Seems that Ron Paul has some serious baggage in his background, that has been known for years. That in the past he published a political newsletter which routinely printed, under his name, bigoted screeds that include saying all black (afro-american) people are criminals, and such things like advice from a supposed ex-cop to carry a gun with you at all times to protect yourself from black criminals, but not any old gun but an unregistered gun bought from an unregistered dealer so the gun can't be traced to you and you can easily wipe the gun clean and dispose of it if needed. Seems like some of the most horrid sort of race bating bigoted idiocy you can think of, completely illegal advice, and going out in a newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it.
Now that Ron Paul is a front-runner the allegations have resurfaced - and Ron Paul is denying responsibility for the bigoted stuff that was published in his newsletter, the one with his name at the top. Supposedly Conservatives/Libertarians are all about personal responsibility being the law of the land, but maybe personal responsibility doesn't extend to when you want to later run for high political office?
That is - Ron Paul portrays himself as a real deal dyed in the wool conservative. Which should mean he practices personal responsibility. Hence, it's his personal responsibility for what got published under his name, right? So why does he deny responsibility? Maybe he's a real deal dyed in the wool hypocrite instead?
Anyway ... there's a couple things I came across to help understand the issue better.
Ron Paul and Libertarianism's Dirty Secret -- Pandering to Racist "Rednecks" to Get Ahead: The idea is that there are several brands of libertarians. Some of them, such as Ron Paul, are truly bigots or else they're pandering to the bigots to get votes. Some of them see the conservative rural bigots as their base, and say what that base wants to hear. Just to get votes.
The Alternet piece includes this 1995 interview with Ron Paul that includes an explanation of the newsletter issue. It was recorded between the two periods he was a congressman. In this video he sounds very reasonable, especially considering it was a softball interview by C-SPAN. It also sounds a bit hypocritical in that he says he believes in term limits, and had left congress in 1984 so he could return to real life, that he wasn't seeking after power, but he's now again been in congress for a long time, has gathered positions of power, and is seeking the Presidency.
The other thing is this report on Rachel Maddow's show last night calling this the skeleton in Ron Paul's closet
Last thing is a video on youtube from 2008 with Ron Paul making several interesting statements about unequal treatment of minorities and especially focusing on the drug laws that end up imprisoning black people disproportionately to drug use or drug law violations. The youtube posting it titled about Ron Paul being caught saying racist stuff on tape. My listening to this - heck - it doesn't sound racist to me. Instead it sounds like a stand on principles that people should be treated equally, etc, etc. It's clear from the information in the latter part of that video, that in 2008 the issue of these newsletters had come up then and he had faced these criticisms before.
In previous elections I've noticed an interesting thing if you look at per-county results. The main news results focus on per-state results for which state went "Red" versus "Blue" (aside: why is most of the world equating 'Red' with Communism and in the U.S. it's equated with Conservatives?). But what's more interesting is to look at the per-county results.
