Nixon Lives! ( Warning: Don't Read After Sundown)

Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts - the son of a Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout business - really keep a straight face while denouncing "Eastern elites"?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it, "marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu" - that was between his second and third marriages - really get away with saying that Barack Obama doesn't think small towns are sufficiently "cosmopolitan"? Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into itself - until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were reserved for loyal Republicans - really portray herself as running against the "Washington elite"?

Yes, they can.

On Tuesday, He Who Must Not Be Named - Mitt Romney mentioned him just once, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin not at all - gave a video address to the Republican National Convention. John McCain, promised President Bush, would stand up to the "angry left." That's no doubt true. But don't be fooled either by Mr. McCain's long-ago reputation as a maverick or by Ms. Palin's appealing persona: the Republican Party, now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier than its counterpart on the other side.

What's the source of all that anger?

Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict: fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the perception - generally based on no evidence whatsoever - that Democrats look down their noses at regular people.

Thus Mr. Giuliani asserted that Wasilla, Alaska, isn't "flashy enough" for Mr. Obama, who never said any such thing. And Ms. Palin asserted that Democrats "look down" on small-town mayors - again, without any evidence.

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of resentment; you're supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite that thinks it's better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P. is still the party of Nixon.

One of the key insights in "Nixonland," the new book by the historian Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon's political strategy throughout his career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself elected student body president by exploiting his classmates' resentment against the Franklins, the school's elite social club. There's a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew's attacks on the "nattering nabobs of negativism" as "an effete corps of impudent snobs," and from there to the peculiar cult of personality that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush - a cult that celebrated his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the "misunderestimated" C-average student had proved himself smarter than all the fancy-pants experts.

And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his presidency crashed and burned, the angry right - the raging rajas of resentment? - became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do that.

Can Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin really ride Nixonian resentment into an upset election victory in what should be an overwhelmingly Democratic year? The answer is a definite maybe.

By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters - the candidate's high-flown eloquence, his coolness factor - have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash. Unlike many observers, I wasn't surprised at the effectiveness of the McCain "celebrity" ad. It didn't make much sense intellectually, but it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr. Obama's star quality.That said, the experience of the years since 2000 - the memory of what happened to working Americans when faux-populist Republicans controlled the government - is still fairly fresh in voters' minds. Furthermore, while Democrats' supposed contempt for ordinary people is mainly a figment of Republican imagination, the G.O.P. really is the Gramm Old Party - it really does believe that the economy is just fine, and the fact that most Americans disagree just shows that we're a nation of whiners.

But the Democrats can't afford to be complacent. Resentment, no matter how contrived, is a powerful force, and it's one that Republicans are very, very good at exploiting.

Well, of course they are. Perceived slights are their stock and trade. Why, pray tell, do Americans resent anyone they perceive as smarter than them? Why do they want to vote for someone they would like to hang out with, have a beer with or whatever other stupid reason to vote for anyone? Why does anyone want the president to be an average Joe or Josephine?

Identify an "enemy" or a group of scared people, depending on the intended use, and say you will 1) defend them against the "enemy," with real or imagined super-powers, like a comic book character; A Lex Luther type. or 2) that you understand the scared peoples' fears and frustrations and you will not tolerate liberals, progressives or anyone to the right of Attila the Hun, calling you a bible toting, gun nut. Of course no one actually said that in that way. But beyond that, I don't give a hoot what someone thinks about my religious /spiritual practices or whether they approve of my Smith and Wesson.

What I do want to know is, how does a candidate plan to lead this nation through one of the hardest times we have ever faced as a nation. I want to know that he is not delusional or out of touch with rank and file Americans and the issues with which they are already being faced, and we all know it's going to get much worse before it gets better. I want him to know that and be honest about it; lay out the problem and have solutions in mind.

We are facing a major, national and global catastrophe and Sarah Palin and others have spoken with condescension and belittling barbs about Obama's community organizing . Obama was the head of the Harvard Law Review. No shortage of brain-power there. He chose to serve a broken community. The U.S.A. is one hell of a big broken community. If we, the people, can't bring ourselves to vote on the most intelligent, compassionate community organizer we can find, we can watch, in abject powerlessness, while our nation crumbles under the weight of corporate imperial corruption and inhumanity around the globe.

The modern-day GOP is famous for "projection." Example: the old saw of Eastern, establishment elite (which includes all news media except the Right-wing echo chamber, the flag-ship being Faux Noise).

One doesn't get much more elite than Mitt Romney. My God, the guy doesn't have a real name, like most of the Buffys, Fluffys and Muffys one runs into at the local private club

Just don't even get me started on Rudy. What a piece of work! He's so damned privileged and entitled, he thought he could have his own little haram in Gracie Mansion while being the mayor of NYC. If Rudy isn't mobbed up somehow it wil be one of the greaest shocks of my life. Remember Benard Kirik?

Not every U.S. soldier, marine, sailor or airman got to come home as a hero like McCain did, dump his crippled wife for a hot heiress and who, now, has more houses than he can count, never having to face the prospects of dying on the streets of his country, broken and alone. Yet, McCain, other than denouncing it as distasteful, had little to say when John Kerry was being pilloried, his service questioned, even though Kerry volunteered for Nam, won several purple hearts and a silver cross or something. (I'm not all that familiar with the rewards of war.)

Let us not forget the group of effing crazies who got us into the horrendous mess in Iraq, as well as at home, with out-right deception. Wolfowitz, Bolton, Hadley, Addington, Gonzales, Card, Libby, Kristol, Ledeen and other Neocon egg-heads, dotted around the administration like flies on horse-shit.

Talk about elitist!!

Talk about theorists, who have no practical knowledge about their fixation/obsession, heads-in-the-clouds, pointy-headed idiots and who actually believed that the U.S. could simply re-make the Middle east in their own image or at least to the benefit of the American Corporate Empire!!! (probably still can, just as soon as they get rid of all those damned, elitest liberals)

Who can forget the cloth-coated Pat Nixon? Who can forget very wealthy Bebe Rebozo?

If Goopers aren't elite when they get to Washington, they soon will be. I imagine that can be said of a few Democrats as well. The problem with the Goopers is that they always seem to be talking about themselves while describing or smearing someone else. It's really quite amazing; "projection as group-think."

God, they really are a sick lot and a dangerous one as well.

(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.

God Bless Obama!

Obama Outwits the Bloviators

Sunday 31 August 2008

»

by: Frank Rich, The New York Times

Senator Barack Obama, Democratic nominee for president . America is in too much trouble, he said, to indulge in "a big election about small things." (Photo: Reuters Pictures)

Stop the presses! This election isn't about the Clintons after all. It isn't about the Acropolis columns erected at Invesco Field. It isn't about who is Paris Hilton and who is Hanoi Hilton. (Though it may yet be about who is Sarah Palin.) After a weeklong orgy of inane manufactured melodrama labeled 'convention coverage' on television, Barack Obama descended in classic deus ex machina fashion - yes, that's Greek too - to set the record straight. America is in too much trouble, he said, to indulge in 'a big election about small things.'

