How do you push back against Bush regime bullies? Well, you can start by standing up to the SOBs

1. THE BUSH REGIME'S INFORMATION SUPPRESSORS RUN INTO A "STRAIGHT-TALKING TEXAN" JUDGE WHO BELIEVES IN THE LAW

We know, of course, that there's practically nothing the Bush regimists hate more than facts. In that gorgeous Daily Show phrase, "The facts are biased." One thing they definitely hate more than facts themselves is those facts' escaping their vault-tight containment. Regimists' basic attitude toward letting go of information--of just about any kind--is approximately:

For us to know,
for you to go fuck yourselves.

Nobody has fought the regime's stranglehold on information--information that by rights belongs to us, the people who employ those criminal scumbags--more stalwartly than CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington). And yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth (who, it might be noted, headed the FISA court from 1995 to 2002--in which connection he was described by CNN's Henry Schuster as "a straight-talking Texan") ruled in favor of CREW, handing the Bush regime a notable setback with a common-sense judgment that the Secret Service's White House visitor logs are public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act--just as they have always been considered to be.

As Michael Abramowitz reports in today's Washington Post:

A federal judge ruled yesterday that White House visitor logs created by the Secret Service are public records, and he ordered information involving the visits of nine conservative Christian leaders with Bush administration officials to be released to an advocacy group.

The dispute involved an effort by the administration to keep secret the records, which have traditionally allowed the news media and Congress to keep tabs on who has visited the White House or the vice president's residence. Administration lawyers have taken the position that the logs are presidential records, outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth rejected this argument, saying the records qualify as "agency records" subject to disclosure. He also rejected the claim that the records should be kept secret to preserve the confidentiality of presidential and vice presidential deliberations, noting that even a Cheney aide testified that the purpose of the visits is not apparent from the documents.

"Knowledge of these visitors would not disclose presidential communications or shine a light on the President's or Vice President's policy deliberations," Lamberth wrote in his opinion.

Officials with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued to obtain the records, expressed satisfaction. "CREW is pleased that the judge saw through the White House's transparent attempts to hide public documents from the American people. We look forward to sharing the documents we obtain through this lawsuit," said Executive Director Melanie Sloan.

2. MAYBE FINAL CONSOLIDATION OF THE CORPORATE CHOKEHOLD ON U.S. MEDIA WON'T BE SUCH A CAKEWALK AFTER ALL

With the clock possibly ticking on Republican control of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), it becomes increasingly important for superstooge FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to ram through new rules accomplishing the Bush regime's desired acceleration of the consolidation of American media in the hands of a few right-wing propaganda (and money-minting) titans like Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and radio monopolist Clear Channel. Today's news is the stirring of some organized pushback.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) had a big day yesterday. In addition to joining nine Senate colleagues in voting against cloture of debate on proposed extension of the Protect America Act, she sent a stern letter to Chairman Martin, cosigned by a bipartisan group of 24 other senators, warning of congressional readiness to step in. Her office issued this press release:

WASHINGTON, DC--Monday, U.S. Senator Cantwell (D-WA) and a bipartisan group of senators wrote to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin telling him that if the FCC proceeds to take final action on his proposed media ownership rules on December 18 without giving the public enough time to comment, she will immediately introduce and move legislation to revoke and nullify the December 18, 2007 rule. At a Commerce Committee Hearing last Thursday, Cantwell expressed to Martin her concern that the FCC’s proposed new rules will increase media consolidation and hurt competition, diversity, and localism.

“Congress is certainly not afraid to take action against the FCC,” said Cantwell. “Time and again we’ve told the FCC that if it moves forward without adequate feedback from the public, there will be consequences. There are consequences to ignoring the American public’s right to participate fully in the rule making process. In the Senate, we’re going to make sure that if we have to pass legislation stopping the FCC, we will.”

Martin introduced his proposed rules to eliminate the longstanding prohibition of common ownership between a daily newspaper and a television or radio station on November 13, 2007, four days after the FCC held a public hearing on media ownership in Seattle. At the hearing, nearly 800 Washingtonians spent nine hours sharing their viewpoints with the FCC-- the vast majority in strong opposition to increasing media concentration. Martin plans to bring the proposed rule up for a vote on December 18, 2007, even though the public has had only three weeks to comment on the proposed rule, and the FCC has had one week to review those comments.

Cantwell will also continue her work with Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and others on the Media Ownership Act of 2007 to restore a deliberative process to the FCC’s rulemakings on localism and media ownership. A major piece of the Act strengthens the public’s ability to comment on proposed rules.

Cosigning the letter with Senator Cantwell were 20 Democrats, 1 Independent (no, not Holy Joe--don't be ridiculous), and 4 Republicans:

Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Trent Lott (R-Mississippi)
Hillary Clinton (D-New York)
Barack Obama (D-Illinois)
John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)
Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)
Kent Conrad (D-South Dakota)
Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri)
Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas)
Robert Casey (D-Pennsylvania)
Dianne Feinstein (D-California)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Bernard Sanders (I-Vermont)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bill Nelson (D-Florida)
Joe Biden (D-Delaware)
Jon Tester (D-Montana)
Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut)
Larry Craig (R-Idaho)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey)

#