In previous years the split within a state was Republican=Rural, Democratic=Urban for most states. There were a few exceptions in previous years, but for the majority of states this rule seemed to work. Thus you can expect a couple things.. states with more rural than urban populations will vote Republican overall, and shifting demographics with more people moving to cities ought to represent a shift in voting population to favor Democratic candidates. Maybe. I suppose a rural Republican might still vote Republican even if they move to the big city, but that their children would no longer be rural.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=ALP00map -- Alabams, won by McCain, with blue areas in Birmingham and Montgomery. The other blue is probably rural counties with heavy black population but I don't know enough about Alabama to tell. Telling is that some of those counties were 70-80% for Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=AZP00map -- Arizona, McCain's home state, won by McCain. Phoenix went for McCain going against the pattern I suggested, but having visited Phoenix I found it to be a very conservative city. Tuscon is blue, and is a very different sort of city, if only because of the University presence. The other blue areas may be due to Native American leanings.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=CAP00map -- California, unsurprisingly voted for Obama, even the conservative-leaning southern California counties voted for him. Here the rural/urban split is pretty strongly demonstrated but for a couple exceptions. The coastal counties all went for Obama, the ones north of San Francisco are famously full of liberal tree hugging hippies. Literally.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=COP00map -- Colorado, another surprising win for Obama. The Denver and Boulder region voted for Obama but so did many other areas, many of which showed very few votes implying they are rural counties. The Colorado Spring area is famously hardline fundamentalist Christians who are hardline Conservatives and of course those counties went for McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=DEP00map -- Delaware, won by Obama. It shows three counties, two for Obama, one for McCain. The Obama counties are in the North, the McCain in the South. The Northernmost part of Delaware is the most urban region.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=GAP00map -- Georgia, won by McCain. This state shows a very clear rural/urban split. There are a heck of a lot of rural counties in Georgia, most of whom voted for McCain. Atlanta unsurprisingly was won by Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=IDP00map -- Idaho, won by McCain. With more right wing nutjobs per square mile (stereotype) and the largely rural nature of Idaho, it is no surprise for McCain to win and for the state to be so solidly red.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=ILP00map -- Illinois, Obama's home, and the state he represents as Senator, won by Obama. It's pretty well split between red and blue counties, with the Chicagoland region solidly blue. There is a tendency for the blue counties to be more heavily populated.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=INP00map -- Indiana, won by Obama. I find this surprising since Indiana is so heavily rural. Indianapolis and the Gary Indiana regions both are heavily populated urban centers that voted for Obama, as did Evansville (for it's area it's urban). Also voting for Obama is the county containing the Univ of Indiana.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=IAP00map -- Iowa, won by Obama. There are large swaths of blue counties. This is a rural state but for this sort of showing there must be a strong Democratic party in Iowa. e.g. why are the Democratic party Caucuses in Iowa so important?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=KSP00map -- Kansas, won by McCain. Not only is there a lot of rural population in Kansas, this state is famously Conservative. The exceptions in Kansas were Kansas City, and the counties containing the Univ of Kansas and Kansas State Univ. This follows the urban=Democratic, and Univ=Democratic pattern. Johnson County is famously Republican though possibly being converted, and while it's an Urban county (suburban) it voted Republican.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=KYP00map -- Kentucky, won by McCain. This state has a lot of deeply rural places. There are only a few blue counties. Owensboro is a secondary urban area, across the river from Evansville Indiana. Louisville and Lexington are the two main urban areas, and they voted for Obama. The Covington area is across from Cincinatti, and voted heavily for McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=LAP00map -- Louisiana, won by McCain. The blue counties are around New Orleans, and Baton Rouge. I don't know what's in Shreveport Louisana, but there's some population there and the county voted for Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=MDP00map -- Maryland, won by Obama. The corridor between Washington and Baltimore is heavily populated, and voted heavily for Obama, while the rest of the state is very rural and voted for McCain. An exception is the county containing Annapolis which voted for McCain, unsurprising as not only is McCain a veteran, but from an old Navy family. Even so the vote in that county was very close.