As has been universally noted, Obama did what he had to do in his acceptance speech. He scrapped the messianic 'Change We Can Believe In' for the more concrete policy litany of 'The Change We Need.' He bared his glinting Chicago pol's teeth to John McCain. Obama is still a skinny guy, but the gladiatorial arena and his eagerness to stand up to bullies (foreign and Republican) made him a plausible Denver Bronco. All week long a media chorus had fretted whether he could pull off a potentially vainglorious stunt before 80,000 screaming fans. Well, yes he can, and so he did.

But was this a surprise? Hardly. No major Obama speech - each breathlessly hyped in advance as do-or-die and as the 'the most important of his career' - has been a disaster; most have been triples or home runs, if not grand slams. What is most surprising is how astonished the press still is at each Groundhog Day's replay of the identical outcome. Indeed, the disconnect between the reality of this campaign and how it is perceived and presented by the mainstream media is now a major part of the year's story. The press dysfunction is itself a window into the unstable dynamics of Election 2008.

At the Democratic convention, as during primary season, almost every oversold plotline was wrong. Those Hillary dead-enders - played on TV by a fringe posse of women roaming Denver in search of camera time - would re-enact Chicago 1968. With Hillary's tacit approval, the roll call would devolve into a classic Democratic civil war. Sulky Bill would wreak havoc once center stage.

On TV, each of these hot-air balloons was inflated nonstop right up to the moment they were punctured by reality, at which point the assembled bloviators once more expressed shock, shock at the unexpected denouement. They hadn't been so surprised since they discovered that Obama was not too black to get white votes, not too white to win black votes, and not too inexperienced to thwart the inevitable triumph of the incomparably well-organized and well-financed Clinton machine.

Meanwhile, the candidate known as 'No Drama Obama' because of his personal cool was stealthily hatching a drama of his own. As the various commentators pronounced the convention flat last week - too few McCain attacks on opening night, too 'minimalist' a Hillary endorsement on Tuesday, and so forth - Obama held his cards to his chest backstage and built slowly, step by step, to his Thursday night climax. The dramatic arc was as meticulously calibrated as every Obama political strategy.

His campaign, unlike TV's fantasists, knew the simple truth. The New York Times/CBS News poll conducted on the eve of the convention found that the Democrats were no more divided than the G.O.P: In both parties, 79 percent of voters supported their respective nominees. The simultaneous Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found that 79 percent of Democrats support Obama - which, as Amy Walter of National Journal alone noticed, is slightly higher than either John Kerry and Al Gore fared on that same question (77 percent) in that same poll just before their conventions.

But empirical evidence can't compete with a favorite golden oldie like the Clinton soap opera. So when Hillary Clinton said a month ago that her delegates needed a 'catharsis,' surely she had to be laying the groundwork for convention mischief. But it was never in either Clinton's interest to sabotage Obama. Hillary Clinton's Tuesday speech, arguably the best of her career, was as much about her own desire to reconcile with the alienated Obama Democrats she might need someday as it was about releasing her supporters to Obama. The Clintons never do stop thinking about tomorrow.

The latest good luck for the Democrats is that the McCain campaign was just as bamboozled as the press by the false Hillary narrative. McCain was obviously itching to choose his pal Joe Lieberman as his running mate. A onetime Democrat who breaks with the G.O.P. by supporting abortion rights might have rebooted his lost maverick cred more forcefully than Palin, who is cracking this particular glass ceiling nearly a quarter-century after the Democrats got there first. Lieberman might have even been of some use in roiling the Obama-Hillary-Bill juggernaut that will now storm through South Florida.

The main reason McCain knuckled under to the religious right by picking Palin is that he actually believes there's a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she's a woman. That's what happens when you listen to the TV news echo chamber. Not only is the whole premise ludicrous, but it is every bit as sexist as the crude joke McCain notoriously told about Janet Reno, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

Given the press's track record so far, there's no reason to believe that the bogus scenarios will stop now. The question of why this keeps happening is not easily answered. Ideological bias, unshakeable Clinton addiction and lingering McCain affection may not account for all or even most of it. Journalists are still Americans - even if much of our audience doubts that - and in this time of grave uncertainty about our nation's future we may simply be as discombobulated as everyone else.

We, too, are made anxious and fearful by hard economic times and the prospect of wrenching change. YouTube, the medium that has transformed our culture and politics, didn't exist four years ago. Four years from now, it's entirely possible that some, even many, of the newspapers and magazines covering this campaign won't exist in their current form, if they exist at all. The Big Three network evening newscasts, and network news divisions as we now know them, may also be extinct by then.

It is a telling sign that CBS News didn't invest in the usual sky box for its anchor, Katie Couric, in Denver. It is equally telling that CNN consistently beat ABC and CBS in last week's Nielsen ratings, and NBC as well by week's end. But now that media are being transformed at a speed comparable to the ever-doubling power of microchips, cable's ascendancy could also be as short-lived as, say, the reign of AOL. Andrew Rasiej, the founder of Personal Democracy Forum, which monitors the intersection of politics and technology, points out that when networks judge their success by who got the biggest share of the television audience, 'they are still counting horses while the world has moved on to counting locomotives.' The Web, in its infinite iterations, is eroding all 20th-century media.

The Obama campaign has long been on board those digital locomotives. Its ability to tell its story under the radar of the mainstream press in part accounts for why the Obama surge has been so often underestimated. Even now we're uncertain of its size. The extraordinary TV viewership for Obama on Thursday night, larger than the Olympics opening ceremony, this year's Oscars or any 'American Idol' finale, may only be a count of the horses. The Obama campaign's full reach online - for viewers as well as fund-raising and organizational networking - remains unknown.

None of this, any more than the success of Obama's acceptance speech, guarantees a Democratic victory. But what it does ensure is that all bets are off when it comes to predicting this race's outcome. Despite our repeated attempts to see this election through the prism of those of recent and not-so-recent memory, it keeps defying the templates. Last week's convention couldn't be turned into a replay of the 1960s no matter how hard the press tried to sell the die-hard Hillary supporters as reincarnations of past rebel factions, from the Dixiecrats to the antiwar left. Far from being a descendant of 1968, the 2008 Democratic gathering was the first in memory that actually kept promptly to its schedule and avoided ludicrous P.C. pandering to every constituency.

Nor were we back at Aug. 28, 1963. As a 14-year-old in Washington, I was there on the Mall, taken by my mother, a tireless teacher, with the hope that I might learn something. At a time when the nation's capital, with its large black population, was still a year away from casting its first votes for president, who would have imagined that a black man might someday have a serious chance of being elected president? Not me.

But even as we stop, take a deep breath and savor this remarkable moment in our history, we cannot linger. This is quite another time. After the catastrophic Bush presidency, the troubles that afflict us on nearly every front almost make you nostalgic for the day when America's gravest problems could still be seen in blacks and whites.

As Obama said, this is a big election. We will only begin to confront the magnitude of our choice when and if we stop being distracted by small, let alone utterly fictitious, things.

(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.

The last Week in Amurka

Is there no hope left for this country? We ask a very serious question.

I'm not talking about the American corporate empire. Who gives a tinker's damn about that, except that it go the hell away, ASAP, and leave those of us who are anti-imperialists alone, along with our guys and gals in uniform. I'm talking about those brave young lads and lassies who signed up to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and find themselves in an endless war for corporate empire.


Don't they deserve better? Don't we?


