Eric Cantor: Conflater, Liar, and yes, a Pussy

Richmond, Virginia--Is there something in the water in the former capital of the Confederacy or is it just another great example of an overall problem in the culture that goes beyond regional issues?

Someone--and nobody knows who at this point--fired a bullet into the air and it hit a window of a room that's sometimes used by Virginia GOP Representative, Eric Cantor. As most don't want to know by now, Cantor's a prominent figure in the health care debate and wasn't exactly a voice of reason during the dialog during all of that, and there was a lot of it. He was hardly alone within the ranks of the GOP's current congressional incumbency nor their press arm, found primarily in the daily bombast and obfuscation of Fox News. What exactly does the FCC do anyway? If the right had their way, nothing, and that includes inciting others to acts of political violence. What's the new president, someone who stands to get hurt, doing? Apparently, nothing.

Fox News pundit Glenn Beck, political porn star Sarah Palin, conservative media sociopath Rush Limbaugh and a gaggle of former and current GOP incumbents have been telling us more than we ever wanted to know about fictional "death panels," encouraging the carrying of firearms to speaking engagements of the president, and then some. There were also the shoving matches (often clearly planned and even staged by or for GOP operatives) at town hall meetings, the violating of the rights of others to speak at those meetings through shouting (an interesting obverse of silencing activists at Bush speaking events), various other acts of political violence including the murder of a late-term abortion doctor in Kansas, and so on, and so on. Not a pretty picture at all, and much of it coming from that political gadfly movement, the Tea Party crowd. Yet, there is and has been very open demagoguery by even the likes of "mainstream" incumbents enjoining the unhinged towards pointless and violent political action.

Some--even GOP Senator John McCain--are advocating rhetorically of taking up the gun now that the populist right appears to have lost the health care battle. The patrician McCain can hardly be called a "man of the people" either, having married into money when it was clear he wasn't good at anything beyond being propped-up like some banana dictator. Then, there has been the talk and open fanning of the flames of secession in Texas by its current, Republican Governor. But Big Phrama and the insurance and private health cartels are making out like bandits while all the flailing is going on, all the political theater. It's all bullshit, not real. But many of these demagogues have now gone too far with the recent attack-by-plane of an IRS building in Austin, numerous death threats and failed plots on the president, attacks on Democratic incumbents and their offices, verbal assaults of Democratic incumbents, some of them civil rights era heroes, and worse, including numerous attempted break-ins going back as far as the summer of 2007. Like most criminals, they fear a natural backlash for their misbehavior.

Now, we have one of the chief flame fanners (puffer) in Eric Cantor trying very desperately to play the iconography of the victim. As usual, and being a Republican, the truth isn't on his side:

The Richmond Police Department is investigating an act of vandalism at the Reagan Building, 25 E. Main St., Richmond, Virginia. A first floor window was struck by a bullet at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday, March 23. The building, which has several tenants including an office used by Congressman Eric Cantor, was unoccupied at the time.

A Richmond Police detective was assigned to the case. A preliminary investigation shows that a bullet was fired into the air and struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window. The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds. There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman.

The Richmond Police Department is sharing information about the incident with appropriate law enforcement agencies.

At this time there are no suspects.

Posted by RPD at 12:21 PM (http://richmondvapolice.blogspot.com/2010/03/richmond-police-investigate-cantor.html)

With the projectile coming from a downward trajectory, it's very likely that the bullet was shot from an unrelated location and incident and reached its destination without being purposely aimed with any intent of hitting that location.

Some are already speculating that Cantor and some associates concocted the whole event, but life can be more obvious and stranger than that. Would the GOP stage an event like this? It's not beyond their capacity, surely, they've engaged in criminal acts in the very recent past and can be expected to continue doing so without any significant accountability being brought into play by the forces of law and order. It's a curious thing that while open flouting of the law by the right goes generally untouched the left gets a far different treatment. Simply ask yourself what would have happened to progressive activists had they begun brandishing weapons at Bush II speaking engagements or made the kind of noise of "taking up arms" from 2001-2009. They would have been crushed, and some who were doing a lot less were, some of them antiwar protesters and veterans. This distinctly different treatment of the progressive left and the populist right speaks volumes as to who's the real threat to a corrupt Wall Street.

The Eric Cantor "attack"doesn't appear to be one at all but his the reaction to it, that of the bought media, and the rest of the GOP, is definitely opportunist in trying to downplay their demagogic comments to take up arms that have been triggering acts of political violence within the right in recent months. It's the classic defensive game of projection: you did it, not me. It's a curious event at the end of over a year of the GOP fighting against the same bill that McCain and Mitt Romney would have passed. Why the tantrum? Because they didn't get to pass it, someone else got the spoils, and that's about it. Their pathetic attempts at victimhood would be laughable were they not harming the lives of millions across the globe, the real Insane Clown Posse, and definitely a party comprised mostly of race-baiters at this writing.

Campaign manager David Plouffe and the Obama administration aren't inspired by genius

Washington D.C.--The Obama administration's David Plouffe has written a recent opinion piece in the Washington Post (the January 24, "November doesn't need to be a nightmare for Democrats") that should ring familiar since the public wrote it first: the Democrats need to deliver on the promises of the 2008 campaign of Barack Obama, that of genuine progressive reform, real change. Most Americans know such promises coming from either party aren't going to happen without incredible demands or from the fact that events have left the political and economic establishment with few options.

"Progress" has never been a gift, yet Plouffe's read his Machiavelli and understands that you have to throw the mob something:

...After two election cycles in which Democrats won most of the close races and almost all of the big ones, Democrats have much more fragile turf to defend this year than usual. Add to that a historic economic crisis, stubborn unemployment and the pain that both have inflicted on millions of Americans, and you have a recipe for a white-knuckled ride for many of our candidates.

But not if Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do. ...