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=MIP00map -- Michigan, won by Obama. Maybe this is the effect of problems in the Car Industry which have heavily hit Michigan. Or maybe this is due to it being Michael Moore's home state, or maybe not. But most of Michigan's counties voted for Obama, even the rural ones. This state did not follow the expected rural=Republican pattern.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=MNP00map -- Minnesota, won by Obama. This state has a lot of blue colored rural counties, also breaking the expected pattern. There's still no sign of where Lake Wobegon is, and it's unknown how they voted.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=MSP00map -- Mississippi, won by McCain. There are a lot of rural counties and primarily the ones who voted for Obama are along the river, while the ones who voted for McCain are away from the river. The county containing Jackson is urban and voted for Obama. The coastal counties, hit by the hurricanes, and more heavily populated, voted for McCain. This state did not follow the pattern very well.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=MOP00map -- Missouri, still undecided at this writing. It is largely red counties, and this is largely a rural state. Exceptions are the counties containing Kansas City (urban), Columbia (University) and St. Louis and environs (Urban). A couple exceptions are some rural counties south-west of St. Louis. This state is following the rural/urban/university pattern very well.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=MTP00map -- Montana, birth state of Palin, and won by McCain. This state famously is almost as outrageously right wing radical as Idaho (or so the stereotype goes). There are many rural counties that voted 70-80% McCain so the state almost completely follows the rural/urban pattern. Except there aren't real urban areas in this state. Some exceptions are the counties that contain connection to the national parks (Glacier County), to Native American reservations (Rosebud County) and I suspect Roosevelt County might have a Democratic party connection going back a ways.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=NVP00map -- Nevada, won by Obama. While most of Nevada is decidedly rural (desert) there are two heavily populated areas, that went for Obama. Las Vegas and Reno. This state follows the pattern.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=NJP00map -- New Jersey, won by Obama. This state has some famous urban areas, and some largely unknown rural areas. The rural southern counties went for Obama, except for Cape May county which voted for McCain. The urban counties across from Philadelphia and New York City voted for Obama as did most of the corridor in-between. Ocean and Monmouth counties, both fairly heavily populated, voted for McCain. The Northeast corner is rural and voted for McCain. Three counties are exceptions to the populated=Democratic pattern in that Morris County, Ocean and Monmouth counties voted for McCain, but I believe each of these three to have a lot of rich people in them. Morris County for example is the home of AT&T. This state does not follow the pattern very well.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=NMP00map -- New Mexico, won by Obama. There are a lot of rural counties in this state, some of whom voted for Obama. Unsurprisingly he won in the Albuquerque-Santa Fe-Taos corridor. But some other rural counties outside this corridor were won by Obama. Supposedly the Native American vote came in heavily for Obama, and New Mexico is famous for its Native American population.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=NYP00map -- New York, won by Obama. The state partially follows the rural/urban pattern, New York City, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie and Albany voted for Obama. However many rural counties in New York also voted for Obama. Staten Island voted for McCain going against the rural/urban pattern.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=NCP00map -- North Carolina, undecided at this writing. A lot of rural counties in this state with a few Urban areas. The Raleigh/Durham (urban) and Charlotte (urban) areas voted for Obama. Most of the rest of this state is rural and voted for McCain, some exceptions are Greensboro (is this the home of Duke, making it a University area?) and a county in western N.C. which contains Ashland, a new age wacko enclave (or so the stereotype goes). But there are a few decidedly rural counties which voted for Obama. This state did not carefully follow the rural/urban pattern.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=OHP00map -- Ohio, won by Obama, thank goodness. This is a rural state that has some heavily urban pockets, especially in the north. The northern corridor has been badly hit economically. There is a fairly clear rural/urban split in Ohio but with a few exceptions along the eastern portion of the state.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=OKP00map -- Oklahoma, entirely won by McCain. This is another state that is chockablock full of radical right wing nutjobs (or so the stereotype goes). Not even the urban centers were leaning to Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=ORP00map -- Oregon, won by Obama. While there is a lot of rural areas in Oregon, that went largely for McCain, they are outweighed by the area around Portland which is chockablock full of tree hugging hippies. This state follows the rural/urban pattern very well.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=PAP00map -- Pennsylvania, won by Obama. There are a lot of rural counties who voted for McCain, and some deeply urban centers who voted for Obama. Philadelphia (Urban), Harrisburg (urban), Pittsburg (urban) and Erie (Urban) all voted for Obama as did their environs. With only a couple exceptions the state followed the rural/urban pattern very well.