Other than Rudy's speech, clearly identifying the enemy as "Islamo-fascists," a term offensive to Muslims everywhere and to me, personally, as the enemy of America (actually of the GOP), one would have thought that the real threat to America, as clearly identified at the GOP nasty-fest, are liberals, progressives, Democrats and anyone else who sees through them and their policies for just what they are.

Sarah Palin is a disgrace to women in particular and Americans in general. John McCain has shown his senile cynicism in selecting her in a fit of pique after being told that Right-wing heads would explode if he chose LIEberman as his running-mate.


I'm sure Democrats everywhere were ecstatic at the thought of getting rid of Lieberman in such a way.


We, independents, would be happy to get him the hell out of our column anyway, anyhow.


Hey, Joe, why not just register as a Likud and be done with it?


Perhaps the Democrats will want to keep you for reasons I shall never understand, but we, independents, don't want you with us, no way, no how!


The only feeling I got from watching the GOP nasty-fest is nausea.

Oh, Ferchrissake!

If this isn't enough to make you heave, I don't know what is.

McCain operatives stole American Flags for a political stunt

dailykos.com — GOP operatives stole thousands of American flags from Invesco Field in a cheap political stunt. They claimed that the Obama campaign was throwing them in the garbage after the DNC Convention at Invesco Field. They were to use the "rescued flags" at a rally today in Colorado Springs, but the Obama Campaign calls them on their dirty tricks.

(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.

From The Murder Of Journalists in Iraq To This In Minnesota...........

..............the First Amendment is Dead!

Journalists and St. Paul citizens assembled outside St. Paul City Hall today to deliver more than 60,000 letters to Mayor Chris Coleman and prosecuting attorneys demanding that they immediately drop charges against all journalists arrested this week as they covered the Republican National Convention

By Friday morning, dozens of journalists, photographers, bloggers and videomakers had been booked by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office in what appears to have been an orchestrated round-up of media makers covering protests during the convention.

"From the pre-convention raids to the ongoing harassment and arrests of journalists, these have been dark days for press freedom in the United States," said Nancy Doyle Brown of the Twin Cities Media Alliance, who delivered the letters on behalf of the nonpartisan media reform group Free Press.

Stories That Will Never Be Told

She was joined by a crowd of local activists and journalists, including Amy Goodman and Nicole Salazar of Democracy Now!, KFAI-FM radio host Andy Driscoll and Mike Bucsko, executive director of the Minnesota Newspaper Guild.

"Tragically, there are stories that the world needed to hear this week that will never be told," Brown said. "They won't be told because reporters working on them were sitting in the back of squad cars, were stripped of their cameras, or were face down on the pavement with their hands cuffed behind their backs."

Story continues

(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.

Palin Ally Moves To Curb Trooper-gate

Can anyone really say they are, in anyway, surprised by this?


Nothing; not abuse of power, not torture, not war crimes nor any other horror, be allowed to stand in the way of another authoritarian, fascist regime in D.C.

That is the Gooper Creed!

Team McCain and the Trooper

Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Updated: 9:36 PM ET Sep 5, 2008

Key Alaska allies of John McCain are trying to derail a politically charged investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner in order to prevent a so-called "October surprise" that would produce embarrassing information about the vice presidential candidate on the eve of the election.

In a move endorsed by the McCain campaign Friday, John Coghill, the GOP chairman of the state House Rules Committee, wrote a letter seeking a meeting of Alaska's bipartisan Legislative Council in order to remove the Democratic state senator in charge of the so-called "troopergate" investigation.

Coghill charged that the senator, Hollis French, had "politicized" the probe by making a number of public comments in recent days, including telling ABC News that Palin had a "credibility problem" and that the investigation into the firing of public safety commissioner Walter Monegan was "likely to be damaging to the administration" and could be an "October surprise." Wrote Coghill: "The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process."

The investigation, authorized by the Legislative Council last July, revolves around charges that Palin abused her power by embroiling the governor's office in a bitter family feud involving her ex-brother in law, a state trooper named Mike Wooten. Specifically, the council is investigating whether Palin fired Monegan when he refused to dismiss Wooten (who at the time was involved in an ugly custody battle with Palin's sister) after getting repeated complaints about him from the governor and her husband, Todd Palin. (Among the allegations that were raised against Wooten by Palin's sister: he had Tasered his ten-year-old stepson and shot a moose without a permit.) Palin has denied wrongdoing; Monegan has said he believes his firing was connected to his refusal to fire Wooten.

French, the Democrat overseeing the probe, has hired a special counsel to determine, in effect, whether Palin "used her public office to settle a private score," he recently said. He has also suggested that the probe may turn up evidence that state laws were violated by Palin's aides because they pulled confidential personnel files on the trooper.

But Coghill, who told NEWSWEEK that he has the backing of Republican Speaker of the House John Harris in his effort to remove French, suggested Friday that the investigation into Palin's firing of Monegan should be shut down entirely. "If this has been botched up the way it has, there's a question as to whether it should continue," Coghill told NEWSWEEK.

The move underscored the huge political stakes in the outcome of a legislative investigation that is being closely monitored by both the McCain and Obama campaigns because of its potential impact on the fall election. "How can this possibly be read as anything but a partisan attempt to shut down a legitimate investigation that was approved and funded with bipartisan support?" said one state Democratic legislative aide, who asked not to be identified because of the political sensitivities. Coghill told NEWSWEEK that he decided to write his letter to strip French of his position on his own-without any coaxing by McCain campaign officials.

But a top McCain campaign official acknowledged that the GOP lawyer had given the campaign a "heads up" about his letter and that the McCain campaign approved of the effort to remove French.

"An investigation that was supposed to be non-partisan has become a political circus and has gotten out of control," said Taylor Griffin, a top communications aide dispatched from McCain campaign headquarters to Alaska this week to monitor the investigation and related matters. (Griffin also said that Palin has "nothing to hide" about the Wooten matter.)

As a further sign of the sensitivity of the probe, a lawyer for Palin told NEWSWEEK Friday that Todd Palin, the governor's husband, was in the process of hiring his own separate counsel to represent him in the legislature's probe. Thomas Van Flein, Governor Palin's lawyer, would not identify who is now representing the governor's husband. But he sought to deflect charges that Todd Palin, a commercial fisherman and oil company worker, had improperly intervened in state business by inviting Monegan to the governor's office and asking him to look into Wooten's status on the state police force. (For his part, Wooten has acknowledged that he "made mistakes," but that he was "punished appropriately" when he was suspended from the police force for five days in 2006.)

In an interview on Friday, Van Flein sought to deflect charges that Todd Palin may have acted improperly by talking to the state public safety commissioner about Wooten. Todd was "the governor's husband and a citizen of the state and he has every right to an opinion as [does] everyone else," Van Flein said.

One major reason the probe is so sensitive is that it raises the prospect that Governor Palin's credibility could be called into a question in a major state probe on the eve of the election. When the "troopergate" story broke over the summer, Palin adamantly denied that anybody in her administration exerted any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten. But only weeks later, a tape recording surfaced in which another one of her top aides, Frank Bailey, was heard telling a police lieutenant, "Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, 'Why on earth hasn't this, why is this guy [Wooten] still representing the department?'"

