It's the same in any lingo

בַּת-בָּבֶל, הַשְּׁדוּדָה: אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם-לָךְ-- אֶת-גְּמוּלֵךְ, שֶׁגָּמַלְתּ לָנוּ
אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֵז וְנִפֵּץ אֶת-עֹלָלַיִךְ-- אֶל-הַסָּלַע

How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor and not he, for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when? ~ Rav Hillel, Pirke Avot

This Red Sea Pedestrian Stands against Judeophobes

This Red Sea Pedestrian Stands against Judeophobes
Wear It With Pride

30 September 2008

On Olive Branches and Rebellion

In 1775, the Massachusetts Colony found itself in armed conflict with Great Britain. By July the battles of Lexington and Concord had already taken place, the British had laid siege to Boston, Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold led the Green Mountain Boys of Vermont against Fort Ticonderoga in New York, George Washington was named the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army, and the British had engaged the revolutionary forces at Breed's Hill. With the raising of the Continental Army, and the circumstances in Massachusetts Colony, the thirteen stood at the brink of war.

The Continental Congress in Philadelphia debated the merits of independency versus reconciliation. Before the more conservative elements of the Congress, led by Pennsylvania's John Dickinson, would even consider independence a viable option, they demanded that the Congress extend a conciliatory overture to King George III. The result was what became known as the Olive Branch Petition. Despite the number of offenses the colonists were forced to endure, from a lack of representation in Parliament, to the Intolerable Acts and beyond, they sought a peaceful redress of their grievances in the hopes that conflict could be avoided:
Knowing, to what violent resentments and incurable animosities, civil discords are apt to exasperate and inflame the contending parties, we think ourselves required by indispensable obligations to Almighty God, to your Majesty, to our fellow subjects, and to ourselves, immediately to use all the means in our power not incompatible with our safety, for stopping the further effusion of blood, and for averting the impending calamities that threaten the British Empire.

It is reported that George III never even set eyes on the petition, dismissed it out of hand, publicly proclaimed the colonies to be in open rebellion, and demanded it be suppressed, ordering all members of the realm to seek out and turn in participants in the revolt for punishment:
Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us...

Now, in 2008, we find that not much has changed. From the moment that the DNC anointed their chosen candidate, immediately following the June 3rd primaries, members of the PUMA movement petitioned Democratic Party Automatic Delegates, members of the DNC, and its Chairman Howard Dean, demanding that democratic procedures be upheld, that the party adhere to its rules, and allow these machinations to play themselves out openly and freely. We literally begged.

Through it all Chairman Dean and his hench(wo)men obstinately refused to make an open, unequivocal statement regarding Senator Clinton's name being placed in nomination. It was obvious to those paying attention that the DNC was going to do everything possible to insure that their selected candidate was not going to be challenged at the Democratic National Convention. It was in this atmosphere that The Denver Group, PUMA PAC, and the rest of the Just Say No Deal Coalition were formed. Fighting through the summer, it was not until the middle of August that the Democratic Party finally acknowledged, under pressure from us, that yes, Senator Clinton's name would be placed in nomination. Then the issue immediately became; would her delegates be allowed to vote?

Again we petitioned. We made phone calls. We contacted the Automatic Delegates from our states. We wrote letters to the editor. We placed advertisements in newspapers. We marched in the streets of Denver. All to no avail. Our voices fell on deaf ears. Senator Clinton's pledged delegates were intimidated, threatened, and prevented from meeting and organizing, lest they obtain the 800 signatures required to call for a full roll call vote from the floor of the convention. The ballots were cast behind closed doors. The televised roll call was a sham, rigged to deliver an outcome that had been determined before the first Democratic Primary ballot had ever been cast. As was told to me by a Clinton pledged delegate on the street in Denver; there was no way Clinton was ever going to get the nomination, because Howard Dean and Donna Brazile did not want her to have it.

We gave the DNC and the Democratic Party every opportunity to adhere to its own charter. We gave them ample opportunity to show that they valued democracy. We were not asking for anything extraordinary. All we wanted was for the delegates to the Democratic Party's convention to be able to exercise their rights and obligations under the party's rules. All we wanted was for the delegates to vote openly and freely so that our votes, as represented by those delegates, would be counted and recorded. Is this such an outrageous request? Is it so stupendous a notion to expect that a political entity, that operates ultimately under the Constitution of the United States, allow citizens to have their votes counted? It is our most sacred right as Americans. It was denied to us, and now the time for petitions is past. The time for revolt is upon us.

The Democratic Party has not characterized us much differently than George III did the rebellious colonies whom he said were, "...forgetting their allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them." Has the Democratic Party not said we have no where else to go? But like the misguided king, the Democratic Party fails to see the obvious; when the DNC subverted its own democratic procedures, allowed the proliferation of rampant sexist attacks against one of its own candidates, attempted to suppress and isolate its homosexual members by denying them the benefit of party affirmative action rules, and refused to allow our votes to be properly represented at the Democratic National Convention, it was not protecting or supporting us in any way, shape, or form. The Democratic Party's own actions have drawn us into an open rebellion. Even as we begin to engage in this fight their candidate demands that his followers get in our faces, "truth squads", under the auspices of the DNC, are being formed to suppress the Constitutional rights of American citizens, and a complicit media creates a false reality designed to marginalize the opposition.

George III's response to the Continental Congress' petition was unequivocal. Those who returned to the side of the crown were to be embraced. Those that were unrepentant and led the movement were to be hanged. Undoubtedly it was a somber moment when the vote for independency was cast. There was no going back. If the rebellion failed the delegates to the Congress would surely have been executed for treason. There is no going back for us either. To curb and censor ourselves, to cease in this effort now would be to capitulate to the end of Democratic principle and let all that we hold dear as citizens be bastardized and twisted until it is beyond recognition. This is not a time for parsing. This is not a time for equivocating. As was written by Thomas Paine in 1776:
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested.

We are fighting for nothing less than a universal and unalienable human right that no man made institution has the right to attempt to suppress. Though there may be millions of Americans willing to abdicate those rights; we are not among them. The Democratic Party is on notice that we will exercise those rights to their fullest extent under the law in order to see that they are preserved.

this essay is cross-posted at FDR

If You Bought a Lemon You Must Have Voted for Obama

Here's a preview of the new ad from Democrats for Principle Before Party.  It asks a very legitimate question.

To make sure this ad gets seen in as many markets as possible I urge you to make a donation to Democrats for Principle Before Party via The Denver Group.

If you believe in Democracy, the concept of one person one vote, free and fair elections, your right to privacy, and equal protections for all under the Constitution of the United States, then you will not vote for Barack Obama.  

Support Democratic Party reform.  Do not vote for Obama.