It all sounds good, but which Obama are we going to get, and which Democrats? What amount of arm-twisting is the current administration willing to do? Even LBJ, once called "the King of the Senate," understood the power of the presidency, and he flexed it. It's sad to admit it, but in some respects, the 2008 McCain campaign (and Obama's other running-mates and opponents) were correct that the president isn't experienced enough with the ins-and-outs of the legislative process and what it takes to get things done. His rather feeble and continuing outreach to the GOP incumbency is one obvious indicator of this.

The public wants leadership. The public wants someone who's really on their side.

The President's ongoing desire for bipartisanship masks what should be clear to all: he's to-the-right of Ronald Reagan and Richard M. Nixon, just not to the extremists in the House and the Senate. His recent talk of freezing social spending in the midst of an almost unprecedented economic crisis has been roundly criticized by eminent economists who have all-but-given-up on him, it being just another capitulation to the minority party, a curious stance if ever there was one. Ploufee understands this perception--an accurate one--when he writes these agenda headers:

...--Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay...

--We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them. ...

-- Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. ...

-- Don't accept any lectures on spending. ...

-- "Change" is not just about policies. ...

-- Run great campaigns. ...

-- No bed-wetting. ...

This all sounds good, as most campaign rhetoric does, but what about the reality? Is it really a matter of perception? It is, but not the way that Plouffe paints it.

First, "Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay": Plouffe is more than a little dishonest here, which is to be expected from a mainstream campaign manager. When the truth isn't on your side, divert. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration specifically and willfully dropped the ball on socialized medicine and capitulated to big medicine, pharma, and the health insurance lobby. How they're going to reverse this past behavior is a great question, but the Senate version of the health care reform bill is slanted to reward insurance companies with billions of dollars and a captive consumer base. Presidential adviser Rahm Emanuel has been instrumental in some of these problems, but so have "blue dog" Democratic incumbents in Congress. Nonetheless, the White House shares the greatest blame here. The GOP's role goes without saying, it's not progressive or constructive.

Second, "We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them": This is where the Obama administration has--once again--not done even remotely enough. International, world class economists have chided the president and Congress for the smallness of the initial $700 Billion stimulus program, an "impetus" that isn't especially higher than the appropriations for the needless wars in the Middle East which are being fought for petroleum corporations and aren't in the interest of the public, let alone promote a safer world or our national security. Don't expect the Obama administration or Congress to be receptive to demands over this. Public works projects only go so far, and we've had a scanty investment considering the desperate need to repair our national infrastructure, including real world (meaning adequate) investments in high tech and green infrastructure and mass transportation. However, I hear the military is now hiring, but hurry, their quotas are nearly met now.

At the rate jobs are vanishing, they're not even remotely doing enough.

Third, "Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy": This is Plouffe being redundant. Yes, we probably averted another Great Depression...for now. Without real reform in the financial sectors--which the Obama administration is fighting--we're likely to have one anyway, or very likely so, according to academic economists.

Fourth, "Don't accept any lectures on spending": This is true, except that much of the self-inflicted damage has been done. This would allow the Democrats more leverage in fixing the economy and getting us out of the mess we're in, but that doesn't translate into the will to do it, or even the ability, when you've already compromised yourselves on several fronts and handed the opposition all their talking points. The public kept telling the Obama administration this again and again over the last year and they wouldn't listen. That's called a leadership vacuum.

Fifth, "'Change' is not just about policies": Well, duh, but please explain why passing reasonable health care reform (meaning having a system like Canada's, the UK's, or France's) has been so hard then? We can talk about campaign reform and ethics reforms all we want, but my experience--and it's direct--is that Democrats aren't especially interested in it anymore than Republicans are, they just talk a better talk. The Democratic record for ethics enforcement is monaural and poor.

Sixth, "Run great campaigns": Considering the number of Obama/DNC supporters and volunteers that I know and know of who are angry over the last year and who feel used, this shit's not going to cut it, not even remotely. So what? More "appearances are everything" thinking.

Seventh, "No bed-wetting": This is just more hyperbole, more rhetoric. Right, stick to the script, grow a pair. Too late? Probably...

About all I was convinced of from Plouffe's opinion piece is that he understands a groundswell is coming if Democratic incumbents don't start delivering on a bare-minimum of their promises, that they must at least appear to show leadership qualities where they have shown almost none at all, instead bending over backwards for corporate interests and Wall Street. They've known for over a year that the public has wanted more and substantial action from them to fix the mess of the last administration and beyond, but they've refused to and won't listen to the public, the majority. Now, they claim, they want to listen, but only when it appears that they're going to lose their majority. How is this going to translate into leadership? Plouffe offers no answers.

From this, it seems obvious to this writer that they've learned nothing at all and will continue down the same path regardless. Americans might consider breaking their two-party addiction, and quick. Rhetoric isn't going to cut it anymore, results will. While the vote in Massachusetts for Scott Brown to fill the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat is being called a "referendum," there's another side to it: people simply wanted change, any change, and "renegade" candidates without an obvious connection to the political establishment have a real opening. To some extent, the outcome there was more about moving on from the Kennedy dynasty and the generalizations about its significance have been overstated, first by Republicans, then by just about everyone else (except me, it seems).

Voters in Massachusetts may have been voting against their interests (though it should be remembered that Brown was only elected to finish Kennedy's term), but the message that they want new faces in office is crystal clear. Democrats got complacent and arrogant, but the backlash in Massachusetts was a longtime coming. Simply running a "good campaign" and shaping perceptions does not a leader make. What's needed is a real opposition party that's actually different from the GOP and has the common good in mind. Best of luck with that one.

"November doesn't need to be a nightmare for Democrats," The Washington Post, 01.24.2010: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204216.html

Meghan McCain: Dating tough after dad's campaign

A'murka--It seems that Ms. McCain--Senator McCain's daughter--has had some romance problems before, during, and since the elections. I'm not surprised, and concurr with her opinion that the libido dries-up whenever politics gets mentioned, a real mood killer. Well, duh.

She's got the goods, though, she's gonna be OK. I can feel it in my loins. The title contradicts the article, incidentally, something only achievable through a privileged education.

Hint to prospective beaus: act apathetic about politics and she's your'n.