French today acknowledged that some of his public comments about the ongoing probe may have been out of bounds. "I said some things I shouldn't have said," he told NEWSWEEK. But he insisted he had no intention of stepping down because the investigation was really being conducted by Steve Branchflower, a retired state prosecutor who was hired as the special counsel in the probe. French also said today he had moved up the deadline for Branchflower to produce his report. Although it was originally due Oct. 31, the Friday before the election, it will now be completed Oct. 10-in order to be "as far away from the election" as possible.

In the interview with NEWSWEEK, Van Flein, Governor Palin's lawyer, raised other objections to the troopergate probe. He said the legislative investigation ran counter to the Alaska Constitution because it was being conducted in secret and without strict procedural rules. He said that in the "post-McCarthy era", he would have expected more due process guarantees.

Van Flein also told NEWSWEEK that as part of defense preparations for the investigation, he had taken his own depositions from potential witnesses—including one this week who refused to give testimony to the Legislature's special counsel. That was Frank Bailey, the former senior Palin aide who was recorded mentioning the concerns of Palin and her husband that Wooten was still on the police force.

In the deposition taken by Van Flein, which Palin's lawyer made available to NEWSWEEK, Bailey acknowledged he had "overstepped my boundaries... I should not have spoken for the governor, or Todd, for that matter. I went out on my own on this discussion."

But Bailey also confirmed in the deposition that Palin had herself raised Wooten's name with the state police during her first security briefing after she won election as governor in November 2006. Bailey said he sat in on the briefing with Gary Wheeler, then head of the governor's security detail. Wheeler asked Palin and her husband whether they were aware of any threats against her that the new bodyguards should be concerned about. "They specifically brought up only one person, and that was Mike Wooten," Bailey testified. "There was a serious genuine concern about not only their safety but the safety of their family, their kids, their nieces, nephews, her father, regarding Trooper Wooten." Bailey testified that Sarah Palin never asked him to do anything about Trooper Wooten, but that Todd Palin did talk to him about "issues about Trooper Wooten," and expressed "frustration" that the state police were doing nothing to respond to the Palins' concerns.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/157439

© 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.

Palin: A Moose Caught In The Headlights

Submitted by Chad on Thu, 09/04/2008 - 10:27am. Be-Elected

When Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was about to give her speech Wednesday night in St. Paul, Turner Classic Movies was about 15 minutes into "The Candidate" starring Robert Redford.

Now, TCM has no idea who John McCain would have picked for a running mate, but the channel did schedule the movie for when the Republican VP candidate would speak. Perhaps the channel's marketing people had ESP.

When Gov. Palin was finished with her speech, she looked all alone on a drab set, the huge video flag flying behind her. Nobody rushed on to meet her right away. No family, no supporters, nothing. The moment looked awkward. Waving, smiling, not knowing what was happening next. I almost wondered if she was asking herself: "What do we do now?" - the now famous line from the movie.

There are two names of Republicans that became more prominent in 2008: Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin. They could be the future of the Republican Party -- someday. But not in 2008.

Jindal was smart enough to see this, and though flattered, made it clear he wasn't interested. Palin should have realized that like a fine wine, drinking it too early is a huge mistake.

It's not easy for politicians to see this. Many in the Democratic primary, and not just Hillary Clinton supporters, wondered early on whether this was Barack Obama's time. But Obama has proven himself, not just in defeating the finest slate of candidates either party has pushed through in years, but in the way he has handled himself under pressure.

When Gov. Palin was asked by John McCain to be his running mate, she would have been better off saying, "Thanks, Sen. McCain, but no thanks."

When Palin compares her experience to Sen. Obama, think about this statistic: Palin has been governor of Alaska slightly longer than Obama has run for president.

Governorships are also like fine wine. You can't really tell too early whether they will be successful. Our own Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, is a prime example. After 20 months, he looked pretty good. Blagojevich is halfway into his second term, and every major leader in his own party, including the lieutenant governor, want to get rid of him.

Gov. Palin was a name that I had talked about for a few months. I thought she had an interesting story, and wondered if at some point, she would be part of the next generation of Republicans. I would argue that she should have spoken at the 2008 Republican National Convention - as a keynote speaker.

The keynote speaker has been a strong place to introduce a rising star. The Democrats use this tool well, with Mark Warner, Barack Obama, and Evan Bayh giving the previous three speeches. Gov. Palin could have given a great speech about herself, and her star would have had potential.

However, all the events since Friday has been under the cover of the McCain campaign, including Palin' speech last night. She was kept from speaking the entire time from Dayton in Friday to St. Paul last night. From Fred Hiatt of The Washington Post:

There was a flutter of attention when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told a group of Post reporters and editors yesterday that his team was having to rework the vice presidential acceptance speech because the original draft, prepared before Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen, was too "masculine." While we all wondered to ourselves what might make a speech masculine or feminine, no one batted an eye at the underlying revelation: that the campaign was writing the nominee's speech before knowing who the nominee would be.

...Expect to learn something about the McCain campaign's assessment of its political standing with women, or working families, or social conservatives. Whether you're learning what Sarah Palin really thinks or feels is anybody's guess.

But because she accepted the nomination, and read a speech that she had little input into, Palin has been thrown into a whirlwind where she has lost control. Two good examples of this from the speech:

Palin had this line where she makes fun of the columns in Obama's speech, yet she had Mt. Rushmore behind her. Either she loves irony or didn't know what was behind her.

She had another line about how the presidency is "not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery." Does she know where she is right now?

Palin's self-propelled image is toughness. Going back to work 3 days after giving birth to a Down syndrome child. Giving a speech after her water broke, flying countless hours from Texas to Seattle and finally Anchorage, then going off to a clinic and having the baby.

So I thought we would get a tough speech. Instead we had a game of "Playing the Victim." "It's the media fault that they're attacking me." "I'm just a hockey mom who has run the PTA." If you think Gov. Palin is the future of the Republican Party, you were very disappointed by the speech last night.

Palin is similar to Bill McKay in so many ways. She couldn't be herself. In this spirit of toughness, do you think she wanted to sit on the sidelines for the last 5 days? Do you think she wanted her second public statement to be her acceptance speech?

This is how Wikipedia describes the fictional Bill McKay in the movie:

"Lucas saw McKay as an unpolished gem - a candidate who began with things you couldn't buy: good looks, confidence"

Does Sarah Palin fit that description?

Politics is timing. Many candidates don't become president or vice president for one reason or another due to timing.

If Sarah Palin had decided not to run in 2008, she could be forgiven. In 8-10 years, Bristol's alleged pregnancy wouldn't have been an issue, though Piper will be 17 in 2018. The birth of Trig wouldn't have been an issue. Track would have served his country well in Iraq.

But her ethics issues might have thwarted her chances at higher office. Perhaps Troopergate would have finished her. Perhaps her string of lies would receive more exposure.

So Gov. Palin decided to go for it. After watching her speech last night, clearly she wasn't ready. The only question remaining for Gov. Palin is whether she will reappear down the road or be as forgotten as Dan Quayle.

(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.

PALIN: Hold Me Accountable

Your wish is our command, Madam!

Palin's stall

Governor is stonewalling the Troopergate investigation



(09/05/08 00:11:45)

Gov. Sarah Palin is taking the wrong approach to Troopergate. She should be practicing the open and transparent, ethical and accountable government she promised when running for governor and boasts about now that she's on the national stage.