29 September 2008

Buy Out Bill Goes Down In Flames

Wow, Naughty Nazi Nancy really blew it today.  After the parties got together and cobbled a really bad bill together, Nancy flushed it down the crapper by trying to stick it in the eye of George Bush, laying the blame for this mess in his lap.  Naturally this pissed off a lot of Republicans.  Maybe that's because Congressional Democrats like Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, and others, are wholly and totally responsible for failing to do anything about the abuses over at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Can you blame Democrats for not wanting to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs?  Hell yeah you can, because we're looking at being screwed again.  We all still have size 7 poop chutes from the Savings and Loan bailout.  Blue Dog Democrats were not too thrilled with this bill either.  

The other version of the story is that Pelosi never had the votes in the first place and the vote today was a stunt to lay the blame for the failure on the Republicans.  And is it true that the media is trying to get everyone riled up about the days off for the observance of Rosh Hashanah?  Hey assholes, how long is the Christmas recess?  What do you think is going to happen in two days?  We've been faking it since 2003 when the first questions regarding Freddie and Fannie were being asked.   Go fuck yourselves.

So what the hell are the moron asshats in Congress going to do?  If it involves anything resembling sound policy and logic you can bet your ass it won't happen.  Now what they could do would be take a look at Senator Clinton's proposal on the subject.  This is one that ought to make everyone happy.  It creates a system of accountability, protects the tax payers, keeps the Treasury Department from being the wolf guarding the hen house, and moves swiftly to target the real sources of the problem.  Oops...too logical.

Or we could go with the Obama plan which is this:


or maybe his plan is hidden subliminally in this video...

I still like the Republican concept of sheltering the taxpayers by having companies willing to take on the toxic loans being insured by the government.  I think we have the basis of a real bipartisan solution.  If only Congressional Democrats would take their thumbs out of their asses, stop trying to protect Obama by shrouding Clinton, and embrace a workable plan.  Hell, the HOLC concept was even mentioned on National Pampers Radio today.  Too bad no one was willing to give Clinton credit for being one of the few voices to propose the idea.

So, do you want Congress to do something logical for a change, or keep taking it in rear?  Call your Senators and Congressmen.  Tell them to endorse Clinton's plan.  Let's get this done already.

Safety and Happiness

What are we really talking about when we speak of reforming the Democratic Party? Considering the events we have witnessed in 2008; the co-opting and absorption of the DNC by the Dean/Daughtry/Donna/Obama wing of the party, the complete dismantling of democratic procedure, the threatening and intimidation of party members, and what in reality is akin to a purge of all non-believers in the Hope and Change Express, we are talking about nothing less than a full scale rebellion. The task is great. It is not simply a corrupted leadership we must contend with, but a corruption of ideals.

The nomination of Sarah Palin saw the unleashing of vicious attacks against her, particularly by left-wing "feminists" (the need for the use of quotes can be dealt with in another post, but is hopefully self-evident). They threw Senator Clinton under the bus for a misogynist, and then turned their sights on Palin. It should now be clear to all who were not engaged in the PUMA movement this past summer that women's rights are in fact not valued by the current party leadership. To them, reproductive rights are only for those women who choose abortion (though when the Democratic Convention opens in Denver with a religious convocation where the keynote speaker openly condemns abortion it is arguable that the new DNC is preparing to fast track the adoption of the abolition of reproductive rights as we know them to the Democratic Party platform); women's liberation only applies to Left leaning women who choose to pursue family, career, and holding public office. The level of hypocrisy is staggering, but honestly not surprising. After all, this is the party that made Nancy Pelosi, the now famous panderer and Bush lapdog, Speaker of the House.

The current economic crisis has exposed this corrupting of values as well. It is now well documented that what began as a desire to help minorities and low income Americans have a shot at owning their own piece of the American dream, became an open floodgate for rampant and unchecked speculation and abuse. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, along with other Congressional Democrats, stood in the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform and are knee deep in questionable connections to both. They also happen to be major beneficiaries of Fannie and Freddie largess, with Dodd and Obama receiving the largest purses from the now failed companies (Obama receiving in three years more than 5 times the amount given to John McCain in 18.5 years). Frank went on record in 2003 as a denier that there were any problems on the horizon regarding Fannie and Freddie. These people helped open the door, turned a blind eye, and benefitted financially and politically from the abuses that generated this crisis. Now they are cheering the loudest for a $700 billion giveaway of our money, which will at best put a bony finger the dike, so they can rescue their benefactors.

Party appartchiks at all levels helped enforce a predetermined outcome at the Democratic National Convention this past August in violation of the most sacred tenets of the Party's charter. This in the wake of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in May that set our rebellion in motion. Now we are watching them create an outlet for voter fraud in Ohio, and using their positions to violate the Constitution in Missouri.

We are not simply talking about bringing down the junta that brought the bitter taste of fascism to the Democratic Party. If we are going to speak of reform then we must be prepared to engage in nothing less than ending the political careers of the corrupt politicians responsible for this mess, and rebuilding the Democratic Party from the Congress, all the way down to state and local levels. To put it another way; if the Democratic Party were on "Home Again" Bob Vila would be dealing with a colonial mansion, ravaged by termites and rot, needing to be stripped to its foundations to be completely renovated and restored. I envy the relative ease of Bob's task.

It would certainly be easier and safer to sit back and let all of this happen, go back to our private lives, and go to sleep, but it's not in our nature. Voices from our past call us. Our history makes demands on us that we cannot ignore:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

                           ~ Declaration of Independence, 1776
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled. The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

                             ~ Declaration of Sentiments, 1848

When faced with a political entity that has done us harm, impinged on our rights and freedoms, are we not obliged to alter it so that it better effects our Safety and Happiness? Undoubtedly Chairman Dean and the DNC hope our answer is no. Dr. Dean, consider that bubble to be burst.

crossposted at FDR

27 September 2008

The Brown Shirts Roll On

Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
“Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society.”

Parsing Parsnips

I have no doubt that the punditocracy is bending over backwards trying to say that the Freshman Man Cub from Illinois won the debate.  Newsflash: he didn't win it.  Then again, McCain didn't exactly do it either, though he landed more punches, most significantly on the issue of renewed Russian imperialism.

I have been a passing observer of Russian politics for many years.  My grandmother who emigrated from Ukraine in 1914 always had astute insight on the issue.  Over the years we had a number of conversations about the state of Russian politics.  I correctly predicted that Mikail Gorbachev would assume control of the Politburo back in the 80's, and would most likely oversee the shift to the dismantling of the USSR.  She correctly predicted that the dissolution of the Soviet Union would bring about decades of unrest, violence, and the reconstituting of the Russian empire by the surviving power brokers of the communist regime.  Alas, my grandmother is no longer living in this dimension so she is not here to lend her advice to our nation's power brokers.

The most valid point in the Russia discussion was made by Senator McCain; that Georgia was a prelude for Ukraine.  I believe it is Putin's intention to seize the Crimea.  Russia's naval interests are at stake.  Ukraine will pay with its autonomy.  Is Senator Man Cub prepared to face down Putin?  Are you kidding me?