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=SCP00map -- South Carolina, won by McCain. This state did not follow the rural/urban pattern very well, in that a lot of rural counties voted for Obama. None of the urban areas voted for McCain so this part of the pattern works.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=TNP00map -- Tennessee, won by McCain. Almost entirely red and an almost entirely rural state. Nashville and Memphis voted for Obama so the state almost correctly follows the rural/urban pattern. However Chattanooga and Knoxville both voted for McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=TXP00map -- Texas, home to the Bushies and home to the Oil Industry. A lot of right wing nutjob rural counties are in this state (or so the stereotype goes) and for the most part it follows the rural/urban split. Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso all voted for Obama while most of the rest of the state (all rural) voted for McCain. However interestingly a swath of Texas that borders Mexico all voted for Obama.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=UTP00map -- Utah, won by McCain. Home to the Mormon Church, a famously fundamentalistic organization. This state does not follow the rural/urban split, but that is no doubt due to the Mormon Church skewing things.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=WAP00map -- Washington, won by Obama. The divide in Washington State is the Cascade mountains. West of the Cascades the counties were won by Obama, east of them the counties were won by McCain.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=WVP00map -- West Virginia, won by McCain. This state is probably the poster child example of rural. The state is almost entirely voting for McCain except for a couple exceptions, most of which are unclear. One exception is in the north where the U of West Virginia is located, and another is in the far east portion that's pretty well disconnected from the majority of the state. W.V. has no real urban areas so it's hard to say what pattern it's following.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=WIP00map -- Wisconson, won by Obama. Interestingly this state was won almost entirely by Obama. Most of it is rural and most of it was won by Obama, making this state one of the clear exceptions to the rural=Republican pattern.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/county/#val=WYP00map -- Wyoming, won by McCain, home state to Darth Cheney. It's an entirely rural state and voted almost completely for McCain. Exceptions are the counties which contain Laramie and the Grand Teton's National Park. Jackson Hole (Grand Tetons) is famously rich-liberal, and it may be that Laramie is home to a University. Otherwise there are a lot of gun-toting right wing nutjobs (or so the stereotype goes) and it's unsurprising they voted for McCain.
What a dream come true. An end to the nightmare and the accomplishment of a dream, that's been a long time in the fulfillment. But there's an interesting phrase being used in the celebration: "YES WE DID" riffing on the campaign slogan "YES WE CAN". Its as if they are celebrating having accomplished the goal, and that's all they needed to do was to get their guy into office.
Uh.. There is some seriously deep problems in this country. There are serious problems to fix in this country, serious damage to undo, etc. There is going to be powerful forces arrayed against real change, the real change that we do need.
This cannot stop with this election victory, it has to keep going.
It's a very stirring speech, full of hope, high minded ideas, and a breath of freshness after the 8 years of the Bush Administration darkness. But, it's a speech, it's over in 18 minutes, and then what. Listening to the speech I could only imagine the people in that audience, and thinking about them walking home after that speech and wondering how much of it they will carry home with them and how much their future life will change.
Or.. will the people go back to sleep lulled by the latest from celebrityitis (Paris, J.Lo, etc) or football or whatever other distractions the elite cook up to get the peoples mind off the game.
MoveOn sent me a letter about my blog and suggested something I could post to it.. basically they're sending out a list of points for us to ponder, so that we don't look at the news about Obama being ahead in the polls and get lazy. As they say anything can happen in the next couple of weeks. Anything.
The polls maybe be wrong? Were the polls wrong in 2004 or 2000? The guy who won both times was behind in the polls so something was amiss. Of course the poll that matters is the one on election day.
Dirty tricks? We're already seeing a ton of them aren't we? Of course those aren't the kind of people we want to have in office but on the other hand similar dirty tricks were pulled in prior elections and sometimes those tactics do work.
October surprise? Aren't we already having it? That is the financial meltdown. But maybe something else could come out.
...etc... It is important to keep up the work for Obama etc. But what's most important is that we not go back to sleep after election day. This is something that happens in election after election, that we the people seem to think our duty is only to vote and then once we've voted there's nothing to do until the next election. Sorry that's not going to work right now.
