Mark McKinnon Will Quit McCain RatherThan Run Against Obama

Earlier today, the Swamp noted that Mark McKinnon, a senior campaign adviser to both President Bush and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had said some time ago that he could not serve McCain if Sen. Barack Obama became the Democratic presidential nominee.

And now this evening, the Republican consultant is reaffirming his stance that he will have to step out of his advisor’s role for the campaign if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. He explained his aversion to campaigning against Obama in an interview aired by National Public Radio, where Michele Norris interviewed him for All Things Considered:

“I met Barack Obama, I read his book, I like him a great deal,” McKinnon said. “I disagree with him on very fundamental issues. But I think, as I said, I think it would a great race for the country, and I would simply be uncomfortable being in a campaign that would be inevitably attacking Barack Obama. I think it would be uncomfortable for me, and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign.” Read on…

Seems Mr. McKinnon has more conscious than to be caught up in the usual GOP slime/slash/kill machine if it's aimed at Obama. He knows what's coming. So do we. We had better be prepared to fight back, as the people.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

John Lewis has second, or is that third, thoughts

John Lewis, D. GA was torn between Hillary and Barack when guess who, Bill Clinton, put the pressure on, and Lewis publicly endorsed Hillary, giving her one of the most important Black endorsements.

Now, it appears circumstances have pushed Lewis in the other direction.

Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America, and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview in which he said that as a superdelegate he could “never, ever do anything to reverse the action” of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama.

“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

Time’s Mark Halperin argued that Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination, in light of Lewis’ announcement, have been cut in half. That strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration, but I think it’s certainly fair to say this is a major development.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Rule By Fear Or By Law

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counter-terrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

Animal rights activists? Whoooo, scary. Trespassing, sit-ins and CD. Makes you quake in your boots, eh?

No, it makes them quake in theirs. But why all of a sudden?

This isn't aimed, specifically, at any of the old groups, though it may be a way of getting rid of all of them in one fell swoop. Why? Damned if I know. These groups have been around for 30 years or more and they haven't done much damage, except for the anti-abortion people who blow up family planning clinics, with people inside.

Protesters for peace? Now that's a scary lot.

My hunch is that this is all being constructed, the law and the detention centers, for something yet to come, but that they are sure is coming. What could that be? What could bring out, into the streets, all the diverse groups mentioned above plus hundreds of thousands of other Americans in mass riots? Another assassination, maybe. Yep, that would do it for sure.

But what else?

Did anyone else notice that second amendment advocates were listed? I hate to say this to my very liberal friends, but that is scary.

Harman seem more and more like a Nazi every day!

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

Something it's citizens won't tolerate, would be my guess.

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

What constitution? It's been being shredded ever since Nixon and the shredders have been smokin' ever since 2000. There are no more laws protecting the citizens from our government. The sooner the people realize this the better off we will all be.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

This article appeared on page B - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

UnFreakin;Believable!!!!!!

This Sullivan guy ought to be horse-whipped. I've got one out in the barn.

Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan aired "side-by-side comparison" of speeches by Hitler and Obama

Summary: Fox News Radio host Tom Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated that when listening to Barack Obama speak, "it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell." Sullivan then played a "side-by-side comparison" of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech. Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, "Yay! Yay!" When a later caller complained that Sullivan was "denigrating" Obama with the comparison, Sullivan said he wouldn't play it again, then begged: "Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won't do it again. ... Until the next time."

On the February 11 broadcast of Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Show, host Tom Sullivan took a call from a listener who stated: "Listening to [Sen. Barack] Obama ... it harkens back to when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with [Nazi dictator Adolf] Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell." Sullivan replied: "Oh, yeah, yeah ... I presume you're not saying he's Hitler, but I understand your point." Following the commercial break, Sullivan stated the caller "wasn't calling Barack Obama Hitler. He was just talking about how Hitler got the crowd all excited, and Barack Obama got the crowd all excited." Sullivan then stated that he would do a "side-by-side comparison" of a Hitler speech and an Obama speech. Sullivan then introduced the "comparison" by stating: "So, ladies and gentlemen, from the past, a little archive, a little walk down Der Fuehrer's memory lane. Here he is, the one, the only, Adolf Hitler!" Sullivan proceeded to play a clip of a Hitler speech, followed by Obama's February 9 speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond, Virginia. Sullivan mimicked the crowd during both speeches, yelling, "Yay! Yay!"

Following Sullivan's "comparison," a listener called in to say: "I resent the fact that you would compare -- I am a black man -- you would compare Barack Obama to Hitler, because we need leaders that can inspire us, to hope for the future. We need people like him." Sullivan replied: "I love his speech." The caller then asked: "Then why would you bring Hitler in on it?" Sullivan responded: "I didn't. The caller brought Hitler in on it. The caller said he sounds like Hitler." The upset caller responded: "Well, why would you even pick it up? It's denigrating his character." Sullivan replied: "No, it's not." Sullivan later stated: "Well, I understand that Hitler is hated by, and should be, by most everybody in civilized society. ... But the point being, you must remember something. Adolf Hitler was able to gather a country of people and get them excited about whatever it was that he was talking to them about. He was a very fiery, enigmatic -- I'm not sure -- I mean, he was -- I mean, he really got the people all thrilled, and I'm sitting there going,' I hadn't thought about him being associated in any way with Clint' -- and I asked the guy, I said, 'Are you saying that Obama is like Hitler?' And he said, 'No, it's the speaking style, that's all.' And the speaking style is actually kind of similar." Before Sullivan ended the segment, he stated: "All right, we won't play Hitler any more, then." But Sullivan then pleaded: "One time -- oh, come on, one more time? Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won't do it again." He then added: "Until the next time."

