Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
First Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts Jr., lied about his membership with the far right-wing Federalist Society, and now file cabinets full of documents are being released which expose Roberts’ penchant for justice as color-coded. He says he won’t be an activist judge. But he’s lying again. Right-wing activism is all Roberts knows.
On Thursday, July 28, Senator Edward Kennedy alleged that Roberts has a "rather cramped view of the Voting Rights Act." What an understatement.
In a series of documents which were recently disclosed by the Bush administration, Roberts noted it was his opinion that extending the 1965 Act, which was under consideration while Roberts worked for the Reagan Administration, would "not simply extend the existing and effective Voting Rights Act, but would dramatically change it … It’s not broken so there’s no need to fix it."
In another document from the same period, Roberts wrote that specific legislation designed to overturn a separate ruling by the Supreme Court "radically expand the civil rights laws to areas never before considered covered." Consequently, Roberts urged the Court to rule against it.
This leads one to believe that perhaps Roberts resides on the racially charged side of the hate spectrum.
As the New York Times recently reported,
"In December 1981, the United States Commission on Civil Rights issued a report broadly defending affirmative action as a way to combat pervasive discrimination.
"Judge Roberts wrote a blistering critique, saying the ‘obvious reason’ affirmative action programs had failed was that they ‘required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates."
Let’s clarify Roberts’ remarks. It was his opinion that it was "obvious" that the minorities recruited under affirmative action policies were, by definition, "inadequately prepared candidates." In other words, it wasn’t possible for these black and Latino applicants to be anything but "inadequately prepared."
Roberts’ intolerant position was not based on any sort of legal facts or even a conservative reading of the Constitution. His position was based on a racial predisposition.
Go tell the Democrats that John Roberts Jr. is not fit to serve on the high court. Let them know he might be more better suited for Grand Dragon. I hear there’s an opening.
JOSHUA FRANK is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be published by Common Courage Press. You can pre-order a copy at discounted rate at www.BrickBurner.org. Josh can be reached at: Joshua@BrickBurner.org.