Instead, Gov. Palin has begun stonewalling the Legislature's attempt to get the bottom of allegations that she, her family or staff violated ethical or state personnel rules.

As a result, the Troopergate allegations hang over Palin's future and cloud her candidacy for vice president.

The allegations are that she, her family or administration improperly pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire Gov. Palin's ex-brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten, who had been in the middle of a custody dispute with Palin's sister.

In July, when legislators started talking about conducting an investigation, Palin denied any wrongdoing and said she welcomed an investigation.

"Hold me accountable," she said.

The Legislature took her up on that offer. But this week, she basically told the Legislature, "Never mind."

Palin's lawyer has asked the Legislature to drop its investigation. He had the governor file an ethics complaint against herself, in a bid to turn the entire matter over to the state Personnel Board, which would hire an independent investigator.

This is not an open and transparent attempt to establish Gov. Palin's accountability. It is an attempt to drag out the investigation until after voters decide the fate of her vice-presidential bid.

Instead, Gov. Palin should honor her pledge to cooperate with the Legislature's investigation, conducted by former state prosecutor Steve Branchflower.

She could start by telling aide Frank Bailey he has to talk to the legislative investigator. She should fire him if he doesn't.

Bailey was caught on an audio recording of a phone conversation with a Public Safety Department official, in which Bailey pushed to get Wooten fired.

Bailey was put on paid leave, not fired. A spokeswoman for Palin said that while Bailey is on the state payroll, Palin can direct him to cooperate with the legislative investigation.

So why is Bailey still on the payroll, after he bailed on a scheduled interview with the legislative investigator Wednesday?

The Legislature hasn't given its investigator the power to subpoena, or compel, testimony of witnesses. Subpoenas appeared unnecessary, since it appeared the governor and administration would be cooperating.

That's over. It's time for the subpoenas.

The Legislature's investigation is supposed to be wrapped up by Oct. 31. That's obviously poor timing from the standpoint of the McCain-Palin presidential campaign, coming just a few days before the national election.

Instead of trying to delay the whole thing, Palin should take a cue from U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, who asked that his corruption trial be moved up so it would be completed well ahead of the November general election. Voters deserve to know the outcome of Sen. Stevens trial and the investigation into Palin.

When this investigation into Troopergate started, Gov. Palin's response was refreshingly open. Since she became the Republican candidate for vice president, her approach has changed for the worse. America deserves the same openness and ethics from vice-presidential candidate Palin that she promised to Alaska voters in 2006.

BOTTOM LINE: Gov. Palin is stonewalling on Troopergate; the Legislature should issue subpoenas.

---

'Threat'?

Palin's lawyer tries to play Secret Service card

Gov. Sarah Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, made an absurd threat in his battle to get the Legislature to back off its ethics investigation of the governor and her staff.

Van Flein said legislative investigator Steve Branchflower tried to call First Gentleman Todd Palin directly on "a secure and confidential line. This represents a serious security breach that we may be obligated to report to the Secret Service."

Hello? Branchflower is acting on behalf of the Legislature. That's a security breach?

Lawyers are supposed to vigorously represent their clients, but claiming that a legislative investigator's phone call may be a security matter worthy of Secret Service attention is ridiculous.

Gov. Palin should keep her legal attack dog on a shorter leash.

BOTTOM LINE: More obstruction from Palin in Troopergate.

copyright © Sat Sep 06 2008 21:23:35 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)1900 The Anchorage Daily News (www.adn.com)


(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.

Why Does McCain Hate Iraq Vets?

Why, Indeed!

Protester who interrupted McCain’s speech is an Iraq War Veteran

Little did they know or John McCain know that this protester actually served over in Iraq and according to Iraq Veterans Against the War, his name is, Adam Kokesh who is an IVAW board member. He held up a sign stating, "McCain Votes Against Vets." Surge nothing, this patriotic American actually put on the uniform, served his country deserved some respect coming from McCain and those Republicans gathered at the convention.

(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.

Hypocrisy Of This Magnitude......

.....has to be respected?

Hardly! Hypocrisy must never be respected by the people of the world. (though I understand that this title was written in all snarkiness.) It is a subject not even to be snarked at.

As a matter of fact, hypocrisy has become one of the most dangerous "sins" on the planet, no matter in which nation it is practiced.


By William Blum

06/09/08 "ICH" - -- I'm sorry to say that I think that John McCain is going to be the next president of the United States. After the long night of Bush horror any Democrat should easily win, but the Dems are screwing it up and McCain has been running more-or-less even with Barack Obama in the polls. The Democrats should run on the slogan "If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain", but that would be too outspoken, too direct for the spineless Nancy Pelosi and her spineless party. Or, "If you liked Iraq, you'll love Iran." But the Democrat leadership is not on record as categorically opposing either conflict.


Nor, it seems, do the Democrats have the courage to raise the issue of McCain not having been born in the United States as the Constitution requires. Nor questioning him about accusations by his fellow American prisoners about his considerable collaboration with his Vietnamese captors. Nor a word about McCain's highly possible role in the brutal Georgian invasion of South Ossetia on August 7. (More on this last below.)


Obama has lost much of the sizable liberal/progressive vote because of his move to the center-right (or his exposure as a center-rightist), and he now may have lost even his selling point of being more strongly against the war than McCain -- if in fact he actually is -- by appointing Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden has long been a hawk on Iraq (as well as the rest of US foreign policy), calling for an invasion as far back as 1998.[1] In April, 2007, when pressed in an interview about his vote for the war in 2003, Biden said: "It was a mistake. I regret my vote. ... because I learned more, like everybody else learned, about what, in fact, we were told."[2] This has been a common excuse of war supporters in recent years when the tide of public opinion turned against them. But why did millions and millions of Americans march against the war in the fall of 2002 and early 2003, before it began? What did they know that Joe Biden didn't know? It was clear to the protesters that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were habitual liars, that they couldn't care less about the people of Iraq, that the defenseless people of that ancient civilization were going to be bombed to hell; the protesters knew something about the bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan; they knew about napalm, cluster bombs, depleted uranium. ... Didn't Biden know about any of these things? Those who marched knew that the impending war was something a moral person could not support; and that it was totally illegal, a textbook case of a "war of aggression"; one didn't have to be an expert in international law to know this. Did Joe Biden think about any of this?


(Can an out-spoken Progressive/liberal candidate for the U.S. presidency be elected? Have the Democrats been convinced that the Liberal/progressive movement is, in fact, dead in America? Did Reagan/Bush manage to convince us all of that? I know that I am fairly convinced of it. The only way for a progressive to be elected is to come across as being tough on national defense and who wouldn't be, if there is a real threat to the country? The questions are 1) whether or not an American president is smart in the defense of the country, not simply militarist, 2) Will he or she cause more threats than are defeated with the chosen strategy 3) Is an administration more concerned with so-called terrorist threats or with other Americans who pose a threat to the party in power? 4) Does an administration have hidden agendas, as the Bush administration did, when assuming office, with power stolen not given to it by the majority of Americans. Of course, there are other such questions, but I'm sure that the reader gets the gist of things.)