Obama failed again by arguing the Iraq/Afghanistan issue based on whether it was smart to invade in the first place.  As Senator McCain pointed out, that is an argument for another time.  The fact is that we are there.  You cannot base a policy on arguing the past.  We must operate in the now.  Clearly Man Cub is not prepared to do this.  

The surge strategy works because it is not simply about putting troops on the ground.  It is about garnering the loyalty of the population in the regions involved.  Whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan or Waziristan, the Petraeus strategy is the only one that I have seen that has shown any rate of success.  To think that we will secure our interests by arguing that we should never invaded Iraq is ridiculous and irrelevant.  We are there.  At this point failure is not an option. 

Man Cub gave no evidence that he has a strategy to achieve success in the Middle East.  This is because he does not.  Should we have kept our eyes on the prize in Afghanistan?  Yes.  But it is ignorant to think that had we not invaded Iraq that we would not be involved with Waziristan and Pakistan as this is the launchpad from which the Taliban assumed control of Afghanistan in the first place.  Obama's obvious one dimensional view of the Middle East demonstrates that he cannot comprehend how to create and manage a regional policy, and/or he has no problem ceding our interests to those who have sworn to destroy us.  Either way, he is too big a fool to be in the White House.

I found one of the most telling moments when Obama attempted to parse the word "preconditions."  He thought he had learned the lesson of the trap Senator Clinton laid for him in the primary debates when she said you do not meet with hostile leaders without first laying the groundwork with lower level envoys.  Naturally, being completely obtuse, Obama thought this is what McCain was referring to, but it was not.  He also failed to remember that she also made it clear that those lower level meetings required gaining concessions from the hostile nation. 

Senator McCain said again and again that you don't meet face to face with a leader who has declared that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.  I think he thought the audience and Obama could read between the lines.  I typically operate under the Keseyan principle that, "In any given situation there are always going to be more dumb people than smart people."  

For you people this is what McCain was saying:

If the leader of a country advocates wiping Israel, a sovereign nation, off the face of the earth, the President of the United States does not have face to face talks with that leader until they recognize Israel's right to exist, period (it is this principle that makes it ludicrous for Israel to enter into talks with don't negotiate with a body that has sworn to destroy you). For Obama to advocate otherwise is an admission that he himself does not support Israel's right to exist. 
Something to keep in mind that whenever Obama says he warned, or he spoke out about any issue, he is in fact lying.  I challenge all Obots to present evidence from a credible journalistic source (that means no quotes from his website, Daily Krap, or Huffington Piss), that verifies any Obama statement from the debate that he issued any of the warnings he claimed to last night.

I think it was also hilarious and pathetic that his argument for not convening the Subcommittee on European Affairs is that his VP candidate told him it was okay for him not to do so. So what’s the thrust here Barry? You’re subcommittee is irrelevant and you got the chairmanship in a false attempt to bolster your non-existent foreign policy experience? That might not be a line of reasoning you want to take up with the electorate. Just sayin’.

And the final insult?  As I predicted Pampers lifted Senator Clinton's economic policy, which means he will not carry it out, and had no real economic policy before doing so.  Thanks DNC for kicking Clinton to curb and nominating the Asshat.  High five!

26 September 2008

"I Have a Bracelet Too!"

And I'll tell you what it's for as soon as I remember the story I made up about it.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

25 September 2008

The Crisis Continues

Despite Chris "I have a muskrat on my head" Dodd's announcement that there was an "agreement in principle," there is in fact no agreement.  It seems that Dodd's announcement was more about trying to blunt Senator McCain's effort to actually accomplish something, than moving a solution forward.  Isn't that just special?  The Wall Street rally today will be met with another slump tomorrow.  

Let me be perfectly clear: Chris Dodd is a worthless criminal who has been a major recipient of mortgage industry favors from Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Countrywide.  He, and many of his Democratic Party cohorts on Capitol Hill are very much responsible for a big chunk of the mess we're in.  To think that these asshats are going to be the source of our economic redemption is as valid as the notion that the moon is made of cheese.

There is a plan on Capitol Hill, that has been published for nearly 10 days.  The author of this plan however was not at the White House today.  Senator McCain, you would do well to call Senator Clinton on the phone, bring the Congressional leadership of your party to her office with their desire to insure Wall Street companies willing to underwrite this bailout, thus sparing the taxpayers the burden of yet another economic mess a la the savings and loan debacle of the 80's, and hammer out a bipartisan agreement.  Reid, Dodd, Frank, and Obama will no doubt protest.  Too fucking bad.  I sincerely doubt that the Democratic Party desires to lose control of the Congress, and the election all at the same time.  Put their feet to the fire. We all know Obama lacks the experience, and the gravitas to pull it off.  You and Senator Clinton can.  Do what must be done.  Now is the time to act.

And for you lurking Asshat worshipers here's a little truth serum:  There was no Obama call for a joint statement with McCain.  Obama lied.  Quelle surprise!  Here's another bitter pill for you to swallow: Treasury Secretary Paulson begged McCain to come to Washington to get the Republicans moving behind the plan.  Here's how it went down according to Bob Schieffer: 

So much for this being a stunt.  There will be no agreement unless McCain gets the Republicans on board.  Sorry Pampers, adults only.  No asshat children allowed.  You can go down to Mississippi for the debate and show everyone how well you can work the paddle ball.  Have fun!

A Dose of Truth of the People of Michigan Courtesy of the Denver Group

I cannot stress enough that it will be next to impossible to undo the damage done to the Democratic Party by an Obama victory in November.  To help spread the truth I strongly suggest making a donation to Democrats for Principle Before Party via The Denver Group so that ads like the one above can continue to be run in places that matter.  Don't reward voter fraud.  Don't reward fascism.  Support the Denver Group.  Vote against Obama.

If you wish to read the text of the ad above, click on the image.

24 September 2008

You Want Presidential?

At the moment of crisis the two presidential candidates have responded.  Barry O'Asshat has no solution.  Senator McCain has recognized that the Shrub administration's proposal is not going to fly, leaving our markets teetering on the verge of a debt weighted and panic induced collapse (which the Obama campaign led the cheerleading for last week by the way).  Putting the American people first, Senator McCain issued the following statement

Barry O'Asshat's campaign, at the time of this comment, is saying the debate should go on.  The sheep worshipers of the Asshat are saying McCain should be able to do two things at once, and that if he can't multitask he can't be President.

If Obama could do two things at once he would have convened the Subcommittee on European Affairs to examine NATO’s current role and position in Afghanistan. He admitted to being too busy running for President to do so…please shut your collective hole Obamatrons. Obama supposedly called McCain to make a “joint statement” because your asshat candidate can’t come up with one original policy or thought; that might make his head implode.