There are seriously powerful interests in Washington and for Obama to have a chance at actually sticking to his Change promise he's going to need the support of we the people. Further it may well be that Obama doesn't represent the change we want, and it's important for we the people to keep hammering at the change we do want rather than allowing the politicians to push their idea of what needs to be changed.
This is indicitave of something I've been suspecting. The Republicans have managed to turn off Conservatives by acting against Conservative ideals. I'll note in passing that in the late 90's my father, a life-long Conservative & Republican, was overwhelmingly outraged by the destructive politics being practiced by the Republicans. And ever since he had nothing good to say about world events such as the lies and deceit practiced by the Bush Administration.
In the case of Buckley... he wrote a speech for McCain, has known him for years and years, has written favorably about him for a long time. But he says the election process has changed McCain into inauthenticity, an irascible and snarly temperament, changing and incoherent positions, unrealistic promises, goofy tactics, and worst of all is the nomination of Gov. Palin.
Buckley describes himself as "a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets" and not one to adopt Obama's policy proposals. But one to see Obama as a thoughtful, first-class intelligence, first-class temperament, etc, and trusts that Obama will do the right thing and not the stereotypical actions Conservatives present as the potential horror story of what will happen of those hated liberals get into office. Of course Obama is just the President and he has to dance with Congress, and it appears likely the Democratic party will have a full majority in Congress. It's unknown whether Obama as President will be able to rein in a Democratic Congress if the other Democrats decide to veer into actions the Conservatives claim as the horror story.
In a followup column Buckley says "My father in his day endorsed a number of liberal Democrats for high office, including Allard K. Lowenstein and Joe Lieberman", that he was close friends with Liberals, and that he "held to rigorous standards, and if those were met by members of the other side rather than by his own camp, he said as much".
This speaks to an observation I've had for quite awhile.. The behavior of current Conservatives appears to be more like a sports team or an army in battle than it does about promoting a set of beliefs or ideals. The behavior I mean is the hateful spite associated with the word 'Liberal' and the outright shunning of anything associated with Liberalness. If Buckley is right he was shunned out of his job with the National Review in this way, that just because he dared to betray his camp then his camp immediately repudiates and shuns him. This isn't about ideology, this is about pitting one group of combatants against another group of combatants.
Or, as Buckley put it,
While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance. As a sideshow, it brought us a truly obscene attempt at federal intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.
So, to paraphrase a real conservative, Ronald Reagan: I haven’t left the Republican Party. It left me.
Here's some more people who are taking the same sort of stand:-
I'm a lifelong conservative activist and I'm backing Barack Obama BY LARRY HUNTER -- "I'm a lifelong Republican - a supply-side conservative. I worked in the Reagan White House. I was the chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for five years. In 1994, I helped write the Republican Contract with America. I served on Bob Dole's presidential campaign team and was chief economist for Jack Kemp's Empower America. This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama. "
Growing parade of conservatives backing Obama ... from an article published July 7, indicates this has been going on for awhile. 'Among the reformed righties now hoping for an Obama victory are free-market economist David Friedman, former Reagan aide Douglas Kmiec, Contract With America co-author Larry Hunter and Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the former president....Bush's "view of the legitimate power of the executive branch, including the authority to deliberately violate federal law, I find frightening," Friedman..."The untold story of the Bush administration is the deliberate annihilation of the Reaganite, small-government wing of the Republican Party," said Michael Greve, director of the Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute...'
Tory MPs abandon Republicans to back Barack Obama Yup, MP means Member of Parliament, as in the British Parliament. "Almost a third of Tory MPs willing to publicly express their preferences in the US presidential election are prepared to jettison their party's historic links with the Republicans and back Democrat Senator Barack Obama. "
A Conservative for Obama "...today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don't work. The Bush tax cuts--a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war--led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his "conservative"- credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask....This kind of conservatism, which is not conservative at all, has produced financial mismanagement, the waste of human lives, the loss of moral authority, and the wreckage of our economy that McCain now threatens to make worse...."