If McCain had a role in the Georgian invasion of breakaway-region Ossetia it would have been arranged with the help of Randy Scheunemann, McCain's top foreign policy adviser and until recently Georgia's principal lobbyist in Washington. As head of the neo-conservative Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, Scheunemann was one of America's leading advocates for invading Iraq. One of McCain's primary campaign sales pitches has been to emphasize his supposed superior experience in foreign policy matters, which -- again supposedly -- means something in this world. McCain consistently leads Obama in the opinion polls on "readiness to be commander-in-chief", or similar nonsense. The Georgia-Russia hostilities raise -- in the mass media and the mass mind -- the issue of the United States needing an experienced foreign policy person to handle such a "crisis", and, standard in every crisis -- an enemy bad guy.


(Around 50% of Americans, seemingly, believe the old saw that Rethugs are better when it comes to national defense? How the hell did that happen, when the exact opposite has been shown to be true, over and over again?)


Typical of the media was the Chicago Tribune praising McCain for his statesmanlike views on Iraq and stating: "What Russia's invasion of Georgia showed was that the world is still a very dangerous place," and Russia is a "looming threat". In addition to using the expression "Russia's invasion of Georgia", the Tribune article also referred to "Russia's invasion of South Ossetia".


No mention of Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia which began the warfare.[3]


In a feature story in the Washington Post on the Georgia events the second sentence was: "The war had started, Russian jets had just bombed the outskirts of Tbilisi [Georgian capital]." The article then speaks of "the horror" of "the Russian invasion". Not the slightest hint of any Georgian military action can be found in the story.[4] One of course can find a media report here or there that mentions or at least implies in passing that an invasion from Georgia is what instigated the mayhem. But I've yet to come upon one report in the American mass media that actually emphasizes this point, and certainly none that put it in the headline. The result is that if a poll were taken amongst Americans today, I'm sure the majority of those who have any opinion would be convinced that the nasty Russians began it all.[5]


(Well, it seems obvious why half of all Americans see the Russia/Georgia situation the way they do. The ACNM have come across for the Goopers again.)


What we have here in the American media is simply standard operating procedure for an ODE (Officially Designated Enemy). Almost as soon as the fighting began, Dick Cheney announced: "Russian aggression must not go unanswered."[6] The media needed no further instructions. Yes, that's actually the way it works. (See Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, etc., etc.)


The president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, is an American poodle to an extent that would embarrass Tony Blair. Until their 2,000 troops were called home for this emergency, the Georgian contingent in Iraq was the largest after the US and UK. The Georgian president prattles on about freedom and democracy and the Cold War like George W., declaring that the current conflict "is not about Georgia anymore. It is about America, its values,".[7] (I must confess that until Saakashvili pointed it out I hadn't realized that "American values" were involved in the fighting.) His government recently ran a full-page ad in the Washington Post. The entire text, written vertically, was: "Lenin ... Stalin ... Putin ... Give in? Enough is enough. Support Georgia. ... sosgeorgia.org"[8]


UK prime minister Gordon Brown asserted that Russia's recognition of the independence of Georgia's two breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was "dangerous and unacceptable."[9] Earlier this year when Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia, the UK, along with the US and other allied countries quickly recognized it despite widespread warnings that legitimating the Kosovo action might lead to a number of other regions in the world declaring their independence.


Brown's hypocrisy appears as merely the routine stuff of politicians compared to that of John McCain and George W. re: the Georgia fighting: "I'm interested in good relations between the United States and Russia, but in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations," said McCain [10], the staunch supporter of US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and leading champion of an invasion of Iran.

(Oh really? How can anyone possibly believe this clap-trap after this administration of international criminals did the same to Iraq?)


And here is Mahatma Gandhi Bush meditating on the subject: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."[11]


(Again, Oh, Really?)


Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected. It compares favorably with the motto on automobile license plates of the state of New Hampshire made by prisoners: "Live Free or Die".


Our beloved president was also moved to affirm that the Russian recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia: was an "irresponsible decision". "Russia's action only exacerbates tensions and complicates diplomatic negotiations," he said.{12] Belgrade, are you listening?


It should be noted that linguistically and historically- distinct South Ossetia and Abkhazia had been autonomous Russian/Soviet protectorates or regions from early in the 19th century to 1991, when the Georgian government abolished their autonomy.


So what then was the purpose of the Georgian invasion of Ossetia if not to serve the electoral campaign of John McCain, a man who might be the next US president and be thus very obligated to the Georgian president? Saakashvili could have wanted to overthrow the Ossetian government to incorporate it back into Georgia, at the same time hopefully advancing the cause of Georgia's petition to become a member of NATO, which looks askance upon new members with territories in dispute or with military facilities belonging to a nonmember state such as Russia. But the nature of the Georgian invasion does not fit this thesis. The Georgians did none of the things that those staging a coup have traditionally found indispensable. They did not take over a TV or radio station, or the airport, or important government buildings, or military or police installations. They didn't take into custody key members of the government. All the US/Israeli-armed and trained Georgia military did was bomb and kill, civilians and Russian peacekeeper soldiers, the latter legally there for 16 years under an international agreement. For what purpose all this if not to incite a Russian intervention?


The only reason the United States did not itself strongly attack the Russian forces is that it's a pre-eminent principle of American military interventions to not pick on anyone capable of really defending themselves.


Unreconstructed cold warriors now fret about Russian expansionism, warning that Ukraine might be next. But of the numerous myths surrounding the Cold War, "communist expansionism" was certainly one of the biggest. We have to remember that within the space of 25 years, Western powers invaded Russia three times -- World War I, the "intervention" of 1918-20, and World War II, inflicting some 40 million casualties in the two world wars alone. (The Soviet Union lost considerably more people to international warfare on its own land than it did abroad. There are not too many great powers who can say that.) To carry out these invasions, the West used Eastern Europe as a highway. Should it be any cause for wonder that after World War II the Soviets were determined to close down this highway? Minus the Cold War atmosphere and indoctrination, most people would have no problem in seeing the Soviet takeover of Eastern Europe as an act of self defense. Neither does the case of Afghanistan support the idea of "expansionism". Afghanistan lived alongside the Soviet Union for more than 60 years with no Soviet military intrusion. It's only when the United States intervened in Afghanistan to replace a government friendly to Moscow with one militantly anti-communist that the Russians invaded to do battle with the US-supported Islamic jihadists.


During the Cold War, before undertaking a new military intervention, American officials usually had to consider how the Soviet Union would react. That restraint was removed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. We may now, however, be witnessing the beginning of a new kind of polarization in the world. An increasing number of countries in the Third World -- with Latin America as a prime example -- have more fraternal relations with Moscow and/or Beijing than with Washington. Singapore's former UN ambassador observed: "Most of the world is bemused by western moralizing on Georgia" ... While the western view is that the world "should support the underdog, Georgia, against Russia ... most support Russia against the bullying west. The gap between the western narrative and the rest of the world could not be clearer."[13] And the Washington Post reported: "Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's influential son, echoed the delight expressed in much of the Arab news media. 'What happened in Georgia is a good sign, one that means America is no longer the sole world power setting the rules of the game ... there is a balance in the world now. Russia is re surging, which is good for us, for the entire Middle East'."[14]


(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.

And Then We Will Die.

By Angie Riedel

06/09/08 "ICH " -- - It is time to get past the 'death and violence is the answer' mentality. We can not afford to let it continue.