McCain on the other hand made a decisive choice to suspend his campaign, put the priorities of the American taxpayer above the election, demanded a postponing of the debate, and is returning to Washington to do the job he was elected to do. That is leadership.

Obama’s campaign is currently “formulating a response” to McCain’s statement. What’s so fucking hard about saying, “Okay Senator McCain, we’ll return to Washington to help the American people?” Obama and his campaign doesn’t care about us, they just care about how they can make it look like this campaign suspension was his idea, or is a stunt by the opposition.

Obama has no solution to this crisis. He has nothing to bring to the table. It was very generous of Senator McCain to invite the Illinois man cub to join in the process nonetheless. Obama should now shut up, sit in the corner, and let the adults do their job.

I have no doubt that Senator McCain and his close friend Senator Clinton will bring the parties together and find a solution. Barry can bring the chips and dip.

Make no mistake about it, I'm not going ga ga for McCain, but I at least want my President to take action when it's needed instead of sitting around with their head jammed up their ass.

23 September 2008

If You Don't Vote Black You Must Be Wack!

The Pampers O'Asshat campaign has dusted off a moldy oldie from the primaries.  If you don't vote for Pampers you must be a racist.  Here's a little example.

Mary Mitchell, I have this to say to you, you race baiting poor excuse for a journalist.

Republicans always fall in line behind their nominee.  The fact that Obama is black has no bearing whatsoever.  The DNC could have nominated Pat Boone.  If he ran with a "D" in front of his name Republicans wouldn't vote for him.

Obama's problem is with Independents and Democrats.  As an Independent (read former Democrat) who is voting against Obama, and has been fighting for the civil rights of ALL people, including gays (whom Donna Brazile and Leah Daughtry believe should not be considered to be involved in a struggle for civil rights as they consider that offensive to African Americans), for as long as I can remember, I think I'm well aware of my biases.  I'm biased against fascists and asshats like Obama.  Skin color's got nothing to do with it. 

The Oxford American dictionary declares that fascism includes, "...a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach." If that does not define what we've watched the Democratic Party become over the past year under Howard Dean and Barack Obama then what does? 

It is an undeniable fact that the Obama campaign violated the caucus rules, filed false names on sign up sheets, locked out Clinton voters, and intimidated Clinton voters into either voting for Obama, or leaving the caucus altogether. It is an undeniable fact that on May 31, 2008 the Democratic Party violated its own charter and sunshine laws to disenfranchise 2.3 million people. It is an undeniable fact that the Democratic Party did the same at its own national convention, threatening and strong arming its delegates to vote for Barack Obama, forcing the delegates to vote behind closed doors, and then never releasing the full tabulations of those votes. It is an undeniable fact that the roll call was rigged to make sure there was no possible way democracy would be served, and no way Senator Clinton would become the Democratic Party's nominee.  If, knowing the above information, you support Barack Obama you do not believe in the principles of the Democratic Party. If you support Barack Obama you do not believe in the principles of the Constitution of the United States. If you support Barack Obama you are a supporter of fascism.  How ya like them apples Mary?   

I hate to break it to you, but Dr. King's dream was not the electing of a Black President. His dream was that we as Americans would stand as one people in defense of each other's rights. That regardless of the color of our skin we would fight for the rights of a fellow American as if we were fighting for our own. Barack Obama and the current leadership of the Democratic Party have stepped on our rights, and have used race as a wedge to divide us. Obama is the very antithesis of King's dream. If you believe in MLK and what he stood for then you will not vote for Barack Obama now or ever.

I have said to people on a number of occasions that I can forgive African Americans who vote for Obama because he's black, or at least looks black.  But that doesn't stop me from saying that if they do they are the biggest dupes in this election.  Pampers doesn't give a damn about the Black Community except that they vote for him.  Why do you think Jesse Jackson wants to cut his balls off?  Because in all this time he has not spoken to African American issues.  He has not gone to their poorest neighborhoods.  He has not made it clear what an Obama presidency will mean to them beyond being able to say they finally got a black man in the White House.  If I were black I'd be pissed at him too.  But that's okay, as an American I'm pissed at him enough.

22 September 2008

What the Hell is Going On?

Here's an AP story that ran a couple hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama's running mate says a campaign ad that mocked Republican presidential candidate John McCain as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate was "terrible" and would not have been done had he known about it.
Obama, McCain's Democratic rival, launched the ad earlier this month, part of an aggressive push to slow McCain's rise in the polls after he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. It included unflattering footage of Sen. McCain at a hearing in the early '80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube.
"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class," the ad says.
Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the "CBS Evening News," Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.
"I thought that was terrible, by the way," Biden said.
Asked why it was done, he said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we'd have never done it."

What the hell is that?  He thought it was terrible?  If he had anything to do with it it never would have been done?  The fact is that the ad mocked a man who can't type because of injuries he sustained at the hands of his captors while serving his country in Vietnam.  Obama on the other hand has only served himself, and his followers are hacking into the email accounts of a Vice Presidential nominee.  His campaign/Democratic Party also threatened a Jewish organization with an investigation into its tax exempt status in order to get Sarah Palin disinvited from an anti nuclear Iran rally that was held today.

So is Biden playing the usual Obama games or is he just a rube?  You be the judge.  Whatever the case it is clear that the Democratic Party under Obama's control is nothing more than a Stalinist cesspool of strong arming and McCarthyism.  Way to go assholes.  High five!


In a year when ordinary, or not so ordinary women are doing extraordinary things, one woman has dared to speak out against the mullahs, terrorists, and the men that have oppressed women in the Islamic world for centuries.  Her name is Wafa Sultan, an Arab American psychologist in Los Angeles.  This aired in Dubai.  It needs to be seen around the world.  

If you have trouble watching it on your player, use the player to start the video over and it should play.  If it's not working, let me know.


With all the insanity a few things slipped through the cracks.  One was the passing of Richard Wright, keyboardist, and a founding member of Pink Floyd.  I was turned on to Floyd in the 70's by my older brother who brought home Dark Side of the Moon, which I listened to incessantly when Tommy and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band weren't on my turntable (that's a device that plays these things called records).

Though Dark Side was a momentous achievement in recording, I still hold Meddle and Animals in higher esteem.  Though Rick was not a prolific songwriter for the band per se, his sound undoubtedly shaped Floyd and made it stick as it were.

Rick passed away on 15 September, losing his battle with cancer.  Fare thee well, and enjoy that great gig in the sky.

If you are extra brave, play all three parts of Echoes at the same time.  Weird and wonderful.

21 September 2008

The Clinton Parade of Smarts

At least there is one Democrat left in the Senate.  While most of her colleagues are sitting on their hands, cheerleading for Pampers, and otherwise subverting everything the party ever stood for, Senator Clinton is working on implementing solutions to the messes we find ourselves in, and that Pampers is woefully equipped to handle.

On the Economic Market Crisis

And here is her statement on the Bush administration's plan.