"Looking for Mr. Far Right," The Daily Beast, 03.03.2009:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-02/looking-for-mr-far-right/

"Our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital." --John McCain

WWW--McCain mentioned this for no apparent reason during the final presidential debate, just underscoring again-and-again that he's living in the past. That's right, she's yours, not ours, and those of us with a clue would never refer to Nancy Reagan as "beloved." Not even for when she pressed her ignorant husband to say something about AIDs while he was still president. He eventually did, but it was too late.

Those who refer to Ronald Reagan and his wife in such terms have an agenda in saying such wildly ridiculous drivel. If they care at all, it's because he irresponsibly deregulated so many industries that they and their superiors got rich. Absurd. I know, but I'm...just...jealous. Of what, I have no idea.

Joe (really Sam, but "Joe" sounds more iconic, so he ran with it) the plumber butt

" 'I’m kind of like Britney Spears having a headache. ...Everybody wants to know about it.' ” --Faux Ohio plumber Samuel Wurzelbacher shooting his mouth off again on Thursday. (AP)

Holland, Ohio--Poor Joe. He won't pay his taxes, he doesn't really have the legal right to work as a plumber in and around Toledo (making him an unqualified scab), and he couldn't stop and think about these facts when he opened his big mouth towards presidential candidate Barack Obama. This would all be due to the fact that he's clearly unintelligent, making him a Republican by-default.

The Obama campaign was doing door-to-door meetings with voters in Joe's neighborhood, and it was entirely coincidental--but very likely, it being Ohio--that they brushed-up against a very silly and stupid man named Samuel Wurzelbacher, who likes to go by the name of "Joe." Or was it a coincidence?

Wurzelbacher finally had his "chance" at his own fifteen minutes of fame, and now he wishes that he hadn't taken it. He's now ducking any and all media outlets. But all the lapdog press has been doing is balancing him with the reality of his statements about the candidate, his platform, and Wurzelbacher's claims about himself. Unsurprisingly, they don't match-up with objective reality, but since when has that ever stopped a wrong-headed American from shooting their mouth off in a way that can only hurt themselves? Ahem.

As we all know by now, Wurzelbacher questioned Obama's tax plan, echoing baseless GOP attacks that we're all--all of us--going to be taxed higher, even the rest of us who make under $250,000 a year, like "Joe." Except "Joe" doesn't make what the rest of us do, he makes significantly more, at least $100,000-a-year. Yes, I feel so sorry for everyone who makes that much a year, but they shouldn't be so afraid of Obama, he's got their tax-cheat backs more than they or Wurzelbacher might suspect. Even the late DC Madam paid her taxes properly.

Not ever wanting to look into someone's background, as in the case of VP candidate Sarah Palin, John McCain's campaign grabbed for any straw man they could. McCain went on to mention that he was fighting for "the Joes out there" during the final presidential debate, the name being a kind of catch-all for the "everyman," the working man.

The problem is, it's not 1951 anymore, and by that point the ladies were part of the workforce anyway. Women don't figure highly in the McCain campaign's rhetoric, Palin aside, and the implications that they favor a male-dominated nuclear family as a social model are obvious. "Joe" (Sam) personifies this ossified model of wrong-headed patriarchal pacification of the rest of us. Hasn't it worked wonders for the economy and our rights these last eight years? How about the breadth of our history?

Never mind all that, Joe doesn't want to pay taxes, and he told Obama this squarely: “Do you believe in the American dream? I'm being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream. ...I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. ...Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” [emphasis added] Yes, it's hard to feel sorry for someone ostensibly poised to make a quarter million a year who doesn't want to pay their share of taxes. These were just some of the loaded questions in which Wurzelbacher neglected to provide the full-context of who he is and where he's been--he's practically a partner in the "firm" he works for with one Al Newell, and that's for starters. Do both of them split the money evenly? We don't know. I don't believe in the American Dream, that's a myth, it's crap.

Even if they did split their business's income previously, Obama's tax plan wouldn't cause a rise in their taxes, and Wurzelbacher knew this when he hit the candidate with the question. It gets worse regarding taxes for Sam.

... And Mr. Wurzelbacher has provided only vague information on his and the company’s finances since talking to Mr. Obama. But if the plumbing business remained a two-person company and the net proceeds — after deductions for business expenses — were shared by the two men, both incomes would most likely fall well below the top tax brackets on which Mr. Obama wants to raise rates, as would the company itself.

... According to public records, Mr. Wurzelbacher has been subject to two liens, each over $1,100 [Ed.--According to Ohio state websites, his state income tax lien is $1, 182.98.]. One, with a hospital, has been settled, but a tax lien with the State of Ohio is still outstanding. ("Real Deal on 'Joe the Plumber' Reveals New Slant," The New York Times, 10.16.2008)

Why would Mr. Newell and Wurzelbacher be so coy about their financial arrangements? Questions directed at candidate Obama were by "Joe" were skewed and loaded regarding his own actual situation, which begs numerous others.

Even if the faux-plumber buys-out Newell's share of the plumbing firm it's unlikely that he'll be paying more taxes under the Obama plan, and he probably understood this when he confronted the presidential candidate. Perhaps he just had a lot to hide? There are other facts regarding the business he works for that he wasn't exactly upfront about, though it's becoming clear that he has problems with mathematics (don't we all?) in many areas.

According to an analysis by Dun & Bradstreet on Wurzelbacher's employer, A. W. Newell Corp., the plumbing and heating contractor has annual sales of $510,000.

If Wurzelbacher bought the company, by the time he took proper business deductions, Bankler said, he'd be left with between $150,000 and $200,000 in taxable income and wouldn't be affected by Obama's proposed increase in the top rates. (" 'Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic Owes Taxes (Update 2)," Bloomberg, 10.16.2008)

And so, either Mr. Newell isn't being forthcoming with his "employee," Wurtzelbacher is simply poor at math, or one or both of them isn't being very honest. To be sure, we'll all be finding out very soon who he really is and what their company is really up to.