October 2, 2008, U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Brad Sherman [D-CA] asks:
"But why are we bailing out the Bank of China? Why are we bailing out the Saudi royal family?...
The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and by sustaining a panic atmosphere...
A few Members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted ``no.''
TRANSCRIPT
I thank the Chair. I have got 30 minutes, and I will share some with the gentlelady from Ohio in just a second to describe the flaws with this bill. Believe it or not, 30 minutes is not long enough. But first I want to mention about the calls that are coming into our office.
The calls used to be from people around the country. Now Wall Street firms have their employees unplugging those headsets to call investors and instead calling Members of Congress. So now the calls coming in to at least my office have shifted from 20-1 against this bailout package for Wall Street, down to about 3-1 or 4-1 against this bailout.
I ask my colleagues not to be confused. Edit out some of those calls that are coming to you from folks who are being paid to make the call, and you will realize the country remains absolutely overwhelmingly opposed to this Wall Street bailout bill.
I thank again the gentleman from Ohio, and I will make a few more points.
We had a meeting of the Skeptics Caucus, which is now a bipartisan Skeptics Caucus, where we heard from Bill Isaac. Mr. Isaac was Chair of the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), having first been appointed to that board by President Carter and then appointed by Reagan. You don't find very many people who have support on both sides of the aisle like that.
Bill Isaac led the FDIC in solving the 1981 crisis, which was probably worse than the crisis that we have now. He used the emergency powers of the FDIC. He was able to solve that credit crisis without significant cost to the taxpayer.
We ought to hear from Bill Isaac. And I look forward to us defeating this bill tomorrow so we can have hearings and all my colleagues, not just those who came to the Skeptics Caucus, can hear from Mr. Isaac and so many others, because the starting point is this testimony that we didn't hear before any hearing, because there have been no hearings on this bill, but rather a letter sent to Members of Congress by hundreds of eminent economists, including three Nobel Laureates. And they said, we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action.
The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and by sustaining a panic atmosphere.
That atmosphere is not justified. Many of us were told in private conversations, if we voted against this bill, that, on Monday, the sky would fall and that the market would drop 2,000 or 3,000 points the first day and another 2,000 the second day.
A few Members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted ``no.''
Make no doubt about it, Sarah Palin is a danger to the country. She is a theocracist born and raised within the Assembly of God, and desires to see this country redone as a Theocracy. Putting her into office would be the most horrible change in this country.
There are some who think that the anagram of ones name has a clue as to their character. Or maybe it's just a coincidental sort of thing. But...
Maybe the idea of anagram=destiny is bogus and it's just a coincidence. It is real curious though buried inside her name is 'Sharia Plan'. Sharia is the body of Islamic religious law, and supposedly the danger in the Middle East are fundamentalist Islamics who are attempting to impose Sharia as the law of governments across the Middle East. Meaning that buried inside her name is one of the major movements of fundamental religious types to impose fundamental religious law to interfere with individual freedom -- and at the same time she is an active participant in the other major movement of fundamental religion to impose fundamental religious law which would interfere with individual freedom.
Glenn Greenwald does a great summary of a deployment of a U.S. military brigade and he closes with "There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort." What's this about scare scenarios, martial law, etc? To understand we have to back up four years to On delaying the national elections (2004). During that election season some of the inside-the-beltway types were pondering what it would require to cancel the elections, you know, in case some of them terrorists were to do something evil just before the election. The idea they floated was supposedly inspired by a bombing in Madrid just before their election, and the election results were that the candidate who won immediately pulled Spain out of the War on Error (er.. Iraqi Freedom) and was a sea change in Spain's policies. I suspect the elite didn't like this and in their quest to control the outcome of every election they want the freedom to pull elections if they're going to occur in circumstances they cannot control.
Oh.. I should mention if it's not already obvious that in this blog posting I'm going to make some unprovable outrageous claims. I'm simply explaining the rationale which Glenn Greenwald is skipping over.