Here she is, once again, standing up to the Bush administration (while Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to roll over and fetch for the Shrub), and once again coming to the defense of children, advocating that the government renew its commitment to children's environmental health.

Though she has been criticized by some of her supporters that her withdrawing from the No Nukes Iran rally, it is quite clear that Senator Clinton stands with Israel, and against a nuclear Iran.  It is foolish for people to confuse her desire to avoid turning an important event like the rally into a media circus with her desire to make sure Israel is safe from the threat that a nuclear Iran would pose.

And here is the text of her latest New York Times op-ed standing up against the Bush administration's continued assault on women's rights.

While Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Obama, and the rest of the faux Democrats in Congress have been pissing on your heads, it's nice to know that Senator Clinton is still fighting for what's right.  And make no mistake, regardless of which candidate is in the White House, it will be Senator Clinton who will be leading the charge for you, your kids, our environment, for our allies and interests abroad.  She will be a stalwart and vigilant guard against McCain going astray, and will be the voice making sure that we are aware how inadequate Obama's policies are.  Though I feel the nation will be in sounder and safer hands in a McCain/Clinton led government, at least there will be one Democrat who will continue to fight for what is right should we be unfortunate enough to see Obama selected.  She would also have McCain by her side in the Senate, which is also an encouraging thought (though that does not countermand the fact that an Obama presidency will be unfathomably damaging to our nation, and the Democratic Party, and must be avoided).

20 September 2008

Politically Correct Drivel, Obot Sycophantism, and the Exploitation of Identity Politics

Apparently the freshman Senator from Planet Snob is not the only person using race to divide and conquer during the election season.  Looks like Whitey is getting in on the act too.  Here's a bit a politically correct nonsense from Tim Wise that casts a rather bright light on how Obama sycophants are following his lead in the unabashed use of the race card, and also manages to undermine the conversation on racial perception at the same time.  High five! 

Let's do a play by play Shtuey style.

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help. self righteous and angry.  There must be something really important about to be said.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

Can you quantify that Tim?  When it came to light that Bristol was pregnant let us not forget that we had already heard Obama surrogates, and the media speculating that Trig Palin was Bristol's daughter and that Sarah Palin was a liar.  I guess that must have slipped your mind.  Then, when it was revealed that Bristol was pregnant and could not have possibly been the mother (never mind that there were no apologies to the Palins), they were attacked for lacking the "family values" that Republicans are always yammering about, how it was irresponsible.  Cybill Shepherd even went so far as to disingenuously fear that Bristol was being forced to have the baby by her "pro-life" mother.  There have been plenty of attacks, smears, and criticism, just not the public hanging that Wise must desire.

Yes, there has been the lingering image of black teenage mother as welfare queen, but having met a number of African American grandmothers who are helping raise their granddaughters, some of whom were raised by their own grandmothers, I can report that these young pregnant girls have familial support systems not unlike Bristol.  Do they wish they had been smarter about the decisions they made?  Sure.  But are they being attacked?  Not by my community.  Instead of Wise saying we find Bristol's pregnancy acceptable and AA and Latino teen pregnancies a blight, we could be having an intelligent conversation on sex education, planned parenthood, the creation and implementation of resources for teenagers facing sexual activity that are not race based as a pregnant teen is a pregnant teen, regardless of their skin color.  Instead we get a sweeping indictment that America feels white teen pregnancy is okay and minority teen pregnancy is a plague.  Ask Jamie Lynn Spears how she felt being splattered all over every tabloid rag in America.  I'm sure she was thrilled being portrayed as a dumbass knocked up redneck.  

Why not accept the truth?  The reason why there has not been a lingering conversation by Obama and his campaign staff about Bristol Palin is because Obama's mother was an unwed teen.  Period.  Had that not been the case the media would be all over her like white on rice and you know it.  I'm not really sure what the problem is.  Obama's mother wasn't married and got pregnant.  Bristol Palin is unmarried, at the moment, and got pregnant.  What is the relevance?  The only difference is that Obama lied about his mother being married.  Michelle spilled the beans.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
Please Tim, give me a break.  A "fuckin' redneck" "shooting shit" is a far cry from a self proclaimed gang banger who brags about killing people (I assume that is the image you are comparing). And I think anyone, whether they're black, white, latino, Asian...might be enclined to kick the fuckin' ass of anyone who messed with them.  I certainly had no problem using my fists when Catholic School kids would shove me and push me to the ground for being a Jew guilty of killing Jesus.  Funny, after kicking some fuckin' ass they didn't bother me anymore.

I don't care if you're black, white, Latino, whatever.  If you come into my neighborhood doing shit you shouldn't we're going to have a problem.  When black kids who live in my neighborhood walk past my house with a basketball I don't worry about them breaking into my house or shooting me.  Sorry to disappoint you Timmy.  But having lived on land owned by what you would call a redneck, with kids who wandered around with deer rifles and were about as responsible as a wino in a state store, that made me a little nervous.  Stupid is as stupid does, regardless of skin color.  

Again, here was a moment when you could have discussed societal race based imagery, an important and valid conversation, but that's not why you wrote this article.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

Palin still managed to get her degree didn't she?  My town is filled with African Americans and "rednecks" (since that's how I suppose you see them...I suppose racial stereotyping is okay as long as it's directed at Whitey, right Tim?) who take courses at community college and then transfer.  In many cases its due to finances.  I know because I've taken community college courses as part of my continuing education requirements for my job.  No one questions their ability, desire, or intelligence.  They're just working on advancing themselves, and they get into quality college programs.  I know it must chap your ass to find out that African American community college students aren't being oppressed by Whitey.  Get over it.

In contrast to Palin's educational path there is Barack Obama who had plenty of privilege thrown at him from private school in Hawaii to Columbia and Harvard.  Tim, can you tell me Obama's GPA from Columbia?  No you can't, because he won't release his transcripts.  Maybe that's black privilege.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

If we're going to have a conversation about Palin's lack of readiness, then why not Obama's.  There is plenty of evidence that he only used his position to advance his own career, leaving his constituencies in as bad a shape, if not worse than when he arrived.  He voted "present" rather than take a stand on issues like abortion and reproductive rights and gay rights (again, is it black privilege that we're not supposed to talk about that?).  It is also clear that Obama used his positions to balloon the financial largess of his supporters, as he did with the privitization of low income housing developments in Chicago, which screwed over the very demographic you so staunchly defend (rightfully so by the way).  Yes Tim, Obama screwed over black people.  Where's your righteous indignation on that score Tim?