Then, there are other troubling possibilities, such as the fact that Wurzelbacher lived at 1960 W. Keating Dr., Mesa, Arizona, part of a sprawling apartment subdivision (Dobson Ranch) constructed during the 1970s by the Savings and Loan corruption scandal figure of almost twenty-years-ago. Keating is connected to McCain from that time, and even earlier, and Wurzelbacher's connections to the former perp could be quite intimate.

Maybe these are just coincidences, but one fact is particularly bizarre: it appears that Wurzelbacher purchased his current residence in August of this year. It's either one of an incredible series of coincidences, or it isn't, yet it has all the markings of a Karl Rove job, including possible past break-ins and/or infiltration of the Obama campaign by various GOP operatives. It's possible that Mr. Wurzelbacher is one himself.

At the very least, his 13-year-old kid, his ex-wife, former in-laws, and every person he's ever snubbed or offended now have a new stick to hit Wurzelbacher with for the rest of his natural life. When Obama suggested he wanted to "spread the wealth," Wurzelbacher retorted the standard line of "That's Socialism." Why yes, it is, and it's coming, Sammie. Not tomorrow, but today, now, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. That's how history works sometimes.

" 'Joe the Plumber,' Obama Tax-Plan Critic Owes Taxes (Update 2)," Bloomberg, 10.16.2008: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC4j3T5.s_eQ&refer=home

"Real Deal on 'Joe the Plumber' Reveals New Slant," The New York Times, 10.16.2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html

More on (moron) Sam J. Wurzelbacher (might need to be pasted): http://www.privateeye.com/Search/SearchResults.aspx?vw=people&input=name&fn=Samuel&mn=&ln=Wurzelbacher&city=&state=OH&criteria=Samuel;;;;Wurzelbacher;;;;OH;;;;;;

Wurzelbacher's August 2008 purchase of his current residence: http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/areissummary/report.aspx?Parcel=6562411

Larry Flynt, Dan Moldea, & Fred Thompson

St. Paul, Minnesota--In one of the final e-mails I received from the late DC Madam, she conveyed to me that Larry Flynt's private investigator (and author) Dan Moldea had found calls from Fred Thompson (who, like Richard Nixon appears to be fashioned out of mud), John McCain, and Vice President Dick Cheney (allegedly a 1999 call to her escort service when he was CEO of Halliburton).

I don't have context for the rest, though if she was telling myself and my defense co-researcher Monique Rawlings the truth (and conversely, if Moldea and Flynt had told her the truth), that Larry Flynt is sitting-on these names.

Why? You--the press--need to ask Larry Flynt "why," but I guess you're preoccupied chasing stories about bigfoot. Why isn't Flynt naming names? I have my suspicions, but in my opinion, it comes-down-to the fact that he's a thoroughly establishmentarian chicken-lover. If only I were jesting, if only, if only. The other option is Palfrey was desperate and lying about it. Take that, Wayne Madsen.

So: what are you waiting for with Fred Thomspon, Larry? Was it a lie on-her-part, or yours? I don't know, and I'm sure the rest of America wants to. I've heard you're trying to rehabilitate your legacy. Some transparency would be a good start. So start now, today, and expose Fred Thompson for what he really is on the day he speaks before the GOP National convention.

If it's not true, that settles it. Looking at Thompson's wife, I suspect that it's true. Coupled together with the late Richard Nixon's assessment of Thompson ("dumb"), and it makes a lot of sense. Trophy wife, hooker--what's the difference? Nice tits (Fred's). You know where to stick those Cuban cigars.

Obama's Veep Pick: Does it Really Matter?

The Campaign Trail of Tears--Nah. I'm saying it's either going to be the arch-conservative milquetoast Evan Bayh from my own state of Indiana, or the virtual unknown from Texas, Representative Chet Edwards. Soooo, he didn't even think once about--erm--tapping Hillary (who would? Not Bill.) as vice president. That was a smart move, because there would have been no logical reason to think she wouldn't have been stabbing a President Obama in the back his entire tenure in office. We'll see, and probably in less than a couple hours.

Poscript, 10:00 PM: An incredible wait, so I went out to see the new Kiefer Sutherland film "Mirrors," which is really great! Of course, we all know the wait is political theater at its best, but Obama's smarter than his ossified, washed-up jock rival. My money's on Bayh, why break a run of disappointments? Caroline Kennedy would be a great one, so it's unlikely. Sigh. Time to watch William Klein's "Mr. Freedom"! Notice how nobody cares who McCain picks as his running-mate, yet even the GOP is riveted over who Obama will choose? I have.

Obama invokes the late, great Wild Bill Hickok as an ancestor

Springfield, Missouri--Obama's claim of descent to James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok (where he engaged in a duel, possibly during the Civil War) today is an interesting one.

The Democratic presidential candidate came to this town on the edge of the old West on Wednesday and laid down a challenge for his GOP rival.

"If Sen. McCain wants a debate on taxes in this campaign, I'm ready," Obama said, noting that Hickok is said to have fought a duel here. "I'm ready to duel John McCain on taxes right here, quick draw," Obama said before closing the loop with Hickok.

"The family legend is that he is a distant cousin of mine. I don't know if it's true but I'm going to research it." ("Political Play: Obama claims link to the Wild West," AP, 07.30.2008)

He doesn't need to, a noted genealogist named Chris Child has confirmed it. Never mind that-- 25% of everyone roaming the Wild West was Black (it's true). Obama went to the heart of the matter, to one of the legends, Wild Bill.

And he's correct: he is descended from Wild Bill, a distant cousin. But does he really want to make a comparison? Perhaps. But his challenge of a dueling debate over taxes in Springfield with John McCain doesn't bode well when you look at how Wild Bill ended his days, but people settle their differences in other ways nowadays. Nonetheless, there's an even more intriguing fact about the Hickok family that few will recognize:

Wild Bill Hickok James Butler Hickok in Troy Grove, Illinois on May 27, 1837 to was born William Alonzo Hickok and Polly Butler Hickok. Bill had four brothers and two sisters and his parents were God-fearing Baptists who expected Bill to keep up his chores on the farm and to attend church every Sunday. Bill's parents also operated a station along the Underground Railroad, where they smuggled slaves out of the South. It was during this time that the lean and wiry young man got his first taste of hostile gunfire when he and his father were chased by law officers who suspected them of carrying more than just hay in their wagon. ("Wild Bill Hickok and the dead man's hand," LegendsofAmerica.com)

And so, James Butler Hickok came from very upstanding Americans, from people who saw Black Americans as human beings when few bothered to care. On top of this, they risked their lives, and so did Bill. He was a real man. But then, we should remember that there's that other side of America, where Republicans and sell-out Democrats dwell. It's the domain of the Coward Jack McCall, the world of the back-stabbing scoundrel and the yellow-belly.