It is true that in 2004 some U.S. elite were floating the idea that they might need to cancel the elections. The method of floating the proposal indicates to me it's an agenda somewhere to do so in order to enable the elite to commit what is effectively a coup or overthrow of the U.S. government.
Eh? A bit over 10 yrs ago I had a book, Called to Serve, written by Bo Gritz (wikipedia), a former Army Ranger who claims to have been the inspiration for the Rambo character. The book was a very challenging read because its information was way outside the mainstream view of the world. And one thing he said is the elite were planning a coup/overthrow of the U.S. but rather than do it militarily they would do it in the open, it would be on national TV coverage, it would appear legal, etc. I scoffed a "yeah right" and while I still don't believe him, the events since Sept 11, 2001 have had my memory of his book in the back of my mind. One of the steps required to implement an overthrow of the type he recommends is the declaration of Martial Law.
That is, if the elite can create a situation which looks threatening enough to warrant Martial Law and they can establish Martial Law as a permanent condition it would effectively be the overthrow he suggested.
The event prompting this line of reasoning is an announcement that the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division will be stationed inside the U.S. borders as their dedicated assignment. Clearly U.S. troops are resident within U.S. borders all across the country so it leaves me puzzling over what the distinction is. I expect the distinction is that the other troops have their assignment to other Army "Commands" all of which are world regions outside the U.S. borders. The Northern Command was established in 2002 and is a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.
Glenn Greenwald goes on to discuss the Defense Authorization Act of 2006 which contained a provision which alters the ability of a President to impose martial law. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is the law which prevents anyone from using the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. However Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the details so that instead of being governed by the Insurrection Act it is governed by the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." This later law is very broad in terms of defining conditions under which Martial Law can be declared.
The above is about a relatively minor act of a troop deployment. As shocking as it is that a brigade is receiving this specific deployment, there is an interesting context within which it is happening. Over the last two weeks there has been a "financial meltdown" in which banks and financial institutions have been forced out of business and gutted and in some cases essentially nationalized. Yup, the Republicans are in control, advocates of Small Government, and here they are nationalizing businesses. And today the McCain campaign announced it would suspend campaign operations so that Sen. McCain can focus on the bailout negotations related to these now-nationalized financial institutions. Um, a Presidential Candidate who is suspending their campaign? Maybe I'm reading too much into this but it's a very weird step to take.
Why is this required? Why is the military being considered for 'crowd control' activities when there are already police forces who have training and equipment to deal with crowd control?
Further there is a deep question of scope, it is police forces whose scope are internal operations. It is the military whose scope is to deal with external threats. In an early episode of the modern Battlestar Galactica there is a statement by Admiral Adama which is hauntingly like this situation we're pondering. He was being asked to use his troops to "put down" a revolt and he made a statement which went like: There is a reason we separate police and military functions. The role and training of the military is to deal with external enemies to the state. When you use the military on the state, then it is the state who becomes the enemy.
To close I want to repeat what I said above. These thoughts are clearly stretching out quite a ways. But these are troubling times.
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult.
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.
For weeks, John McCain has run one of the most dishonest campaigns in American history. Now it's time to strike back. So today, we're launching a new ad that uses the facts to hit John McCain hard—reminding voters of his numerous ties to big oil companies and their lobbyists.
MoveOn.org is calling for donations to support airing the following advertisement.
John McCain has been exploiting his prisoner of war experience every chance he gets. He has used this story to justify everything from not knowing how many homes he has to his healthcare plan to his marital infidelities to his taste in music. The McCain campaign is even using his POW story in paid ads. But now a veteran who was a prisoner with McCain in Vietnam is explaining loud and clear that being a POW does not qualify McCain to lead our country.
We are sure this video will draw an onslaught of right-wing attacks, but we bring it to you because it is our job to continue to convey the truth together and give these issues national attention. As Dr. Butler has said, McCain does not have the temperament to have his finger near the red button. Get this video to everyone you know—friends, family members, coworkers, and especially those who don't share your political views. The video is designed to reach them. Get it on your social networking sites like Digg. And get it to every blog, newspaper, and TV station that has ever overplayed McCain's POW story. It is time to fight back with truth!