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

?????  That is just wingnut.  Oh, only white liberals can defend the constitutional rights of non citizens, which they do.  Obama can't get away with it because he's black.  I get it.  That's not ridiculous or far fetched at all.  The reason Obama should be disqualified is that his legal name is Barry Soetoro.  No evidence currently exists showing that he changed his name back to Barack Obama.  Posing as Barack Obama he may have defrauded the state of Illinois, Harvard University, Columbia University, and the Federal Government, as well as every state that held a primary and caucus.  There is currently no evidence that he swore an oath of allegiance as a United States citizen, renouncing his Indonesian citizenship.  As someone who supposedly taught constitutional law Obama should know that this disqualifies him (well, I guess he does which is why he has gone to such lengths to hide the truth).  Well, I guess he'll be taught that by the pending law suit in Philadelphia Federal District Court.  Black privilege must be not having to tell the truth about your name and citizenship status.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

How exactly do you determine who a gun enthusiast is in every day life Tim?  Do they wear a sign, have a special badge?  What the fuck are you talking about?  By gun enthusiast do you mean someone who collects guns, displays them in their home, or hunts, or someone who uses guns to commit crimes, or pulls them out in the midst of an argument?  I'm not afraid of the former.  I am concerned about the latter...and again, sorry to disappoint you but the skin color has nothing to do with that.

I suppose you are referring to Sarah Palin's love and use of firearms.  What's the comparison here?  Obama is a gun enthusiast but we're scared of him because of it?  He wants guns banned. This is a slather of bullshit.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

Ass.  There has certainly been a lot scrutiny regarding the Palin's involvement in the Alaska secessionist party.  The first day of school for Obama's kids was Monday September 8th.  Barack was there.  September 11th was that Thursday.  Their kids had been in school for 3 days.  Now you're just an Obama apologist and toady, and we have the real reason for this article; to make white people who don't vote for Obama feel like their racist.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

It is quite clear that the only reason Obama was a community organizer was to be trained in the use of the Alinsky Method.  He exaggerated his accomplishments, and in the end, only used it to advance himself.  We don't make fun of community organizers Mr. Wise.  We question what applicability it has to being President of the United States when we read this in the New York Times, 
"It is clear that the benefit of those years to Mr. Obama dwarfs what he accomplished. Mr. Kellman said that Mr. Obama had built the organization’s following among needy residents and black ministers, but “on issues, we made very little progress, nothing that would change poverty on the South Side of Chicago.”
Like every other position he has held, he largely used it for his own advancement, not to the benefit of those whom he was supposedly serving.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”

Then I suppose you missed this.

Ann Price Mills may not be voting for McCain, but it sure sounds like she's got a lot of the same reservations about Obama that many of us do.  Did you notice she's black?  I guess you would consider her a traitor to her race, or is she afforded the luxury of rejecting the black candidate because she's black?  

Perhaps women who are rejecting Obama are doing so out of principle.  I have met and corresponded with hundreds who are doing so.  They watched the Democratic Party destroy itself, reject its charter, reject democracy, and advance a candidate that does not have the popular support of the people, whose campaign perpetrated rampant caucus fraud using Alinsky's method that Obama was taught as a community organizer.  Maybe just maybe Tim that has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the content of his character.  Or is it black privilege that you should be accepted regardless of your character because of the color of your skin?  Maybe it's something as simple as the fact that Palin was just a PTA mom who decided she was going to take action to make things better for her kids, a woman who did what she could to raise her kids and put food on the table.  But that's not okay with you because they're white.  You're a self hating white guy aren't you?

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

You are so high on kool-aid it's amazing you respirate.  Is Palin not being criticized at every turn for her political decisions?  Is she not under investigation in her own state?  I find it hard to believe that you actually think that Obama merely knows the people of the corrupt machine that has in fact sent him.  Richard M. Daley, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, these are not people he met on the way to the zoo.  He's not corrupt because he's black you ass.  He's corrupt because he has used his position to line the pockets of his supporters, has lied about his accomplishments in office, and colluded with a now convicted felon to launder his money through a bogus land deal.  He's a dirty politician who marketed himself as the bringer of change.  Excuse me for holding him to a standard that he himself created.  I guess it's black privilege to be able to be excused for such actions and associations, and to not be vetted by the media.  You are a hypocrite sir.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

Why not just gloss over the fact that his church is virulently anti-semitic, and homophobic?  Or are you one of those hypocrites who believes that considering equal protection for gays a civil rights issue is an insult to black people and their fight for civil rights?  And Black Liberation Theology is a decidedly, and unabashedly anti-white and anti American movement.  They make no bones about it, why do you pretend that it isn't.  Black privilege must mean being the CEO of the DNC, being pentecostal (like Palin's church in Wasilla), hating gays, and not having that be a problem.  Again, you're a hypocrite.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

The Bush Doctrine has many aspects.  Governor Palin asked to which one Gibson was referring (demonstrating that she does in fact understand the variants of the term).  Mr. Gibson refused to clarify so he could make her grope in the dark, and then act like an angry proctor.  It was one of the most unprofessional interviews I've ever seen, and now that the full transcripts have been released we know that Mr. Gibson and Co.  set out to make her look stupid.

Bill O'Reilly is a shmuck.  I think what makes Obama look like a putz is when he was asked to give an opinion about when a child is conferred human rights he said the answer was above his pay grade.  I don't care what color you are, when you give an answer like that you are saying you are a braying ass.  You cannot vote "present" when you are President of the United States.  What's he going to do in the White House when he has to make a decision, call Hillary Clinton and ask her to make up his mind for him?

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.

You would do well sir not to belittle the service and suffering of John McCain.  The experience turned him from being a selfish punk ass to actually caring about public service, and making it the sum game of his political career, a notion that Mr. Obama has never grasped, and most likely never will.  McCain laid down his life for his country, and endured years of torture and imprisonment rather than secure early release on his father's name and rank.  Obama thought about joining the army, but since there was no war on, and thus no opportunity for glory to pad the resume, he decided against it.  That is the sum game for Obama.  His career choices have no basis in public service.  The only barometer he uses is, would this be good for Obama?  This is what sets him so glaringly apart from people like Senator Clinton and Senator McCain.  They are public servants first, politicians second.  Obama is an Obama servant first, second, and third.

As to this "light" burden notion, the only attribution I can find on this is your own writing.  So did you make that up like Obama made up that his parents met in Selma...three years after he was born?  Black privilege must mean lying about your biography.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…

Senator McCain has made it quite clear where he stands on the issues.  We may not agree on many of those stances, but at least we know what they are.  He didn't say he would filibuster FISA and then vote for it.  He didn't say he would take public financing and then reject it.  He didn't say he would withdraw troops from Iraq and then try to convince the Iraqi government to delay any withdrawals so he could take credit for ending the war.  Obama has flipflopped on virtually all issues.  We don't know what he believes in, other than himself.  So when we doubt he will bring change we do this because he himself has made us feel this way by his own lies and actions.  Get over it.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Obama and his surrogates playing the race card, and then expecting to be allowed to get away with it is just as big a problem.