According to his bio on FoxNews.com, Sullivan has "been a regular fill-in for the most listened to talk show in the world, The Rush Limbaugh Program, for a number of years" and "now anchors the 10AM-Noon (Eastern Time) show on the FOX Business Network."

Media Matters for America has previously documented numerous other examples of conservative media figures comparing progressives to Nazis. For example, on December 13, 2007, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly responded to guest Jane Hall's assertion that actor Tim Robbins, who was campaigning for John Edwards, made "valid" criticisms of the media by stating: "But [Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim] Von Ribbentrop in the Nazi hierarchy made valid points, Jane." O'Reilly has also claimed there is "no difference between" the Nazis and progressive blog Daily Kos. On January 11, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage declared that Media Matters is "run by a bunch of fascist homosexuals. They're the brownshirts of our time." In April 2007, Savage also called a speech by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "Hitler dialogue."

From the second hour of the February 11 broadcast of Fox News Radio's Tom Sullivan Show:

CALLER: Listening to Obama, and what I've seen on TV. I'm 65 years old, and it harkens back when I was younger and I used to watch those deals with Hitler, how he would excite the crowd and they'd come to their feet and scream and yell.

SULLIVAN: Oh yeah, yeah.

CALLER: And I don't think -- I can't think of any other politician that has excited them as much as he has.

SULLIVAN: He -- I presume you're not saying he's a Hitler, but I understand your point.

CALLER: Right. He's exciting the people, he's igniting them, and are they even thinking about what he's saying?

SULLIVAN: No. Because I'll tell you, if you listen to him, he sounds -- how can you argue with a guy who says he's for hope, he's for a great America, he's for a great country, we're great people. We can do anything we want, you can be anything you want.

CALLER: Yep, and he ain't telling them to get off their seats and go do it themselves.

SULLIVAN: I know -- well, we -- don't now -- don't ruin a good story with trying to get the details. No, I understand your point, [caller]. You're absolutely right. The details will have to come out. We'll be right back.

[...]

SULLIVAN: For those of you who heard the call from the guy in Texas who said that Barack Obama reminds him of Hitler, well, I take up the challenge. You decide for yourself. Here is -- oh-oh, one minute, OK, we got -- we need -- I thought you were signaling that you were ready. We're putting -- we're finding -- we have had to go to our global resources now, to find out of our German file a speech or two from Der Fuehrer and find out -- I have no idea what he was saying in this speech, but we'll see. I wonder what -- if it sounds at all like -- I mean, he wasn't calling Barack Obama Hitler. He was just talking about how Hitler got the crowd all excited, and Barack Obama got the crowd all excited. Let's take a phone call and we'll come back and we'll see if we can do a little side-by-side comparison.

[...]

SULLIVAN: But they certainly knew the Republicans were spending more than they possibly should have. Let's take a short break and come back. No, no, can we get this in now? OK. Before the break, a caller just before the bottom of the hour said that Barack Obama's speech reminds him of hearing the speeches of Adolf Hitler. So, ladies and gentlemen, from the past, a little archive, a little walk down Der Fuehrer's memory lane. Here he is, the one, the only, Adolf Hitler.

[audio clip of Hitler speech]

SULLIVAN: Yay! Yay! All right, great. I don't know what he said. Here's Barack Obama.

[audio clip of Obama speech]

SULLIVAN: Yay!

[audio clip of Hitler speech]

SULLIVAN: Yay!

[...]

SULLIVAN: Now we're getting -- now we're getting requests -- we're kind of like the Top 40 music station. We're getting requests for different speeches that were being played. Yes, just name your speech, and we will see if we can play it for you, the Top 40 speech.

[...]

SULLIVAN: Back to the phones we go. [Caller] in Columbus, Ohio. Hi, [caller]. How have you been?

CALLER: I am here. Thank you for the opportunity to be on the show.

SULLIVAN: You bet.

CALLER: I resent the fact that you would compare -- I am a black man --

SULLIVAN: Yes, sir.

CALLER: -- you would compare Barack Obama to Hitler, because we need leaders that can inspire us, to hope for the future. We need people like him.

SULLIVAN: I love the -- I love his speech. I told you I sat there and I went -- I'm going -- I'm listening to his speech --

CALLER: Why would you bring Hitler in on it?

SULLIVAN: I didn't. The caller brought Hitler in on it. The caller said he sounds like Hitler.

CALLER: Well, why would you even pick it up? It's denigrating his character.

SULLIVAN: No, it's not.

CALLER: Well, Hitler has nothing to do with what is right and honorable and what the country should be looking forward to. And I believe this, I believe that the intellect of Barack Obama is strong enough to bring in a cabinet and to surround himself with men who can -- can run -- help him run this country. No president has everything, all the knowledge needed, but his intellect to be able to bring men into his cabinet who can steer this country, is what it's all about, and I think he's got the intelligence to do it.

SULLIVAN: Who are you for?

CALLER: I -- actually, I happen to be a Republican because of my morals. But I believe that Barack Obama -- I don't like McCain, I really don't.

SULLIVAN: Yeah, you don't -- yeah.

CALLER: I don't like McCain, I really don't. But Barack Obama, I would vote for him because I believe that he has some level facts about his thinking, but I'm thinking that he would be a good president to inspire us for the future and equality for everybody.

SULLIVAN: Are you sure you're not a seminar caller? We had one a few minutes ago.

CALLER: No, I have not ever been on your show before.

SULLIVAN: We had -- no, we had a different caller, but I'm just going, are you guys all coming from the Barack Obama seminar on how to call talk shows and talk good about him?

CALLER: I am a truck driver running the road right now through Harrisburg, and I got a Sirius Radio that I was listening to. But I just said that I had to call because I resent the fact that you're picking up on that thing with Hitler.

SULLIVAN: Well, I understand that Hitler is hated by, and should be, by most everybody in civilized society.

CALLER: Yes, even you. Even you.