The US government now confronts every minor inconvenience with brutality and force. With lies. With tricks. With deceit. With unrivaled hypocrisy. It speaks a scripted and rehearsed dialog of illogic and insults. It changes the meanings of words and uses those words as weapons to crush, to silence and oppress, to steal what it wants. This government no longer shows respect for anyone but itself and feels no compulsion to listen or cooperate, to show respect for others, or to care at all about right and wrong, truth or lies, justice or injustice.


It seems that this government can't take a single step without stepping on others, without breaking the very laws it exists to uphold, without negating every principle we stand for.


At what point will this criminality cease?


It is no surprise that we are seeing our own citizens being brutalized and arrested for imaginary political crimes before any crimes are committed; and when there is no possibility that they will be committed. For this government there is no longer any concept of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law. A court of law un-tampered with, a court uncontrolled by compromised loyalists, a court left free to honor its commitment to see justice done. There is no longer any concept of requiring proof of any crime at all.


For this government there is no need for any crime to actually be committed before it engages in illegal, unjustifiable surveillance, the planting of its spies in the affairs of private citizens, the laying of blatantly unsupported charges, all with the obvious aim of depriving innocent people of their freedom and their rights with unlawful, disingenuous arrests.


Every power this government begged us for, insisting with feigned hysterics that such unprecedented powers over others were necessary to protect the public has been fully and thoroughly misused and abused, used against the very people it claimed the desire to protect. There is no respect for the rule of law instead of the rule of men. There is only the obvious problem this government has with the millions of its own citizens that disagree with its vision of death to all who would stop them from their brutal, murderous desire to take control of the world.


This cannot go on. Not just because of the travesty of justice. Not just because of the suffering and destruction of hope, health, happiness, prosperity and safety these unjustifiable policies spawn. Not just because of the denial of rights and peace and freedom. But because of the risk of irreversible damage to our very humanity, to our ability to recognize justice, to our desire for and understanding of what the very idea of freedom means. Most of all because of a risk that is too horrible to gamble with, our ability to value life itself.


Because this government has no respect for compassion or justice we have lost the ability to value compassion and justice or understand their necessity. We have lost our comprehension of the need to treat others as we ourselves would demand to be treated. We are even losing the ability to see ourselves, each other, and others as worthy of common decency and deserving of basic God given rights, including the right to life itself.


We have crossed a line that can never be crossed with any justification, a line that leaves it up to a small group of selfish small-minded men to decide who among us deserves justice and who does not. Is it any surprise that those men have decided that no one deserves justice except themselves?


We must ask this government, what are you so afraid of? Because taking with you, everywhere you go, the largest assortment and biggest, most powerful most deadly weapons and contingents of armed men does not mean that you are powerful, it means that you are afraid. It means that everywhere you go, you go in fear. You are too afraid to go about in this world as we all do, with open hands and goodwill, and show up unarmed and with nothing to hide. It seems you have everything to hide.


Why then should we trust you? Why should anyone trust you when you demand the right to lie and keep secrets and use unjust, overwhelming force to get your way?


What gives you the right to impose your personal will on this world? What gives you the right to impose anything on anyone in this country? Who are you exactly that you imagine yourselves to be above the law not just of this land but the laws of common human decency and common sense? What do you tell yourselves entitles you to behave so badly? Because whatever you are telling yourselves is also a lie. There is no such entitlement. The use of violence to force your will and your ways on our people, on people everywhere, is invalid and it is wrong.


This government understands and perceives full well that its notions of total domination and total control both here at home and abroad are unwelcome. It knows full well that domination is not acceptable or warranted. We do not need to be controlled nor does this world need to be controlled, at least not by this government. It is this government that needs to be controlled as it apparently lacks any interest and has no intention of exercising the slightest control over itself.


There is an evil game being played that we must no longer tolerate. A verbal game of trading places with right and wrong, innocence and guilt, honesty and deceit. Authority wraps itself in the flag, it wraps itself in a cover of holy righteousness, it wraps itself in a wrapper that has words like nobility, bravery, honor and democracy on it, and in its thinly veiled deceit it wreaks havoc, death and destruction all the while proclaiming itself to be our savior, our highest good, our necessary evil. It is none of those things.


The game being played in Georgia is the same game being played in Minneapolis. The self-defined good guys show up and take sides without asking any questions whatsoever. Who is right and who is wrong, who is guilty and who is innocent is already determined. No effort is made to discern the truth. No interest exists in hearing all sides. No respect is shown for the marginalized, for the brutalized, for the wronged. It proclaims, we are the good ones and they are the bad ones, and then it moves in with overwhelming force. Abroad it uses military force, at home it uses militarized police. The people are automatically bad, and they are automatically good, and even questioning this bizarre system is a crime. But it is not a crime, it is a necessity. It is our duty.


Instead of the seething and rage, hatred, insults and threats that now come in endless rivers from this government against its perceived enemies, why can't it act like it should? Why can't it take the time to engage in honest discussion? To get the facts? To consider all sides? Why can't it extend invitations to come and talk, to find common ground, to construct bridges to friendship and cooperation? Why can't it value all of the most obvious ways to establish trust, peace and mutual prosperity? Why can't it host an open and public dialog so that all may listen in and those involved and concerned may be allowed to participate and speak for themselves, explaining things from their own perspectives, giving their own reasons, telling us themselves who they are and what they see? Only such an impartial, honorable and open, fair style of discourse can achieve justice and understanding? How else can justice be served?


Why do we never hear the other sides stories? How can this government be threatened by allowing the other side to speak for itself? If truly those other sides, Iran, Russia, our own peaceful demonstrators, are dangerous and evil, that would all be self-evident. But their prevention of any such truth coming out, their adamant demands and insistence that force must be used, and used immediately and overwhelmingly is beyond questionable. It is deeply disturbing. It does not engender trust. It engenders distrust and for good reason. No genuine attempts are made to do the right thing or to go about things the right way, the decent way, the honorable way, the fair way. And why? Because all of those things stand directly in the way of this government getting its way.


When all that is right and decent and honorable and just is an enemy to government, then what they desire to achieve cannot be right or decent or honorable or just. And if that is the case then why are they doing it? What are they there for? Are they there, taking our money and using it at will, to do what they know is not right, not decent, not honorable and not just? They are.


Can they please tell us then, why? And more to the point, just what are they trying to accomplish? Who's idea is this really? And why do they act completely opposite to who they say they are and what they say they are doing? What is this blanket of deceit and how dare they use these tactics? Why do they relentlessly desire war and violence, oppression, control and killing? Where is any sign of conscience? Of compassion? Of simple respect for human life?


Does this government shed a tear when its own soldiers come home in coffins? Does it show any care for those who come home wounded, broken and deserving of support? Does this government show any concern or grieving for the deaths of innocent people abroad? Does it not disregard such deaths and sweep them aside with insulting terms like collateral damage? This government seems to see the deaths and disempowerment of others as a tool. A tool it uses more than any other to achieve its aims.


Then we must ask them, what are your aims? Why all the killing? Why all the lies? Why the twisting of words and meanings? Why do you cover yourself in a coat of righteousness specifically to cover the truth of your unrighteousness? Who are you and what are you doing? And why?