The problem with so-called anti-racist super heroes like Tim Wise (who finds it fashionable to be white and hate white people...nothing racist about that), is that they speak the neanderthal language of division.  I have heard African American civil rights leaders, the Dalai Lama, and others proclaim the real truth: there is only one race...the human race.  Just as Hillary Clinton made it plain in 1995 that women's rights are human rights, so to must we see the rights of African Americans, gays, Latinos, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Native Americans...

We are all endowed with inalienable human rights.  No one has greater claim to them.  Mr. Wise subsists on keeping us divided by the color of our skin, and in doing so mocks the true prophets of our times; the Mahatma, MLK, the Dalai Lama.  Dr. King's dream wasn't that there would one day be a black president.  His dream was that we would stand up and staunchly defend the rights of all people, no matter the color of their skin.  Mr. Wise's "essay" is an afront to that dream, and makes it clear to me just how much further we have to go before King's dream comes true.

18 September 2008

The Hits Just Keep on Coming!

I feel like Kasey Kasem at a K.C. and the Sunshine Band reunion with all the crap bubbling to the surface from Camp Pampers' cesspool.  The golden nugget is the well documented story that a sitting United States Senator, Barack H. Obama, attempted to interfere with the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq so that he might use our soldiers as pawns in order to get himself elected President.  

And here's the follow up article.

Pampers I think you just lost the few remaining military family votes you planned on getting.  You are a disgrace to your office, and are unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces.  And it turns out that I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Check this out:

If you think Obama is a disgrace, a fraud, a douchebag, a liar, unfit to command, etc then why not take a stroll over to the MoveAmericaForward PAC and see about making a contribution so that this ad can run in a major media market...or several?  Let everyone get in on the fun.

Let's bring this fraud train to a screeching halt.  Enough is enough.  Oh, and it would be nice to see someone in the Congress with enough balls to launch an immediate and formal investigation into Obama's obvious violation of the Logan Act.

Poor Pampers! He's really mad now!

Freddie Easy Mac 'n' Cheese

Looks like it's more trouble time for Pampers/Gaffy Duck '08.  How will Camp Pampers spin this?  According to Chris Dodd, between 1989 and 2008, received more contributions from Freddie and Fannie, including contributions from PACs and individuals than anyone else. Guess who was number two? That's right...Pampers. Between 1989 and 2008 Dodd received $165,400 from the lovely couple. Obama received $126,349...and he's only been in the Senate since 2005. They must really like him a lot.  By the way, $6000 of that came from PACs.  Didn't I hear something somewhere about Obama not taking money from PACs?  I swear I heard that...maybe it came out of his ass.

In contrast, John McCain began warning us more than two years ago about the impending mortgage crisis. From the Congressional Record dated May 25, 2006: 

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

BTW, it was the Democrats who killed the reform bill.  I'm sure they had their reasons...probably something to do with campaign contributions and a revolving door (Do we need to reform this party or what?).

Oops...sorry Camp Pamp, there's an issue you won't be able to use, and one that makes you look, well, impotent on the mortgage crisis.  And it looks like McCain is in fact a reformer, not the Bush toady you're failing in your attempt to make him appear.  What were you doing back in 2006...oh yeah...getting ready to run for President.

Oh, John McCain did receive money from Freddie and Fannie between 1989 and 2008; $21,550.  How much of that came from PACs?  ZERO.

Just so it sinks in...McCain, who has been in Congress for about 18 1/2 years and received $21,550, and has now run for President twice.  Obama has been in since 2005 and received $126,349.

High five Pampers!

15 September 2008

Step One: Collect Underpants

When planning a presidential campaign the most important decision is the campaign's theme song.  Hillary played "I Won't Back Down."  Pampers had "99 Problems."  Michael Dukakis had "I'm a Loser."  Well my campaign theme, chosen by the people in a fair and free election, fuckin' rocks!

The Earth Speaks

In 1879 Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Nation visited Washington, D.C. to meet President Rutherford B. Hayes.  There he pleaded the case for his people to be allowed to return to the land they desired to call their home:
I only ask of the Government to be treated as all other men are treated. If I cannot go to my own home, let me have a home in a country where my people will not die so fast. I would like to go to Bitter Root Valley. There my people would be happy; where they are now they are dying. Three have died since I left my camp to come to Washington.

When I think of our condition, my heart is heavy. I see men of my own race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals.

I know that my race must change. We cannot hold our own with the white men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. If an Indian breaks the law, punish him by the law. If a white man breaks the law, punish him also.

Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself -- and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty.

Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other then we shall have no more wars. We shall be all alike -- brothers of one father and mother, with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all. Then the Great Spirit Chief who rules above will smile upon this land and send rain to wash out the bloody spots made by brothers' hands upon the face of the earth. For this time the Indian race is waiting and praying. I hope no more groans of wounded men and women will ever go to the ear of the Great Spirit Chief above, and that all people may be one people.
As we have seen this past year, our political institutions do not treat us with decency.  How can First Nations expect any better?  They cannot.  They do not.

The following is a video from Native Americans Against Obama.  The music was composed by Robbie Robertson.  The words were spoken by Chief Joseph.  Ironic that more than 100 years ago the people who suffered genocide at the hands of European invaders had a greater understanding of inalienable human rights than the people who subjugated them; the descendants of those that declared those rights to the world.

14 September 2008

This Far and No Further!

I believe that in his heart, Thomas Jefferson was an anarchist.  Anarchy is a society without rulers, not a society without rules.  He understood that our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are inalienable.  No government can reward those rights.  No government can take them away.  We are already in possession of them. We do not need government to protect rights that cannot be taken from us. That being the case, "in the best of all possible worlds," to quote Dr. Pangloss, we would not need a government.  If 2008 is any indication we are far from living in the best of all possible worlds.  I have a feeling Jefferson would agree. 

On the long term prospect of government being an effective instrument in defending human liberty Jefferson said:
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
There has been a lot of talk over the last several months about who is a real Democrat and who is not, who is a patriot and who is not. Anyone who allows their party to get away with violating its own charter and sunshine laws, gives tacit approval to rampant caucus fraud, and subverts its own democratic procedures at its convention by intimidating delegates, preventing them from meeting, and holding rigged votes behind closed doors to my mind is neither.  
In 1801 Jefferson told Benjamin Waring:
The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object. 
We are already a society that has quietly accepted the suspension of habeas corpus, and warrantless wire tapping. Now we are supposed to accept the subversion of our right of franchise? Now we are supposed to accept that political institutions can reject democratic procedure in order to advance their preferred candidates and let the will of the people be damned?  NO! 

On May 31, 2008 we watched the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee violate its own charter and its sunshine laws when it arbitrarily assigned 59 Michigan delegates to Barack Obama.  It is well documented now that the Obama campaign perpetrated rampant fraud at caucuses around the country.  I was in Denver and was personally told by pledged delegates that they were being intimidated and threatened into changing their votes to Obama.  It is also now known that Clinton pledged delegates were not even permitted to organize or meet, and were forced to participate in a fraudulent roll call vote.  All in the name of presenting a wholly and totally false picture of party unity to the nation.  All in the name of advancing a personality.