SULLIVAN: But the point being, you must remember something. Adolf Hitler was able to gather a country of people and get them excited about whatever it was that he was talking to them about. He was a very fiery, enigmatic -- I'm not sure -- I mean, he was -- I mean, he really got the people all thrilled, and I'm sitting there going, "I hadn't thought about him being associated in any way with Clint" -- and I asked the guy, I said, "Are you saying that Obama is like Hitler?" And he said, "No, it's the speaking style, that's all." And the speaking style is actually kind of similar.

CALLER: But part of being a good leader and a motivating leader is to be able to inspire people. That's part of being a good leader.

SULLIVAN: Yeah, Oh, yeah.

CALLER: -- denigrating because you have --

SULLIVAN: I think -- don't you think I've made a very good point of the difference between his leadership speaking style and Ms. Clinton's speaking style?

CALLER: Yeah, I think you do. If you had left Hitler out of it, you'd have had a perfect show.

SULLIVAN: All right, we won't play Hitler any more, then.

CALLER: Oh, I --

SULLIVAN: One time -- oh, come on, one more time? Can I, please, one more time? Just one more time? Then I won't do it again.

CALLER: Well, sure, but I think --

SULLIVAN: Until the next time.

CALLER: -- some in the audience that don't appreciate that --

SULLIVAN: All right, all right. I'll take your cautionary words in stride. I appreciate it, thanks, [caller]. Short break. We'll be right back.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Does Hillary think She Can Win Without Independents?

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson. ( son of idiot)

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG

"This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,'' states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But "whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,'' he said. (Superdelagates are nothing but the old Democratic machine in a different form and we all know it)

But independents may not get behind that person. We may just go harvest the crops, work on our solar panel installations, clean our rain catchers, go to our jobs in town, and get ready for winter. You see Mr. Penn, teevee pundits seem to think of independents as disaffected Goopers. Since when have they known what they are talking about? They certainly don't this year. There has been a left leaning, voting independent movement in this country since 2003. Have you paid any attention at all to the unbelievable increase in voters, even in an off year like 2006? Can you possibly believe that the increase in voters is due to GOP enthusiasm or millions of extra evangelicals? It's their religious duty to vote or stay home anyway. We owe none of you a damn thing.

We are the independents of the 60's. We lost faith in the system 40 years ago, when Bobby was gunned down and our ballots meant nothing. Instead of Bobby and a Vietnam pull out, we got Nixon. Is Hillary going to be the Democrats Nixon in drag?

Independents will decide this election in November. Even if independents do decide that Hillary (super-delegate manipulation and all), is the lesser of the evils (who wouldn't be?), our enthusiasm for her presidency may be zero. If so, she will be a one termer and may well be the president that does what none of us thought she or anyone one else could do; dynamite the Dem-bulbs just as the Goopers are imploding.

Have you taken a look at the youth demographic lately?. They want nothing to do with either party. They are registering as independents in groves. They are our grandkids. They are smart, savvy, and know better than to look to D.C. for leadership. They are independent thinkers, They want to study abroad and don't believe the fairy tales we were taught about America the greatest., the oh, so special country, chosen by God. If they ever did, they don't after 7 years of BushCo and every congress since 2000, including this one.

When I talk to my granddaughter, I wonder if this nation is not through, over, finis....

With the battle for the Democratic nomination excruciatingly close, supporters of both campaigns are questioning the nominating process. The Clinton camp has suggested that the caucuses -- where Obama has bested Clinton in all but one state -- are inherently undemocratic, since only a small percentage of eligible voters are able to make it to a caucus site and commit the time to vote at a particular hour.

Where the hell were these people and all their care for caucus voters, when people couldn't cast their votes in Ohio, Florida and other places in 2004 and 2006 because of long lines in pouring down, frigid rain and the need to get to work? What about the voters who were disenfranchised because they had the same name a a felon? Amazing! Where were they when they should have been contesting that horrid debacle in 2000, leaving the United States of America with an illegitimate administration, which would go on to last for 8 years (if we're lucky) and cause the worst damage to this country in history; damage I shall not live long enough to see us free of.

Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

Superdelegates should "vote their conscience,'' despite how their states voted, Wolfson said. Penn noted that the Obama campaign, for example, has not asked Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry to cast superdelegate votes for Clinton, although the Bay State voted overwhelmingly for her in the primary.

Clinton and Kerry should vote with their state if they have no other reason to vote otherwise, like criminal behavior on the part of the Clintons. Clinton is the choice of their state. Wolfson, you are, nevertheless, the ass that turned me off the Cinton campaign to begin with and Mark Penn is the other one.

The two candidates head into contests next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin; Obama is leading in the polls in both states. The Clinton campaign is pinning its hopes on the March 4 states of Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, but Wolfson said yesterday the campaign is opening offices in every remaining primary and caucus state, including Puerto Rico.

Texas Fire wall For Clinton: Twilight zone.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Money For Iraq, Or For America?

We are headed for economic collapse, thanks to an ill-advised, illegal war in Iraq +tax
breaks for the corporations and wealthiest individuals; never been done before in a time of "war."

War profiteers must be held accountable by freezing their assets until proved guilty and then returning the money to the treasury. ( That would include the Bush family, Cheney family, Rumsfeld family and all the rest of the neocon bastards that lied us into this war, a war against innocent people, in addition to the corporations that have been involved from the beginning until whenever the hell it ends.

When huge fines and prison sentences start being handed out, let it begin at the top. The corporate officers who are responsible for their corporations and the decisions that are made, not the workers or the shareholders. However, if the shareholders suffer financial losses as a result of what their corporations have done, so be it.

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

This cannot be said for the American worker whose retirement and trusts are tied up in 401ks and other forms of slave money; money that Wall Street banks can use to cover up their mistakes or in any other ways that will benefit them, not the people who have investment accounts with them.