Not much is known about McCall except that he was stupid, cock-eyed, a braggart, and a drunk who had once run with some buffalo hunters, possibly in the Wyoming territory. Kind of sounds like the current president, doesn't it? McCall was from Kentucky while Hickok was from Illinois, but both men wrestled with the beast within. Hickok was a lawman with an itchy trigger-finger. We'll never know how many people Hickok killed, and it's positive we never will with McCall either.

But you know a man by his actions, and we only remember McCall because of one of his last ones when he shot Wild Bill Hickok in the back of the head for beating him at cards.

On August 1, 1876 Wild Bill was playing cards in Nuttall and Mann’s No. 10 Saloon when one of the players dropped out and bystander Jack McCall took his place. McCall kept losing and at the end of the evening was broke. Hickok gave him money with which to buy dinner. The next day, on August 2, Hickok returned to the No. 10 and joined in a game of cards. A few hours later Jack McCall entered the bar and stopped a few paces behind Hickok. He pointed his gun at Hickok’s head, pulled the trigger and shouted, “Damn you, take that!” The gunshot instantly killed Wild Bill. McCall ran out of the saloon and attempted to escape on a horse that was tethered nearby, but the saddle had been loosened, and he fell to the ground. McCall ran down the street and hid in a butcher’s shop where he was captured by a large crowd. ("Deadwood History-JackMcCall," AdamsMuseumandHouse.org)

How is this different from John McCain dropping bombs on innocent North Vietnamese civilians over forty-years-ago, then being captured? Can someone like Obama--coming from the Chicago political machine--embody the morality of what was good about James Butler Hickok and America, or will he unleash the spirit of Jack McCall, John Rockefeller Sr., the Vanderbilts, Andrew Carneige, and the Pinkertons on the world as Commander in Chief?

Will he be a backstabbing assassin like the man who murdered his distant cousin, or will he side with the robber barons, the mine owners, and railroad men of our times? The signs aren't good, but one can hope, since that's all we're left with voting within the two party system. Will Obama be the man from Illinois (Lincoln/Hickok) or the malcontent, booze-swilling long-knife from Kentucky (McCall)?

When a candidate evokes the memory of the Old West in America, it's an important event that carries the responsibility of getting the history right. Yes, it makes him look and sound "tough," but does it make him a hero (McCain isn't one either), a man who can enter his home justified? If Senator Obama decides to stand on the side of the law, he's going to have a lot of cleaning-up to do from the last president. This is mandatory. It should be a part and parcel of his own agenda, because no nation can survive lawlessness for very long.

Just 100-years-ago, Pat Garrett was murdered along a lonely road in New Mexico.

He'd been shot in the back of the head and in the chest. Long before we were arguing over which angle JFK was shot from in Dealy Plaza, parties were arguing the same over Pat's murder. They say a big time rancher named W.W. Cox wanted him dead, and that he wasn't alone. Rich "coyotes" smuggling Chinese immigrants across the Mexican-American border might have wanted to bring them through his Bear Canyon ranch. Had they murdered him for money and power? What side of history is Obama on? We already know about John McCain.

"Political Play: Obama claims link to the Wild West," AP, 07.30.2008: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gyXVIfZ2F2CTuuxH3_93vuTP-ywwD928D6QO0

"Wild Bill Hickok and the dead man's hand," LegendsofAmerica.com: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-BillHickok.html

On the Coward Jack McCall:http://www.adamsmuseumandhouse.org/answers/jackmccall.html

"Surprising New Information on Pat Garrett's Death: Details from the Fornoff Report," by Chuck Hornung, WesternOutlaw.com: http://www.westernoutlaw.com/stories/files/NewInfoPatGarrett.pdf

OK Indiana, you upset my expectations with the primaries, but I was still right.

Indiana's 2nd District--Say what you want, but Indiana and my own voting district has miraculously made me proud. OK, it wasn't all that miraculous: even racist Hoosiers know that Clinton isn't going to fix anything, and that we're going to get more of the same from her and the McInsane, that guy with a hair-trigger temper and a yen for making Beach Boys songs into hymnals for bombing Iran. The difference between George W. Bush, Hilliary Clinton, and John McCain is: nada, zip, zero.

The good news:My own district, and the county I live in (St. Joseph) voted predominantly for Barack Obama. That's saying something, as this isn't a particularly enlightened region--Michiana--but we've got the nuts outnumbered, an obverse to the 19th century when Abolitionists who ferried runaway slaves through here were the minority. Attitudes have changed significantly, and we're moving in a better direction. It hurts to write this again, but we're improving as the WWII generation dies-out. So the wheel turns, the real meaning of "revolution."

Predictably, National Socialist (GOP) candidate Tony Zirkle (see article below) lost in the primary race, but received an appallingly-high vote of nearly 6,000. It takes a very motivated racist to vote for someone as clearly insane as Zirkle, but we have them outnumbered. They're a fringe-phenomena, and it's enjoyable to watch the candidate waste his own money with his personal lost-cause of theocratic white supremacy.

Emigrantes mexicanos, tengai cuidado! Tony Zirkle es un abogado que no actuará en el mejor de vuestros intereses, el es contra los emigrantes!

Hilliary Clinton received just a barely 2% margin-of-victory over Barack Obama, which is considerably less than her "victory" in Pennsylvania. It's not going to be enough for her to prevail. We can thank her and the mainstream media for the paltry 2%. They hammered-home the Rev. Wright story again-and-again, going well beyond "heavy rotation." If it seemed like the GOP echo-chamber, that's because it was.