The Oxford American Dictionary includes in the definition of fascism, "...a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach." 

The Democratic Party's leadership has certainly demonstrated contempt for democracy, insisted on obedience (though I would say Obama is far from a powerful leader), and has put forward a candidate that has employed a strong demagogic approach.  I will certainly not follow when an American political institution begins down the road of fascism.

As Democrats, and former Democrats, we must draw a line in the sand; this far and no further!  We must hold the Democratic Party responsible for what it has done in order to reclaim it.  This is America, not Putin's Russia. We are bound by our Constitution, and the natural law of human decency, to protect and defend our rights when faced with a body that designs to deprive us of them, as is the President and the Congress.  They have abdicated that responsibility. We have not, and we will not apologize for it.

Hey DNC, This Is What A President Looks Like

From Senator Clinton's Website~9 September, 2008:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today called for the creation of a United States commission to examine the conflict between Russia and Georgia. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs; Lieutenant General John M. Paxton, Jr., USMC, Director for Operations for the Joint Staff; and Brigadier General Michael T. Flynn, USA, Director for Intelligence for the Joint Staff, Senator Clinton questioned the witnesses on their views of the origins of the crisis and urged a thorough review of the lessons learned from the conflict and a careful evaluation of the nation’s posture toward Russia. Senator Clinton said she would introduce legislation to create a US commission if the administration did not take the initiative.

“The conflict between Russia and Georgia has raised many questions about the Bush Administration’s handling of the crisis and the future of our relationships with Russia and its neighbors. The best way to begin answering these questions is to create a commission that can establish the facts. If the administration won’t take the necessary steps, I will introduce legislation that will,” Senator Clinton said.

A transcript of Senator Clinton’s comments at the hearing follows.

Senator Clinton: Thank you very much. I think this is a tremendous opportunity for us. The questions that have been raised about our relationship with Russia going forward deserve the closest of attention and certainly an attempt to forge a bipartisan consensus similar to what we forged during the Cold War. I think that whatever illusions might have existed with the fall of the wall in Berlin, have certainly been tarnished, if not eliminated, but there doesn’t seem to be much that has taken their place, and so I would urge that we take this opportunity, especially because we are moving to a new administration, to create a commission here in our own country. I know that President Saakashvili has called for an international commission, which I hope will be established, and I hope the United States and our NATO allies will promote that vigorously, to create such a commission to in the first place determine the actual facts, because there is a dispute about the facts which may or may not be real but has certainly infected the dialogue and will therefore impact whatever thinking we have going forward. I believe that the administration would be well served to create this US commission which then could cooperate with the international commission. In the absence of the administration moving on this, I will be introducing legislation to establish such a commission. Obviously I hope the administration does it without legislation, although I think there are members of Congress who would be worthy members of such a commission were it to be established.

I also think that as we promote the idea of the international commission, it would be important to keep up a dialogue with Russia. To that end, I am somewhat troubled by the withdrawal from the nonproliferation efforts that we were engaged in. I think we ought to be able to hold competing thoughts in our mind at the same time. Is Russia more aggressive? Are they more intent upon pursuing their own interests as they define them, territorially, economically, politically? Of course they are. I don’t know why anybody is surprised about that. But therefore rather than seeking to isolate them, which I think is not a smart proposal, we should be much more strategic. And I don’t know that it’s in our interest for the administration to withdraw the nonproliferation agreement that you had negotiated. So I hope that we can take this opportunity to really think deeply about what deterrence in the 21st century means, what our geopolitical interests are. I think Senator Webb and Senator Warner raise good questions about NATO. I probably disagree with where their questions are leading, but I think it’s fair game for us to debate and discuss that.

I want to turn to General Paxton and General Flynn and ask either or both of you, were you surprised by the outbreak of these hostilities in Georgia. General Paxton, General Flynn?

General Paxton: Senator Clinton as we said earlier we tracked the -- in quote if you will -- peace keeping force that was there and the buildup of forces. You can always, I guess, reasonably expect something could happen, but in terms of the speed with which it happened and the extent that it came, as Ambassador Edelman said, it was disproportionate to us. We knew there was a buildup of forces north of the Roki Tunnel in Russia. We knew that there had been some summer exercises which is not out of the norm, and we knew that they had the potential to do things. But we had neither the expectation that it was going to happen to that degree and certainly to that size and speed.

Senator Clinton: Did you also track the railroad construction and the reinforcement of infrastructure like the depots to facilitate the movement of heavy equipment?

General Flynn: Yes ma'am. To answer your first question, personally yes, I was surprised that the disproportionality, the duration, and what I would say is the sort of their tactical commitment to what they eventually achieved, the hindsight from my perspective, because just coming into this, when we look at what preparations and the exercise that was conducted -- started on about the 15th of July didn’t end until about the 3rd of August -- and some of the military and tactical preparation kinds of things that they did, I think when we look at it and reexamine sort of what did we know and when did we know it, there's probably a lot more to the element of tactical surprise that we should probably be taking some lessons from.

Senator Clinton: Well I appreciate you saying that, General, because obviously that’s within the bailiwick of this committee and I think it would be worth some time to look at a lessons learned from this. I want to submit for the record an article that appeared in the Washington Post on July 15th by Ronald Asmus, who is with the German Marshall Fund, and it’s called “A War the West Must Stop,” and just the first sentence says, “There is war in the air between Georgia and Russia. Such a war could destabilize a region critical for Western energy supplies and ruin relations between Russia and the West.” So clearly there were observers, experts, there were people who follow this area and what’s happening inside Russia, and on Russia's borders, who were prescient, who basically said, this is a war we must stop. And one of the purposes of this commission that I'm advocating for our own country is, we've got to answer for ourselves, did we embolden the Georgians in any way? Did we send mixed signals to the Russians? I think it’s important that we understand that there is a lot of debate and ferment around what the United States government really did say, how clear we were with Moscow, how clear we were with Georgia, and I think we need to sort all that out. And the military aspect of this with respect to the signals, the intelligence, the information, how it was assessed, I think is an important part of it. So clearly that should be, in my view, part of what that commission looks at.

I thank the witnesses.

Gosh DNC, now I finally understand why you kicked Senator Clinton to the curb.  Who would want decisive, competent, leadership when you could have a guy who calls for a UN Security Council Resolution to be passed to condemn the violence in Georgia, forgetting that the aggressor in the conflict is in fact a permanent member of the UNSC with the power to veto any resolution?  Silly me.

Thank goodness we had the DNC to make up our minds for us. We nearly had a decent candidate. Thanks for falling on the grenade and giving us another Democratic loser. We certainly wouldn't want to break from tradition like we did in the 90s.  All that peace and prosperity sure did suck.