February 14, 2008

For McCain, From Bad Dreams to Nightmares -- Courtesy Barack Obama

A 1948 Kentucky newspaper editorial remarked that Tom Dewey's second try for the White House -- his confident but plodding, uninspiring campaign -- could be "boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. The future lies ahead."

Although Mr. Dewey's banalities failed him personally once again, in what was probably the most dramatic upset in American political history, for the next 60 years his party largely stayed the course, cluttering the electoral mind with patriotic clichés and hackneyed nothings designed to numb rather than enlighten -- from "Who lost China?" to "Morning in America" to "Never Surrender." The GOP kept the message -- the basics -- but went on to add considerable verve to its delivery, and to much greater effect.

Theirs has been quite a ride they've taken us on -- burying the devilish details of an empire's cost in all the uplifting, inspirational rhetoric of nationalistic pride. But while the GOP has been almost miraculously successful by virtue of sticking with inspirational generalities, they have now met their match. In Barack Obama. And the GOP doesn't like it. It doesn't like it one bit.

To give you some idea of just how unhappy, frustrated and utterly disoriented in unfamiliar territory the party is, John McCain chose his victory rally last Tuesday night to deliver, Dewey-style, these plodding words: "Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing." But "to encourage a country with only rhetoric, rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people, is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude."

Reword those lines in the vernacular and here's what you get: Obama has stolen the GOP's thunder. He's on to its game. He's using its tactics. And boy, is it pissed. So pissed, it's reduced to characterizing his soaring rhetoric -- its own, traditionally soaring rhetoric -- as platitudinous.

To make matters even worse for the GOP, it's stuck with a delivery boy as plodding and uninspiring as Tom Dewey. This likely accounts for a good deal of conservatives' unhappiness with their candidate. They didn't so much care about his past apostasies as they merely hankered after another actor who could puff the party line with some real pizazz.

Sorry, fellas. You're saddled with John, whose flat-lining monologues are sure to lull millions into a sound, eight-month slumber.

Obama has also anticipated the GOP's desperate maneuvering. On the same day -- yesterday -- that McCain was charging Obama with being "singularly lacking in specifics," the Illinois senator was on the stump, talking of "creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to invest $60 billion over 10 years and create nearly 2 million new jobs in the construction field," and "renew[ing] his call to create an energy plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years to establish a 'green energy sector' to add up to 5 million jobs in the next two decades."

He would pay for these necessities, he said, by dumping the unnecessary albatross of John's favorite war from our fiscal shoulders.

McCain flanked. Obama pivoted. And all without sacrificing those "powerful things" of rhetorical "hope" and "promise." It was a thing of beauty.

And what "specifics" is John left to tout? Well, let's see. There's his unpopular war. That should be a national crowd pleaser. There's his determination to do virtually nothing about this nation's unconscionable lack of health care. There went 47 million votes. And of course he can always get specific about why it was he rightfully opposed all those tax cuts for plutocrats way back when, but now sees them as something more than the costly stuff that dreams are made of.

So McCain is left in an almost entirely defensive position. And, as Karl Rove taught him back in 2000, "Explaining is losing."

The Republican candidate has only one offensive thrust to play -- that old, tired, worn-out GOP saw: Its opponent is a liberal.

"It’s not an accident that he has, I think, according to the National Journal, the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. I have one of the most conservative," said McCain. That worked when the vast center was tilting center-right. But the vast center has had enough of that. It has seen what it gets them.

Smartly, Obama is now -- finally, liberally and with emphasis -- connecting the foreign dots to the domestic: "Politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged -- a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead."

That's the one decisive argument to be made in this campaign -- the one that only Obama can make. It cripples McCain and leaves him with no rational comeback. He'll be stuttering defensively from now till November.

On the other hand, McCain could always just concentrate on reminding us that agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. And the future lies ahead. That should give him roughly the same 3-to-2 electoral-count loss that it gave Tom Dewey.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Chafee Endorses Obama

Do you ever wonder if they know something we don't?

Former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday, saying he is the best presidential candidate to restore the nation's credibility.

In a conference call with reporters, Chafee announced his backing of the Illinois senator. Chafee, one of the more liberal Republicans in the Senate, lost his seat in 2006 to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. Chafee left the GOP last year and became an independent.

"I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and just, and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability," Chafee said.

Despite losing, he remains popular in the Ocean State and his approval ratings on election day were 63 percent.

Rhode Island holds its primary March 4.

In an odd bit of timing, Chafee announced his endorsement on the same day likely Republican nominee Sen. John McCain was campaigning in the state. The last time McCain visited Rhode Island was to campaign for Chafee in his re-election bid.

Asked about the divided loyalties, Chafee said, "I was running in 2006 as a Republican. ... And in fact Senator Obama came to Rhode Island twice to campaign for my opponent. ... That's just the way the system works and I'm sure Senator McCain will understand."

Source: AP News

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

John Mc Cain Acuses Obama Of Having no Specific Pan

As far as I can tell, neither does he, except 4 more years of BushCo Horror.

huffpolitics, mccain attacks obama, McCain Obama, mccain obama platitude, mccain rips obama, obama attacks mccain, obama platitude, obama v. mccain, obama vs. mccain

John McCain Goes After Barack Obama

| February 14, 2008 09:51 AM

---

Read More: Mccain Attacks Obama, McCain Obama, Mccain Obama Platitude, Mccain Rips Obama, Obama Attacks Mccain, Obama Platitude, Obama v. Mccain, Obama Vs. Mccain, Breaking Politics News

UPDATE III:The New York Times discusses the contentious relationship between McCain and Obama that began two years ago during discussions of ethics reform in the U.S. Senate:

In a debate in 2006 on ethics in the Senate, which Mr. McCain regarded as a signature issue, he dressed down Mr. Obama and accused the freshman senator of disingenuousness. Mr. Obama called Mr. McCain cranky.