The Indiana count: At this writing, candidate Clinton holds 643, 442 votes (51%), while candidate Obama holds 629, 029 (49%). Clinton has garnered 37 delegates, while Obama has earned 33, but today Obama received the superdelegate endorsement of George McGovern. This comes from CNN, with 99% reporting. That's hardly a victory for Senator Hillary Clinton at all. It doesn't help her overall, and today we're hearing that she's dipping into her massive savings for $5.6 million as a "loan" to her campaign.

How does one loan oneself money, and is she good for it? Thank heavens for stupid girls, because stupid girls vote Clinton everyday. We're the state of Eugene Debs and New Harmony. It's just that we keep trying to forget. How did I vote? Obama. Rep. Joe Donnelly got no vote, and never will again for standing with President Bush on Iraq, and for helping block impeachment.

Donnelly needs to go, but there's no viable Democratic or third party candidates running against him (take that, Steve Francis). The one Republican who was for a withdrawal from Iraq (his name was Roush) lost along with Tony Zirkle. I would have voted for Mr. Roush over Joe Donnelly any day.

Indiana's Election results as of 3:38PM: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IN

"Democrat Blames Weak Economy on Iraq War"

Washington D.C.--You think? The majority of Democratic and Republican incumbents would know, they've rubber-stamped every request for additional-funding for the war, and will continue to do so even after this president is gone after January 21st, 2009.

Why? Because they share the same overarching objectives and values--if you want to call them that--as this criminal administration. That makes most of them co-conspirators, or aiders-and-abettors if you wish, in the maintenance of a dying Empire.

Will Yarmuth's comments amount to anything substantial? Of course not, that's not what this is about. Creating appearances are everything. But the Democrats and the monied lobbies they serve need an edge in the elections, even if it isn't a real one, so they pushed Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky in front of the microphone for the weekly address from the DNC. The last thing mainstream Democratic incumbents want is a complete pullout from the Middle East, not by any stretch. They're hawks and believers in the Imperial Presidency.

It's all rhetoric during an election year, and the Democrats are trying their best to paper over the fact that they've enabled the White House to start an illegal war--and that's not counting rendition and torture practices by the CIA and private contractors. Unsurprisingly, the American public has already figured this out, as is the usual case. We're almost always ahead of them, even without the access to classified information they have.

The politicians--consciously avoiding the truth--act "amazed" and "surprised," yet they were the first to know. They all have security clearances up on Capitol Hill, and the public doesn't. Yet, "surprisingly," they contend that they were "lied to." This is in-fact, a lie. The GOP are hardly any better, and in fact, are significantly worse. Maybe that's because they're not intelligent enough not to get caught.

In February, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that pulling out of Iraq was the most named remedy for fixing U.S. economic problems.

Forty-eight percent of those surveyed said a withdrawal would help the country's economic problems "a great deal" and 20 percent more said it would help somewhat. Some 43 percent said increasing government spending on health care, education and housing programs would help a great deal; 36 percent named cutting taxes. ("Democrat Blames Weak Economy on Iraq War," AP, 04.12.2008)

Why then did the public know even before the illegal invasion of Iraq--in numbers the same as those opposed to a continued occupation now, and since well before 2006--that it was the wrong fight and that it was patently obvious the Bush administration and the media were pushing us into a protracted war based on very obvious lies and manipulations of intelligence? Because it was the obvious truth of the matter.

We all knew there were never going to be any weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, it was a foregone conclusion that began in the halls of the intelligence community. But the "push" was on. Americans haven't forgotten how hard the mainstream media outlets pushed. They still are.

The media's cheerleaders weren't alone in creating the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan: there were many cheerleaders in Congress who stepped-up for the Bush administration during late-2002 when they authorized the use of force against Iraq. They have been stepping-up ever since, and with rare exception. But Yarmuth has been fairly outspoken in his criticisms of supporters and enablers of the conflict in the Middle East, particularly of Senator John McCain and his own voting record.

So has Obama, but it doesn't have the conviction of someone like a Russell Feingold, a Dennis Kucinich, or even a Patrick Leahy. No, there are too many supporters of the conflict in the Middle East still in office, and it's time to remove every single one of them through the polls. The McCains and Liebermans in Congress aren't alone, and the support for a continued occupation in Iraq is still substantial, rhetoric and political theater aside.

Why pick Yarmuth for the radio address? Because he's not as tainted as say, a Hillary Clinton, or a John Kerry, or the rest of the Democratic incumbents who keep approving funding for the war in the House and the Senate, over-and-over again. He's a freshman representative from Kentucky who hasn't been swallowed-up by the corruption in D.C. yet, or at least it appears so. Perhaps Yarmuth is that rare breed of credible humanity in Washington, a prime opportunity for change. A look back to the dark ages of the funding debate (May of 2007) is in order, and one from the conservative-perspective offers some unique glimpses into the real dynamics at play:

Among those who faced close races in 2006 and figure to in 2008, a slight majority voted to continue funding the war. Most of those voting to cut off funding came from the Northeast. But the group also included two Iowa freshmen--Reps. David Loebsack and Bruce Braley--and Kentucky’s John Yarmuth. Democrats overall voted 140-86 to cut off funding.

Republicans have sought to tar those who vote to cut off funding as unsupportive of the troops, and the votes could provide campaign fodder in the many competitive districts represented by the freshman Democrats. The GOP’s efforts to regain the majority in the House have centered on the freshmen.

In a shift, many Democrats with 2008 contests on deck, including presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), showed a willingness to take that risk or saw greater rewards in opposing the war. ("Iraq war vote again splits freshmen Dems in House," The Hill, 05.30.2007)

At that time, there were also significant defections from the GOP's ranks for continued war funding. The common denominator hasn't been voting against an illegal war pushed by a renegade White House, but whether they're all going to get re-elected on the Hill. That's how Janus-faced enablers behave, sadly. Yarmuth came in on the 2006 midterm wave, a sweeping-out of many of the primary-enablers. Most of them were compromised GOP incumbents (is there any other kind these days?).