We are long past a time where brutality and killing are an answer. Brutality and killing are not an answer. They are criminal acts. We know this at the personal level and it is no different at all for those equal beings who call themselves our government. Killing is wrong. War is pointless, destructive and wrong. It solves nothing. It enables unconscionable acts of murder of innocents, of thefts of lands and treasure. War provides the stage for arrogant, greedy power to play act its role of righteous savior, to use its unrighteous overwhelming force, and to destroy what others have worked so hard to build. One must ask, why would they desire this in the first place? Why do they desire this at all?


Who benefits? It is not you and me. It is them. Down to the personal level of unprecedented riches, power and wealth, of getting away with dishonesty and crime, of giving themselves unprecedented unnecessary invalid powers over life and death, over justice and injustice. It turns them into imperial kings and robber barons, thugs dressed in fine clothing who tell lies to TV cameras to cover the truth of what they are doing and why. They are killing us all, slowly but surely, because they have no respect whatsoever for life. Not here and not abroad. How are they different from serial killers? They are liars. And this must stop. This is not the way to anything but our guaranteed demise. Who believes we need this?


These are the methods and beliefs of madmen. Ideas of having the right to control and oppress, to kill and to commit crimes all in the name of bizarre, insane notions that do not apply to anyone but themselves. They turn the whole planet into a world of pawns they can use to play their games of death and destruction and control. These are not honorable men with honorable goals. They are usurpers, tyrants, hypocrites and they have no respect for life, human or otherwise, or for the environment we are all dependent on for our survival. These are men who are trying with all of their might to provoke this whole world into its final world war, carnage and destruction unlike anything seen before. This is their aim. This is their goal. Not because it is good for us, but because it serves their selfish, hypocritical, patently insane beliefs of self superiority and being God's chosen.


If these men are God's chosen it would not be due to worthiness or for His praise. They would be singled out and punished for acting much more in the service of the dark side, the side of death and dishonesty, of the negation and disrespect for free will. These are not Godly men. They're not heroes or leaders or workers for justice and freedom. What they really are cannot be stated because it is inexplicable. What is known is the results of their actions, and those results are death and destruction. Those results come to us on their lying lips, lies they must tell to trick us into going along, into believing they are good and those others are always bad. It is time to see it and face it, and to stop it.


Who is it that is such a threat to peace in this world? Who is the relentless aggressor? Is it Russia? Long despised and feared by those in power, the claims are communism or inhumanity, or any other words that would paint another nation as evil beings who threaten us all. Is it Iran? A religious country of ordinary human beings who do not possess anything remotely similar to the military power, might and aggression of our own government? What lies it takes to turn passive non-aggressors into something for this country to fear and loathe. What gigantic, inexcusable lies.


What country has galloped the globe time and again, bringing its overwhelming military force to kill native populations? Populations who pose no threat to anyone. Where innocents are slaughtered with overpowering violence, military might, and depraved indifference to human life and the environment. What country has never ceased its invasions and attacks since World War 2? Russia? China? Iran? Vietnam? Argentina? The Falkland Islands? Canada? Saudi Arabia? Iraq?


Only one nation has never ceased inflicting war and carnage around the world. Only one nation's unbridled, insatiable aggression has been responsible for the nonstop murders of millions of innocent people. The United States. Its Siamese-twin Israel is right behind having engaged in decades of calculated, overt genocide of Palestinians.


Why?


Because these policies of aggression and violence are wrong, because they cannot be justified, then the question must be asked and we have every right to the answer. Why? What makes them so special that they may act in ways that threaten all peace, all stability, all prosperity and all freedom in the world? What makes them so special that they may deny justice and life to any and all they choose? Is there really such a thing as anyone so special? Only in their own imaginations. Only in the imaginations of those who support them. Only in the misguided beliefs of those who assist them. But in reality, in this very real world of real people living real lives, in real terror and real suffering, there is no such thing as anyone so special. There is no proof that any such specialness exists. It does not exist.


No man is our master. No man shall be crowned king of this world. No man is anything more than our human equal, no more deserving of life and needs and free will than we are. Many men, petty tyrants, thieves and thugs, elected men, religious men, statesmen of all creeds and colors exist and live in the wrong belief that it is their place to dominate and control others. To determine what shall be and what shall not be for all. They always impose their will with force, with killing, with torture. It is the only way to enslave a population and it is the only way the worst of them can hope to enslave the world.


We have watched as this government devolved into a den of thieves and liars, of instigators and deceivers, of unequaled propagandists and cheaters. We have extended them our unearned trust and they have used it against us, and against the world to achieve their own convoluted aims. We have been harmed. Others have been harmed. Harm that can have no recompense, there is no making up for what has been taken. Loved ones are irreplaceable. Innocent children are not replaceable. Lost blood lines, ancestral homes, prosperity, justice, peace, these can not be recompensed.


Everywhere this government goes it leaves in its wake death, poverty and injustice, destruction and military bases, not for anyone's protection or benefit, but to ensure it can keep its stranglehold on the conquered, disempowered, violently controlled masses.


Today they are still hell bent on attacking Iran, a country that is no threat to us at all. They are instigating violence, daring and begging Russia to react to the injustice and lies and aggression that they themselves arranged, armed and are responsible for. They are painting Russia as the aggressor when it is not the aggressor. But Russia's patience is being tapped and will eventually be drained. Anyone can see that. We need no experts to explain the particulars. We need only to understand what it feels like to be lied about and threatened, to be attacked by criminals and thugs, to understand that at some point anyone would stand up for themselves and fight back.


What we are seeing is the organized, preconceived plan to instigate World War 3. This is the desired goal of our government. Israel is its minion, deeply woven into the fabric of deceit, tampering and instigation. These two self-glorified special interests only want what they want at any price to others, at any cost to us, at all costs to those they want to see dead and destroyed for all time.


They are madmen who should be behind bars, locked in padded cells and given injections of anti-psychotic drugs and sedatives. They should be watched 24 hours a day and kept in locked rooms for their own safety as well as the safety of this world. For if these men and their obvious aims of destruction are not stopped, if they are not confronted, exposed and brought to the light of day, if they are not prevented from continuing their insane goals of death to the whole world, they will without any doubt succeed.


Shall we really stand idly by, claiming concern for our jobs or egotistical need for prestige, afraid of the erroneous criticism of deceived and misguided peers, as the world is raped and killed? What is worth the price? If anything needs to go, is it the world? Or shouldn't it really be them? Is it too late for us to remember what really matters in this world? Is it beyond the time when life was held precious and sacred? Are we all too happy to just get it over with and let them take us all to hell so that this endless carnage and pollution and destruction and violation of all that is good and decent and pure will finally cease? Or can common sense prevail? Can right and wrong be refreshed in our minds and in our souls and can we simply, calmly, step up and lead them away from the controls, away from the one second in time, on that one day that is unavoidably coming, when that final line is crossed? When that final insult, that final lie, that final spread of nuclear warheads is aimed and launched at millions of innocent people, that will immediately result in the mutually assured destruction of the world?


If we cannot stand up to illegitimate mortal leaders and take away this power over our lives that no man should ever have, then perhaps we have not yet evolved enough to recognize that life matters and that justice matters and that respect matters and that we all deserve to live in un-violated peace and freedom. And if that is true, then we won't have long to wait. Because these are the most dangerous men in the world and if there is no one willing to stop them we will all witness the consequences. And then we will die.


(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.