In public, that dispute melted away when the two cocked their fists at each other and hugged for a mutually beneficial photo opportunity. Their rapport has not advanced, and the two have a distant relationship.The two men are very different. Mr. McCain, 71, is a veteran of political and military battles. Mr. Obama, 46, is community organizer turned Ivy League graduate. Mr. McCain has told friends and associates that he views Mr. Obama as something of an upstart whose charmed political life delivered him to the same place Mr. McCain's decades of public and military service did.

Did it ever occur to you that Obama is simply smarter than you, Mr McCain?

Have you given a thought to what the county needs and that it may well be Obama, after 7 years of your buddy, Bush, damn near destroying the country, both domestically and internationally. You didn't show much smarts by hugging up to Junior.

Your year was 2000. Yet you forgot who caused the humiliation that cost you S.C. and, possibly, the GOP nomination.

And, associates said, Mr. McCain had always hoped to take on Mrs. Clinton.

I can't help but wonder why?

UPDATE II: Politico's Jonathan Martin reports: McCain campaign manager Rick Davis "today sent an unmistakable message to Barack Obama over the Illinois Democrat's effort to stoke the obvious age contrast between himself and the 71-year-old McCain: Bring it on.:

"It's nice of him to constantly point out how nice he thinks of John McCain and his half-century of service to our country," Davis said sardonically. "I don't think he can get that ["half-century" line] out enough."

"I actually think half a century of service to our country is a good thing. If you would like to talk about the day John McCain went into the Naval Academy and pledged his loyalty to our country and everything that's happened since then, let's prosecute that. We love those kinds of discussions."

Davis, speaking at a Washington luncheon with reporters, also extended the criticism leveled by his candidate last night, suggesting that the 46-year-old Obama was offering vague rhetoric to mask liberal views.

"I think it's easy to say, 'let's have hope,'" Davis said. "But hope has to come into some form.

Half century of service is to be honored, but not with the presidency. The presidency is not like a medal of honor. As a psychologist I can tell you that the brain begins to breakdown around the age of 70 to 80, if not before, and does not function as it once did,. Do we really need another president who can't remember who his Sec of State is?

And Obama responded to McCain, telling a crowd in Wisconsin that the GOP senator had "traded principles for his party's nomination."

Obama argued McCain has acted like President George W. Bush on the economy and on the Iraq war.

"George Bush may not be on the ballot this fall, but his tax cut and his economic policies are... that is a debate that I'm happy to have, because the American people know that Bush's policies have not worked for ordinary Americans," Obama said.

Obama said he was surprised by McCain's recent criticism of his economic policy - direct criticisms McCain started in the last few days.

"Economics is not his strong suit," Obama said with a smile, "he said 'I don't understand economics very well', and after he said that, it shows."

Obama told the audience that he believes McCain's economic policies would be "more of the same" of Bush tax policies - and argued McCain's position has undergone a transformation since running for president.

+++

UPDATE: John McCain again attacked Obama on Wednesday.

As he did Tuesday night, McCain focused much of his criticism on Obama, Tuesday's winner on the Democratic side.

"I respect him and the campaign that he has run, but there's going to come a time when we have to get into specifics," McCain told reporters Wednesday on Capitol Hill. "I've not observed every speech he's given, obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics."

+++

In his victory speech after the Potomac primaries, John McCain took several thinly veiled shots at Barack Obama, claiming that offering "only rhetoric" to advance the country "is not the promise of hope. It is a platitute."

Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.

To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.

McCain ended the salvo by ripping off one of Obama's signature lines:

As I have done my entire career, I will make my case to every American who will listen. I will not confine myself to the comfort of speaking only to those who agree with me. I will make my case to all the people. I will listen to those who disagree. I will attempt to persuade them. I will debate. And I will learn from them. But I will fight every moment of every day for what I believe is right for t his country, and I will not yield.

And, my friends, I promise you, I am fired up and ready to go.

Meanwhile, TPM's Greg Sargent highlights Obama's speech tonight drawing increasingly clear contrasts with McCain:

When I am the nominee, I will offer a clear choice. John McCain won't be able to say that I ever supported this war in Iraq, because I opposed it from the beginning. Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for a hundred years in Iraq, which is reason enough to not give him four years in the White House.

If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges - and that's what the American people need us to do right now.

And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his "conscience" to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn't support a tax cut where "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for them.

Well I'm not. We can't keep spending money that we don't have in a war that we shouldn't have fought. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It's time to turn the page.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Home Prices ConginueTo Plunge!

We are in for a hellish nightmare! This is what happens when you let CEOs in the W.H.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Home prices continued their plunge during the last three months of 2007, setting a real estate trade group's record for the biggest-ever quarterly drop. .

The national median price drop of 5.8%, to $206,200 from $219,300, was the steepest ever recorded by the National Association of Realtors (NAR), which has been compiling the report since 1979.

NAR officials blamed the liquidity squeeze that began last summer for much of the drop. Home buyers had trouble obtaining mortgage financing, especially for more expensive properties.

"The continuing crunch in the jumbo loan market that began in August has disproportionately reduced the number of transactions in higher price ranges," said Lawrence Yun, NAR's chief economist, in a statement.

Fewer expensive homes were sold, bringing down median prices.

"California, south Florida, D.C., many of the high-cost markets are reflecting that," said Walter Molony, a spokesman for NAR.

Each of the four U.S. regions recorded losses compared with the fourth quarter of 2006. The West took the worst hit, at 8.7%. Prices dropped 4.8% in the Northeast, 5.4% in the South and 3.2% in the Midwest.