But too many of these creatures of Empire still reside within the Democratic Party. The longer the war lasts, the worse the economic woes, and the more the likelihood of yet another historic sweep. Somehow, they think they can beat history this time, just as they did with Vietnam. A catastrophe doesn't qualify as a "victory," but a descent into the abyss, an enfeebled nihilist-thrust.

The DNC's leadership weren't going to let someone like Senator Russ Feingold do this radio address on the connection between the war and the economy since the party leadership generally agrees with the strategic-aims in the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the policies enacted by the White House on extralegal rendition and torture. Unless someone gets caught or there's a pesky whistle-blower that ruins the fun, they pretend the elephant isn't in the room and stonewall the public. Amazingly, they're still stonewalling.

There are more smoking guns for a successful impeachment than in any other American presidency. Democratic leaders want to do what they did with Nixon--remove the problem, but keep the rotten-barrel. This also requires making sure that nobody draws the proper conclusions from the excesses. Enter the press, professional academics, and the rest of the cultural managers.

But then, there are presidents like George W. Bush: sometimes the rules of the game are blown open and the public finds-out what they've been up to in Washington all along. Then, and only then, does Congress play so dumb and "shocked." We get some limp-wristed hearings, and no substantial reforms. Congress knows that violations of international law are going on all the time, and with rare exception are completely ignorant of them.

The public put two-and-two together long ago that this war is fueling our economic downturn, and that the politicians are merely insulting our intelligence once again. But pushing Yarmuth out-front is an acknowledgment that the pressure from the public is having an effect, and that many incumbents on Capitol Hill are very worried indeed about their future prospects in office. Some are leaving because of impending scandals, but much of this is connected. Washington's a big system of nepotism, cronyism, and political spoils. But it all flows from the business world. Welcome to the return of the 19th century.

Yarmuth doesn't appear to be so dumb or as easily influenced as his peers in Congress. No matter, it's hard to say if there's even going to be time to address the Protect America Act revisions with all the pressing matters of a losing war, a crashing economy, and elections coming in November. But let's look back to that AP-Ipsos poll in February of this year again:

Who deserves most of the blame for the economy's troubles?

More than half--56 percent--pointed the finger at mortgage lenders. Forty-four percent said Bush deserves a lot of the blame. After that come Congress, Wall Street, consumers themselves and in last place the Federal Reserve. The Fed has the public's confidence that it will be able to right the economy.

More than half--55 percent--said they have a great deal or some confidence in Fed to turn things around. Forty-one percent said that about Congress, only 28 percent about Bush.

In fact, economic problems have contributed to pulling the president's approval ratings to all-time lows. Only 29 percent approve of his handling of the economy, the lowest mark yet in this polling. Bush's overall job-approval rating slid to 30 percent, also a record low. ("AP Poll: to Fix Economy, Get Out of Iraq," AP, 02.08.2008)

Overall, Yarmuth's one of the few who was voted in the 2006 midterm who has actually delivered on his promises to stand up to the Bush administration, and he has a voting record on progressive spending that's impressive. Representatives like Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) haven't cut it, and they must go. Will the independent-streak of some of these particular freshmen representatives last?

Will Yarmuth and the others who have voted for the public interest eventually succumb to the lobbyists and the pressure from within his own party? Probably. It's up to them and the voters whether they stay in office. This curious historical moment has to be a bad time for bad politicians, and that's always a good thing. If Americans think there's ever a time when they can just sit back and enjoy the battles won, they're mistaken. It's never over, a lesson to remember.

"AP Poll: to Fix Economy, Get Out of Iraq," AP, 02.08.2008:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004172129_apstimulusappoll08.html?syndication=rss

"Iraq war vote again splits freshmen Dems in House," The Hill, 05.30.2007:
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/iraq-war-vote-again-splits-freshman-dems-in-house-2007-05-30.html

"Democrat Blames Weak Economy on Iraq War," AP, 04.12.2008: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20080412/480033c0_3ca6_1552620080412-1767510777

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)

“They never gave us any meaningful news. They told us the day that Martin Luther King was shot, they told us the day that Bobby Kennedy was shot, but they never bothered to tell us about the moon shot. So it was certainly selected news.”--John McCain, emphasizing his indifference to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1987, when he thought it was safe to.

The United States of America--I was just about to be born when Dr. King was murdered by an assassin's bullet in Memphis, that tragic day of April 4th, 1968. What the media won't be telling you is that over 200 American cities were on fire the next day. Buildings were burning just two-blocks from the White House. There were meles between the Black Pather Party for Self-Defense in Chicago and other cities. Often, the Panthers were baited into it by police intelligence units. Military helicopters were doing flyovers above almost every major American city. Smoke billowed from the blazing-ruins of storefronts. It looked like a second civil war was coming.

Indeed, the war in Vietnam was coming home, and the violence was returning to those who had initiated it. The repression afterwards was ghastly, and things only got worse under Nixon, which could have been predicted. The "greatest generation ever" murdered Dr. King. The targets of assassination were on the Left, not the right. As we know, only two major right-wing figures on the cultural landscape were assassinated during the "1960s" (1964-1974): they were John Lincoln Rockwell of the American Nazi Party, and George Wallace. Wallace lived. Scoundrels frequently live to old age. Good men and women who join the struggle for social justice tend to die young. Dr. King was one-of-many during that storied era.

I'm not going into a recounting of all the possible scenarios surrounding his assassination, but it was a crime that certainly had more players to it than lowly old James Earl Ray. A number of retired FBI agents close to the case at that time--all retired, some deceased--have had some very shocking stories to tell, and some have even come forward with stunning and credible evidence.

During the 1990s, one of them produced documents he found in Ray's white Ford Mustang--he was the first agent on the scene, and knew that this evidence was going to "vanish." He forwarded it to the Clinton Justice Department, where it summarily destroyed. This should tell you a lot about where the Clintons truly stand on race and social justice. There are many other examples from them that are just as shocking. Then, there are those who are plainly racist in their behavior and rhetoric.