The mainstream press has already begun to call out McCain for overusing his POW story. And it's cut across all political persuasions. * "Whether he's deflecting criticism over his health-care plan or mocking a tribute to the Woodstock music festival, Senator John McCain has a trump card: the Hanoi Hilton. — Edwin Chen, Bloomberg * "Noun, Verb, POW" — Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic Monthly * "The McCain campaign's constant invocation of the candidate's POW past is weird bordering on irrational..." — Ana Marie Cox, TIME * "I think they are going to it way too many times." — Howard Fineman, Newsweek
Remember how Joe Biden got the press to refer to Rudy Giuliani as "A noun, a verb, and 9/11"? Well, let's actually take Andrew Sullivan's lead here and get the media to boil McCain down to a similar phrase: "A noun, a verb, and POW." Considering how often the McCain campaign invokes his POW story, isn't that what they're already doing?
We have to spread the truth about McCain ourselves because it's clear the corporate media won't. NOW. FAST. FURIOUS. EVERYWHERE.
We are in the two-minute drill with no timeouts. No more sitting on the sidelines and allowing the McCain campaign to rack up points with countless distortions.
As we've seen with The Real McCain 2 (nearly 4.5 million views and counting!), once the truth gets out, it's hard to stop. In the last few days we have seen a disgusting descent into the worst of sleazy smear politics. We need to spread the facts and the truth. Send this to your friends and relations, especially if they are unsure or undecided—they're more willing to believe you than a talking head!
Some opinions of McCain from his own party and military "commrades"
The soundtrack is "lux aeterna" composed by Clint Mansell. It was originally composed for "Requiem for a Dream" but this version was remixed for the Lord of the Rings theatrical trailer.
Thanks for all the positive feedback, I read all my messages but don't always have time to respond to all of them.
Michelle speaks at length with Soledad O'Brien on topics ranging from her family to attacks on her husband as he campaigns for President. Appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360.
Excerpt: Speaking to a huge crowd at the University of Colorado, Barack Obama speaks of the most important foreign policy decision of recent times, the decision to invade Iraq.
After winning the Nebraska, Washington State, Louisiana, and Virgin Islands Democratic primaries and caucuses, Senator Barack Obama addresses a roaring crowd at the Virginia Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. This occurred a couple days before the 'Potomac Primaries' in mid-February 2008.
Barack Obama speaks in Nashua, New Hampshire on the night of the 2008 New Hampshire primary. Highlight footage from the past week in New Hampshire included.
Barack addressed a crowd of 3,500 supporters at Tulane University on Feb 2, 2008
New Orleans represents a central theme of his campaign.. Change does not happen from the top down, but happens from the bottom up. "When we understand we are the United States of America, there is not anything we can do as a country" He uses New Orleans, specifically the Katrina hurricane aftermath, as an example of how America failed its people. "For all of its wealth and power, something is not right in America... a President who only saw America from the window of an airplane rather than down here on the ground with the people..."
It's been awhile since I posted anything about Obama. It's clear the sliming of him by the mainstream news media is continuing. In the linked article they show a clip of Katie Couric, the controversial CBS Evening News anchor. Controversial? She comes from the fluffy-entertainment side of the industry, not the real journalism side, and this news clip is a good example of the problem.
She repeats an accusation which has been thoroughly discredited .. that during Obama's childhood his mother sent him to a Madrassa school. During that time he and his mother lived in Indonesia, and as that country is heavily Islamic there were plenty of Islamic oriented schools in the area. He was sent to a Christian oriented school for some time, and for another time to an Islamic oriented school. However it's been proved the school in question was emphatically not a Madrassa. The Madrassa's being a specific sort of Islamic school which teaches fundamentalist Islam.