In Lansing, Mich., square in the Midwest Rust Belt, prices plunged 18.8% to $109,600. In Sacramento, Calif., prices fell 18.5% to $197,600, and in both Jackson, Miss and Riverside, Calif. prices dropped 16.8%.

Seventy-three of the nation's 151 real estate markets recorded price gains. Cumberland, Md., led the winners with an increase of 19% to $116,600.

The least expensive single-family-home market in the nation got even cheaper, as prices in Youngstown, Ohio, dropped 9.3% to $72,600. The most expensive market, San Jose, Calif., got dearer, with prices up 11.2% to $845,300.

Condo prices fared better. The fourth-quarter median condo price of $221,100 was little changed from the $221,200 a year earlier.

But some areas, mostly Sun Belt cities, took significant price hits.

Cape Coral, Fla., condo prices were down 26% compared with the last three months of 2006 to $202,300, and Tucson, Ariz., prices dropped 19.8% to $128,000. Atlanta prices fell 12% to $141,100, and Las Vegas was off 10.3% to $178,500.

Bismarck, N.D., condo prices recorded the largest gain at 20.8% to $125,000, with New Orleans second at a 17.8% gain to $173,300.

Last year, fourth-quarter home prices were 2.7% lower from the year before.

"The healthiest housing markets today generally are moderately priced and are experiencing job growth and often population growth, which in turn is supporting strong price growth," said NAR's Yun. "Most of the weakest markets have either experienced both job and population losses, or they are experiencing corrections following a prolonged period of rapid price growth."

Many markets have also been affected by soaring foreclosure rates. Large numbers of houses for sale, many repossessed from borrowers, sit empty, depressing prices in cities from coast to coast - but most notably in economically distressed Midwest industrial towns and some once-booming Sun Belt cities.

NAR numbers are arrived at by examining the prices of all homes sold during the period. The median price is the one in which half of all homes sold for more and half for less.

Using median prices rather than mean - or average - prices reduces the impact of the sale of very expensive homes, which would raise mean prices disproportionately.

The NAR take on price trends, usually an optimistic one, was that recent steps taken in Washington would lead to improved conditions later this year.

"Higher limits for FHA loans, which go into effect March 14, will be a big help to first-time buyers in high-cost markets," said NAR President Richard Gaylord.

"Higher limits for conventional loans purchased by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will take a bit longer," he said. "When they become available, high-income, creditworthy borrowers in high-cost areas will have access to affordable and safer financing, and that will help unleash pent-up demand."

But other industry insiders are predicting harder times ahead. A Merrill Lynch report in January forecast peak-to-trough price declines of 15% in 2008 and another 10% in 2009 before markets begin to recover.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hoisted On Their Own Petards, Again

February 13, 2008

Hoisted on Their Own Petards

After decades of reporting on white collar crooks I learned something interesting. I learned that the best way to catch such otherwise respectable appearing evil-doers is to let them catch themselves. The other thing I learned is that hubris almost always guaranteed they would eventually do just that.

And so it came to pass yesterday when the Bush administration shot of an unclassified cable to it's diplomats around the world. The cable was devised to coach diplomats in how to respond to criticism of the administration's announcement last week that it would seek the death penalty against three al Qaida terrorists accused of planning and/or aiding the 9/11 attacks.

Diplomats advised to compare 9/11 cases to Nazi war crime trials sixty years ago in Nuremberg, Germany:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Anticipating international criticism over plans to seek the death penalty for accused September 11, 2001, terrorists, the State Department is advising U.S. diplomats to point out that Nazis were executed after their war crime trials. The memo says U.S. diplomats should draw from the points in the memo "in responding to foreign government and media requests."

One portion of the memo reads:

Q: "Doesn't the application of the death penalty to these defendants violate international law?"
A: "No. International humanitarian law contemplates the use of the death penalty for serious violations of the laws of war. The most serious war criminals sentenced at Nuremberg were executed for their actions" at the end of World War II. (Full Story)

Ironic, isn't it? Here's an administration that has stubbornly, and largely successfully, hidden, withheld and even destroyed, documents that could implicate it in crimes from conspiracy and collusion with energy companies to fabricating evidence to justify an illegal war against Iraq to torture.

Then what do they do? They issue an unclassified cable to diplomats containing all the reasoning and justifications for it's own future in the dock of international justice.

Their effort to justify the death penalty for three al Qaida terrorists, may become the closing argument some future prosecutor will use against defendants Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al. (Heretofore referred to as "The Gang of Four.")

Now, do I believe I will some day see the Gang of Four in the dock facing death sentences? No. Real life doesn't work that way. These days only defeated, weak, third-world tyrants face such ultimate justice. And even then, they rarely face a hangman's noose. At best modern tyrants simply get long prison terms -- and even that's rare.

Also these days the number of "civilized" nations that still employ the death penalty has been whittled down pretty much down to the US, China and Iran. Great company, huh?

Nevertheless, in raising Nuremberg as precedent for its desire to snuff three terrorists, they have reminded the world that, just sixty years ago, public officials guilty of war crimes were held accountable. They were put on public trial, forced to face their surviving victims, forced to listen to the suffering they caused and the millions that died because of their orders and misdeeds.

Much of the evidence presented against those Nuremberg defendants were captured documents. They were faced with their own documents, containing their own words, their own orders, all over their own signatures.

The lessons that should have been learned from Nuremberg was that liability for wrong-doing accrued to all wrong-doers, no matter how high or low they ranked on the organizational chart.

So, fast forwarding sixty years, what will become of those who followed the illegal orders of our leaders -- the CIA, the FBI, telecom companies and others? Nuremberg clearly and unequivocally established that "following orders" was no defense for committing crimes.

That should mean that more than the Gang of Four need to worry about future judicial accountability. And worried they are. That's why the CIA destroyed those torture tapes, and why the White House erased over 5 million emails. And it's why telecommunication companies are begging the White House for immunity for complying with the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping.

