Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

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….)

pp1

or
cp-store

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

“Recusal” Holder, AG for Despotic Government:

The National Security Blight

by NORMAN POLLACK

A blight impairs or destroys something, here, the National-Security State, which Obama, his Administration, and personifying these trends of lawlessness and government violative of the US Constitution, the Department of Justice under Eric Holder, not merely impairs but is actively destroying the democratic civil-liberties guarantees of a free society.  The Justice Department a vehicle of injustice reminds one of A. Mitchell Palmer and the Red Raids under Wilson, only now, under Obama, subversion (aka, terrorism) is defined in wider terms, as sedition, a crime against the State, whenever its own crimes are revealed by whistleblowers and made public.  E.g., Bradley Manning is a terrorist by the Obama-Holder reckoning (and AG Holder cannot use the lame excuse of recusal when he actively has prosecuted Espionage Act cases, specifically against whistleblowers), because he made possible the divulgence, so that the public may know, of government practices, enshrouded in heavy layers of secrecy, that cannot stand the light of day—nor pass any meaningful democratic “smell” test.

Obama-Holder, Siamese twins when it comes to the deprivation of civil liberties (how many Court filings has DOJ entered to deny habeas corpus rights to detainees?!), like Obama-Brennan, Siamese twins when it comes to targeted assassination, as part of the planned continuity of the armed drone program as the prerequisite for binding future administrations to the acceptance of the doctrine of permanent war, to which Holder-DOJ contempt for civil liberties perfectly fits, points the way to station two or three on the slippery slope toward fascism in America.  Holder’s appearance before House Judiciary yesterday (May 15) is a disgrace, as much for what he was allowed to get away with, as for what he said.  And what he said bears scrutiny: “There should be a shield law with regard to the press’s ability to gather information and to disseminate it.  The focus should be on those people who break their oath and put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather this information.” (Italics, mine)

With friends of a free press like that, what’s any longer to worry?  Plenty.  First, his gobbledygook in fact focuses on the whistleblower, here rendered an enemy of the State, AND made into a positive menace, the domestic terrorist in our midst whom we must resolutely squelch (think Bradley Manning, yet also a message of stern warning to all others of harsh treatment from the Government, at the least, solitary confinement and sleep deprivation while awaiting trial—somewhat beyond A. Mitchell Palmer’s Boys), all for what?  For speaking truth to power—a power getting increasingly out of hand, and to which most liberals and progressives appear to have submitted to, and then praised because somehow less horrendous than what the other major party has on offer.  And second, finally, Holder’s statement is at one with the phony retreat of the Administration, indeed, serves to introduce it, following the news of spying on the Associated Press.  Specifically, Obama has called on Sen. Schumer to re-introduce his bill on the so-called protection of the press, so-called because this is a shabby attempt for the Administration to have its cake and eat it.  Protection—to a point, on civil cases, less so, criminal cases, NONE WHATEVER on national-security cases.  It is fitting Schumer should introduce this sham, for it illustrates the integrated nature of national-security: a leading protector of Wall Street is also an enabler par excellence of American militarism.

Even the criticisms made of Obama, superficial in the extreme, today’s New York Times piece by Peter Baker on how POTUS has temporarily lost his way and is chagrined by the obstacles thrown in the way of his noble plans (what plans? how noble?) as a case in point, fail to touch on the broad area of civil liberties.  Yet the Constitution is fast going down the tubes as we, the nation, sit on our collective hands and cheer on the warmaking machine.