sacrifice human lives for profit. They control and manipulate all levers of power and mass communication. They have muzzled the voices and concerns of citizens. They use entertainment, celebrity gossip and emotionally laden public-relations lies to seduce us into believing in a Disneyworld fantasy of democracy.

The state secrets doctrine should be invoked only when the most grave national security matters are at stake, not to avoid embarrassing the government.

Eight months after imposing the death penalty on a U.S. citizen, Obama considers indicting him

Corporations Destroying The Planet deprogram on USTREAM. Politics 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals split down the middle in finding (PDF) that the Justice Department was entitled to halt a civil lawsuit between private parties because of the threat that the suit would expose state secrets. By the margin of a single vote, it reversed the decision of a panel of the same court (PDF) holding that the doctrine could only be applied to individual pieces of evidence, not to entire lawsuits.

The Obama/Bush weapon for shielding presidential lawbreaking from judicial review becomes stronger

It seems that just about every hundred years or so, the body politic we call America swells with fever as it fights off a democracy-destroying disease. That disease is "Special Interest Government".

Both Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas describe themselves as "originalists," meaning that they believe they possess the innate knowledge of exactly what the Founding Fathers intended when they penned the U.S. Constitution. Given such an almost reverent standard it is fair to ask a few questions regarding the Judiciary branch of government which, in my opinion, no longer represents the people of our country. It has become so deeply immersed in right-wing ideology that there is little resemblance to the this branch of government today and when the Founding Fathers established it. Did the Founding Fathers intend that Supreme Court judges sitting on the highest court of the land can decide who the president should be, especially if one of those judges was appointed by the father of one of the complainants? Surely, most of us would agree, that judge should be disqualified from involvement in such an extraordinary decision. Did the Founding Fathers intend that a judge sitting on the highest court of the land to be cozy with incendiary, hate-mongering partisan extremists who make seditious statements for the sole purpose of undermining and subverting democracy? Surely, you would ask, should a judge deciding cases on the Supreme court be colluding and conniving with a Screech Radio insurrectionist who spouts non-stop hatred and incites violence against our president and elected officials? Did the Founding Fathers also intend for the spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice to be actively fomenting hatred, insurrection and subversion, the sole aim of which is to overthrow, even by armed insurrection, a democratically-elected president and political party? Surely, the Founding Fathers did not intend for that to be an admirable or patriotic role of the spouse of a Supreme Court justice? The solid phalanx of activist, partisan ideologues, Roberts,