If some future tribunal finds the Gang of Four and their accomplices guilty, prosecutors will only need to present yesterday's cable to US diplomats during the punishment phase of their trial.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Contempt Resolution and Call For law Suit Against WH

Yeah, Like That's gonna do any good. Mukasey has already said he won't enforce contempt resolution.

Will there ever be any justice?

Conyers Introduces Contempt Resolution, Call for Lawsuit against White House

By Paul Kiel - February 13, 2008, 3:23PM

As expected, things are finally moving forward in the House today to bring contempt resolutions against White House officials for ignoring Congressional subpoenas as part of the U.S. attorney firings investigation.

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) introduced two resolutions this afternoon related to the subpoenas. The first is a criminal contempt resolution against White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers -- both were subpoenaed and did not respond, citing the White House's invocation of executive privilege. But Conyers also filed a resolution that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) file a civil suit against the White House.

Update: You can read both of those resolutions as prepared here. The second resolution would authorize the House Judiciary Committee to go to court, where it would be represented by the House general counsel

That second resolution would serve as an available alternative should Attorney General Michael Mukasey follow through on his threat not to enforce the criminal citation. The battle would then head into court, where a judge would have a shot at sorting out the White House's far-reaching assertion of privilege.

The House rules committee is expected to meet and begin work on both of these resolutions in the next hour.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Clinton's Old Campaign Chairman Goes With Obama

Bill Clinton Campaign Chair Goes for Obama

By Katharine Q. Seelye

David Wilhelm, who was Bill Clinton’s campaign chairman in 1992, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president.

Mr. Wilhelm lives and works in Ohio, which will be a major battleground for the Democratic candidates come March 4.

After Mr. Wilhelm helped him win the election, Mr. Clinton made Mr. Wilhelm the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Now a venture capitalist who focuses on neglected regions of the country, Mr. Wilhelm is also a superdelegate and said he expected the Obama campaign would want him to get on the phone to lobby other superdelegates.

He said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it “masterful.”

“He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,” Mr. Wilhelm said. “I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model” of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Latest from Zogby

Zogby Poll: Obama Cruises in Election Match-Ups against McCain, Huckabee

Clinton lags, losing to McCain and barely leading Huckabee

Barack Obama has gained strength in prospective general election match-ups against Republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee, while Hillary Clinton does not fare as well, a new nationwide Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey shows that Obama would defeat both McCain and Huckabee, while Clinton would lose to McCain and only defeat Huckabee by a small margin.

Clinton struggles among political independents, trailing McCain by a wide margin and Huckabee by a slim margin in that demographic, the survey shows. Against both men, she wins less than 80% of her own party. However, she does better among Democrats than either McCain or Huckabee does among Republicans. Huckabee wins just 70% support in a match-up against Clinton, while McCain wins 72% of the GOP support against her.

Obama has much stronger Democratic Party support, winning 87% backing of the Democrats when pitted against Huckabee, and 84% of the Democratic support against McCain. Among independents, Obama leads McCain by a 46% to 33% edge and Huckabee by a 48% to 31% advantage.

By the Numbers:

McCain	42%
Clinton	37%
Someone else/Not sure	21%

McCain	36%
Obama	47%
Someone else/Not sure	17%

Huckabee	37%
Clinton	40%
Someone else/Not sure	22%

Huckabee	34%
Obama	49%
Someone else/Not sure	17%

Among men, Obama narrowly loses to McCain but narrowly leads Huckabee. Among women, he leads both Republicans by margins that are wider than the advantage Clinton enjoys over McCain and Huckabee. However, Clinton loses to both McCain and Huckabee among men.

Obama held wides leads over the GOPers among younger voters. Among older voters, Obama held a narrow lead over Huckabee, but trailed McCain. Clinton led Huckabee and McCain among younger voters, but trailed them both among voters age 65 and older.

The online survey included 7,468 likely voters nationwide. It was conducted Feb. 8-11, 2008, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.2 percentage points.

For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:

http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1274

(2/13/2008)

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Nukes Over The U.S. Unprecedented "Error"

Senator Calls Error Unprecedented

By BARRY SCHWEID – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday the loading of nuclear-tipped missiles on a B-52 bomber at a U.S. air base last August was an unprecedented and significant security failure.

"This event is really a wake-up call," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., told Air Force officers assembled for a committee hearing. "As long as the United States has nuclear weapons they must be handled with the utmost security and attention."

Several other senators echoed Levin's concerns even after the witnesses acknowledged the incident reflected poor performance.

"This was the result of a lack of attention to detail and lack of adherence to well-established Air Force guidelines, technical orders and procedures" and some two dozen personnel have been removed from their jobs, Lt. Gen. Daniel Darnell, director of Air Force operations and planning, told the committee.

Still, there was virtually no chance of a disaster because the rack, or pylon, carrying the six missiles was not powered up, Darnell said. "There was never an unsafe condition," he said.

And it was "very, very unlikely" plutonium from the warheads could have been released if the plane had crashed in an accident, said former Air Force chief Larry Welch.

Three investigations explored the incident in which the B-52 was inadvertently loaded with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

The warheads were supposed to have been removed from the missiles before the missiles were carried to the Louisiana base.

Dozens of recommendations to improve security have been adopted, Darnell said. But Levin said most of the 132 recommendations produced by the three investigations have not been implemented.

Levin, noting that each warhead had 10 times the power of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II, called the loading of nuclear-tipped missiles on the bomber "a significant failure."

"While historically there have been nuclear weapons accidents, with varying degrees of severity, no breach of nuclear procedures of this magnitude has ever occurred," Levin said.