Roughly 25-years-ago, Arizona congressional representative John McCain voted against the establishment of a national holiday recognizing Dr. King and his sacrifices. This vote by the 47-year-old McCain was race-baiting, and in-the-spirit of the racialist Reagan years. Such a view was held as highly popular in the then-predominantly white Southwestern state. But the racialist mood was prevalent throughout Reagan America, which can now be viewed as a violent denial of the social justice movements of the 1960s-70s.

The fact that McCain would vote against this bill--whether he believed the inherent white supremacist assumptions by doing so--was egregious and unacceptable. He is clearly not a uniter, but then, neither are the Clintons. McCain was held by the North Vietnamese from 1966 to 1972. It appears he still has a lot of catching-up to do. None of this matters. Senator Barack Obama spoke of Dr. King's legacy so eloquently today in Fort Wayne, Indiana, just hours ago:

But in 1968, these workers decided they'd had enough, and over 1,000 went on strike. Their demands were modest --better wages, better benefits, and recognition of their union. But the opposition was fierce. Their vigils were met with handcuffs. Their protests turned back with mace. And at the end of one march, a 16-year old boy lay dead.

This is the struggle that brought Dr. King to Memphis. It was a struggle for economic justice, for the opportunity that should be available to people of all races and all walks of life. Because Dr. King understood that the struggle for economic justice and the struggle for racial justice were really one --that each was part of a larger struggle "for freedom, for dignity, and for humanity." So long as Americans were trapped in poverty, so long as they were being denied the wages, benefits, and fair treatment they deserved --so long as opportunity was being opened to some but not all --the dream that he spoke of would remain out of reach.

The tone in America has shifted, and the message is coming home to everyone. People are beginning to understand what the social movements of the 1960s-70s were saying: it's time for equality and a sense of fair-play. Welcome to the return of liberation theology in America, its time has come, and Dr. King is alive-and-well in the hearts of millions. As Dr. King said, we have the choice between chaos or community. That choice should be a simple one.

Why did Patrick Tillman die?

"While there was no one specific finding of fault, the investigation results indicate that Corporal Tillman probably died as a result of friendly fire while his unit was engaged in combat with enemy forces." --LT. GEN. PHILIP R. KENSINGER JR, May 2004

"The war in Iraq is so fucking illegal!"

--Pat Tillman, 2003

The United States of America--Pat Tillman was an extraordinary individual. As an accomplished athlete--and a student--he was the best and the brightest America had to offer. To his fans, he was an all-American, and friends and family have all stated that he really loved his country and its people.

Football players are part of the central iconography of this country--regardless of our feelings about "the game"--and the sport is often used as a metaphor for America's past-role in the world.

But, football is also used to stir-up a mindless super patriotism and an unthinking obedience to business, the State, and a competitiveness that is uniquely-American. It can contribute to a mindset of life being only 'winners-and-losers', but Pat Tillman wasn't a believer in all of this. He was a true believer in decency and what is right, and by all indications, he was a wonderful guy who genuinely wanted to protect his nation in the wake of the attacks of September 11th, 2001.

In 2002, he and his brother enlisted for a three year tour with the Army Rangers. There are more than 2,000-pages of testimony in the account of his 2004 killing in Afghanistan by fratricide ('friendly fire'). There are many contradictions in the testimony, and it was a full five weeks before his family was even notified of his death by the US Army. This fact alone is deeply-troubling, and doesn't serve the football iconography well for Statists. Neither did the real Pat Tillman--he was practically a closet-Leftist, and a critic of the War in Iraq.

Tillman's family was only told of his "friendly fire" death a few days before his burial (they were previously lied-to and told he was killed by enemy fire). It's unfortunate that his family thought John McCain would get any results for them, because he hasn't and won't. Entire sections of the reports on Tillman's death are still classified, and McCain hasn't delivered any major goods, just some belated consolation that earns him political points in Arizona.

A 2005 San Francisco Chronicle piece highlights Tillman's persona a bit:

Interviews also show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author. (SFC, 9/25/2005)

It doesn't sound like your typical football-player, does it? My hunch is that Tillman saw something that night he wasn't supposed to, and had been pretty opinionated about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan around his fellow-solidiers.

I believe he went to Afghanistan to bear-witness as nobody in civilian life could. He was well-equipped to be a fighter for truth when he got back, and he was a very intelligent man who had graduated from college Summa Cum Laude. How many football players study to get a degree in history while playing professional football?

What's so disheartening is that immediately following his death, the Bush administration and their allies in the media seized-upon the icons, using a dead man who disagreed with them. This wasn't new to them as they used the bodies of 2,700 9/11 victims for political capital, until recently.

More disgusting epitaphs were the social Darwinist prose vomited by people like Ann Coulter [who] described Tillman as "an American original -- virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be."' Right, there are no people anywhere else like this. Pat Tillman would have disagreed strenuously and he respected the underdog. Imagine if he had survived, and gotten to meet Dr. Chomsky as he had planned. Coulter and her ilk would have dragged him through-the-mud, or ignored him entirely.

It is possible that one-or-more of his comrades in A Company, 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment wanted him dead? We'll probably never know, since their stories keep-changing. It could easily be gross-negligence, but why wait five weeks? Why classify so much? Why was all of SPC Tillman's uniform and flak-jacket burned under orders? One investigating officer suggested some of the troops present at Tillman's death should be charged with "criminal intent." Why?

The questions are all troubling ones. Tillman also had a habit of keeping a journal all the time. What happened to his journal from Afghanistan? The Army began a criminal investigation in March of this-year. The prospects for human-survival are dimming, made-possible by your inaction.

Lightly Revised, 09.19.2008

Tillman Timeline:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?id=2517567

Related:
http://www.edgeofsports.com/2006-03-07-179/index.html
http://www.iraqwarheroes.com/tillman.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/25/MNGD7ETMNM1.DTL

A good blogpiece on the Diary:
http://the-wrecking-machine.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_the-wrecking-machine_archive.html

Dr. Chomsky:
http://www.chomsky.info/