He called inattention to security, "with few exceptions," pervasive within the Defense Department.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., blamed "sloppiness and lack of discipline," and Sen. John R. Thune, R-S.D., said, "This illustrates everyone is human, but we cannot tolerate mistakes." Thune said he was concerned that attention to nuclear safety would ebb as time passes.

The commander of the Minot base, Col. Bruce Emig, was replaced. Col. Joel Westa, who took over, told The Associated Press earlier this month that no nuclear weapons would be moved without his knowledge.

He said "more robust" procedures were being put in place to verify the weapons' location.

"Our goal in this line of work is not to make errors. Our goal is perfection," Westa said. "It's one of those missions where the tolerance is very low for error. In fact, it is zero."

Associated Press reporter James MacPherson in Bismark contributed to this story.

On the Net:

• Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil
• Senate Armed Services Committee: http://armed-services.senate.gov/

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Small Business Duped By Goopers, Again.

So, what else is new? Every GOP administration does this. They make astounding promises to business, but they don't mean small business. They mean their buddies, the money-whoring, bottom line feeding corporate officers of the multinational corporations.

If there was ever a time for government, and that means the who hire them, to get behind small businesses that are in any way connected with energy conservation and green energy production, it is now. Whether the involvement is financial, talent, or usage; or grants from the government, the time has come and there are fantastic opportunities out there for all sorts of people.

Small businesses, including physicians, should never trust the GOP again. When they say they are going too protect you from lawsuits, think again. They will protect G.E and Boeing, not to mention their partners in crime; AT%T, Verizon, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc., etc, but they don't even know who you are and couldn't care less.

BITTER REPUBLICAN ECONOMICS

An already sour US economy is growing bitterer.

The US Bureau of Labor has released its annual revision of job creation for 2007. The economy produced some 376,000 during 2007 than previously reported. This chart details the revised monthly figures.

First, the American economy must produce some 150,000 new jobs every month in order to accommodate new workers entering the workforce. The economy created that number of jobs in only two months during the year. The 2007 average was only 96,000 new jobs a month, far short of the 150,000 needed.

Second, Republican stewardship of the American economy has added an average of 369,000 private-sector jobs a year during the Bush administration’s seven year tenure. During the Clinton administration some 1.7 million jobs were added each year over eight years.

Third, the economy lost jobs in January 2008 – an indication that America is in a recession.

Americans intensely experience what is happening. Consumer confidence is falling precipitously – an ominous omen for the immediate future direction of the economy. Two graphs paint current reality. The ABC Comfort Index illustrates failing public confidence in the American economy. The LA Times/Boomberg Poll illustrates that American have lost faith in Republican to deal with the faltering economy.

A cruel twist of irony is the failure of Bush’s “ownership” society. Bush has repeatedly touted American small businesses. As the chart immediately below denotes, Republican economic policy is destroying the small businesses:

Let's not forget what my old friend Jack once told me. Now, Jack was, probably, one of the the smartest lawyers in a town full of lawyers and was a senior partner in one of the biggest law firms in the state. But Jack didn't own a lot. Unlike other lawyers, he didn't have a 6 bedroom house, even when he was still married with children, and a 9 room cabin on the lake, a boat and so forth. He had an older model Mercedes Convertible. I never saw him drive anything else and I knew him for 7 years. One day, he and I were having lunch as he needed some advice about something besides the law. I asked him, Jack, with all the money you make, why don't you get yourself a lake house or something? He just laughed. "My Dear" he said, "I learned a long time ago that what you own owns you. You become a slave to it." The more I thought about it the more I knew he was right. Simplify, Simplify, Simplify. Not easy in this "pusher" society we live in, but necessary.

It is indeed a bitter economy for most Americans and the worst may yet lie ahead. Bush’s vaulted policies of tax cuts and federal deficits will stand in testament of the economic ashes they leave to the next President.

The question for Americans is simple – had enough?

MORE LIES

The Bush administration perpetuates its record of lies, obfuscation and rule above law. Most recently, Bush administration officials lied to a Federal Court:

At the time that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogations of operatives of Al Qaeda, a federal judge was still seeking information from Bush administration lawyers about the interrogation of one of those operatives, Abu Zubaydah, according to court documents made public on Wednesday.

The court documents, filed in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, appear to contradict a statement last December by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, that when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 they had no relevance to any court proceeding, including Mr. Moussaoui’s criminal trial.

It was already known that the judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, had not been told about the existence or destruction of the videos. But the newly disclosed court documents, which had been classified as secret, showed the judge had still been actively seeking information about Mr. Zubaydah’s interrogation as late as Nov. 29, 2005.

The destruction of the tapes is under investigation by the Justice Department and Congress.

One of the documents, a motion filed by Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, cites several instances in 2005, including one after the videotapes were apparently destroyed, when government lawyers produced documents to the court that came from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.

The document states that on Nov. 29, 2005, government lawyers produced documents, including “intelligence summaries,” about Abu Zubaydah but never told the court about the existence or destruction of the tapes.

A response that was filed to the appeals court by federal prosecutors remains classified, government officials said. Mr. Moussaoui was convicted of terrorism-related charges in 2006, and the government officials said that last month an appellate judge had denied a motion by his lawyers, who argued that the destruction of the C.I.A. tapes meant the Moussaoui case should be sent back to a district court.

The tapes destroyed by the C.I.A. documented the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah and a second Qaeda operative, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, according to current and former intelligence officials.

After The New York Times notified C.I.A. officials in December that it intended to publish an article about the destruction of the tapes, General Hayden issued a statement to employees.

In it, General Hayden said he understood that the tapes were destroyed “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries — including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.”

Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said Wednesday: “The rulings in this case are clear, and the director stands by his statement. Nothing has changed.” A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, said he could not comment on the unsealed documents.

When will Congressional Democrats call for an account?

If they don't soon, we can only assume that those members of Congress are as crooked as the Bushes.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.