MSNBC spins against Obama: He Flipped-off Clinton?

MSNBC--This was incredible. At around 4PM, MSNBC was kinda-sorta claiming that presidential candidate Barack Obama flipped-off Senator Hillary Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination as candidate. Interestingly, he didn't. He was scratching his face. Wonder what it would be like if the other two candidates had to exist under this kind of creative scrutiny? They would lose...oh, they're losing already, hence the need for a pile-on by two de facto GOP candidates.

I witnessed the footage: he scratched his nose with two-fingers after making a comment about Clinton. That's it. Even the newswoman groaned reading the non-story. What an amazing lie. Only in America? Somehow, I doubt it. Fox News is also trying to run with the non-story. There it is: no, the Senator didn't flip-off Hillary Clinton, but I do every single day. Unsurprisingly, the so-called "incident took-place in North Carolina, a hotbed of political dirty tricks for the GOP.

The Nazi Pope Blesses Whore-Mongering Senator David Vitter

Washington D.C.--No irony there. He was kind enough not to mention that dirty little war in Iraq either, but had to admit the cover-up for the molesting priests that went on for decades.

Canadian Film Tax Credit Legislation Stalled, Evangelist Charles McVety Laments

"It's not about Charles McVety. Who am I? I'm nobody. I am irrelevant in this process. But I have been someone--this evangelical that people can take a shot at...because of my faith and because of the religion that I belong to." --Rev. Charles McVety doing a very bad job playing the role of a religious minority and a victim this week. (The Globe and Mail, 04.17.2008)

Ottawa, Canada--It's unsurprising that evangelist activist Charles McVety--president of the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC)--is unhappy about the current version of legislation that would revamp Canada's Telefilm tax credit fund and how it's going to be distributed in the future. The vast majority of Canadian media are against the current version of the bill that would grant unprecedented powers to the federal Heritage Minister (an appointed position), allowing them wide-berth in defining what films violate "public policy," and deny tax credits to those productions. This could occur even after Telefilm approval of tax credits for a movie or television project, and banks could get cold feet over future domestic productions thanks to these provisions of the legislation.

McVety wants another version of the bill that would go drastically further in curtailing which films get made, and which ones won't. Yet he won't define what is and isn't a violation of public policy in Canadian media. Fortunately, his recent outbursts might be a sign he and his allies have been told that they won't be making any of those decisions as political appointments in the future. According to McVety, he's "not a lobbyist," yet he certainly acts a lot like one. McVety had likely spoken too soon on the legislation back in February, having taken credit (not a tax one) for the very existence of the current bill being debated in the Canadian Senate's banking committee. Now, he's flatly denying it.

Naturally, the Tories are still bullish on the idea of this bill passing, but with the recent RCMP raids on their national offices, it could get the backseat. The entire banking and commerce committee don't appear to like Mr. McVety or his dubious agenda of blanket censorship:

Dr. McVety did not appear to have supporters of any stripe around the committee table.
The Conservatives were cordial, but seemed preoccupied with refuting allegations that government lobbying on the part of Dr. McVety had prompted the legislation.

The Globe and Mail reported in February that Dr. McVety had claimed credit for the proposal after discussions with Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

Dr. McVety backed away from that yesterday.

"We had no discussions about this legislation [Ed.-Called "C-10."] period. We didn't even know it existed. We didn't know it until The Globe and Mail called us the day after they had put this provision on the front page of their newspaper. We had zero knowledge of it. We had no specific meetings on this," Dr. McVety said. ("Film tax credit proposal falls short, evangelists says," The Globe and Mail, 04.17.2008)

The politicians on the liberal and conservative sides don't appear to want to have any impression that there is an association between themselves and "Dr." McVety, and the subject himself is trying to backpedal on his claims of virtual authorship of the current tax credit bill. Why is that? Because it's bad political theater.

Should we take Charles McVety at his word this week? Of course not. That's asking to believe much of anything he has to say outside of his circle of believers--believers in yet another false social prophet-cum-influence peddler. McVety sounds more like a Father Coughlin than a Jesus Christ. This week, almost all he could talk about was a controversial film that has yet-to-be-released in Canada: "Young People Fucking," and like many, it was funded partly through Telefilm and the Canadian tax credit. The reverend appears to be a little too obsessed with young people fucking, frankly. Like it or not, this is what Canada's media is great at.

If you know anything about Canadian cinema's success, it's that it's edgier than boorish American fare--it has its own niche, and it takes more creative-risks. As far as North America's concerned, it's the freest form of cinema left in an ocean of Hollywood conglomeration and meaninglessness-of-content. Interestingly, C-10 doesn't punish foreign movie and other media productions from receiving the same funds, irregardless of whether they violate "public policy."

Only Canadian productions fall under this provision of C-10, and it isn't hard to understand why this is so: monied American productions don't want to be affected, and the biggest ones don't want any Canadian competition. Enter creatures like Charles McVety, a Trojan horse if ever there was one. The Liberal Party's senators weren't buying what McVety was selling, and were practically belittling his testimony before them on Wednesday. This is how things are supposed to work, and it's obvious Canadian government is a little healthier than her American counterpart. But not much.

Charles McVety isn't just obsessed by "young people fucking," however, but by homosexuals: another film called "Breakfast with Scot" was another object of attention by the evangelist during his testimony before the suffering Senate banking and commerce committee. This shouldn't be a surprising tactic on-the-part of the evangelist and the shadowy interests he presumably represents, and was used to dramatic effect in the 2004 elections here in the United States. It's the politics of division and minority-baiting. McVety on "Breakfast with Scot":

Breakfast with Scot, released last fall, is about a gay ex-hockey player and his partner caring for a young orphan who displays less-than-masculine tendencies.

"(It) is about an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual," said McVety. "... This is not something that the government should be (funding)."

Toronto-based filmmaker Laurie Lynd said he was "appalled" by McVety's description of his movie.

"The film is a gentle family comedy about self-acceptance and loving your child for whoever he or she is," Lynd said in an interview. He added that losing public financing just before production "could have killed the film completely."

McVety would not say how he would define entertainment that is "against public policy," instead listing titles such as The Masturbators and Young People F------.
("Activist decries tax break for gay comedy," The Toronto Star, 04.17.2008)

Like all would-be censors, Charles McVety wants us to believe that he knows best, and that he knows smut when he sees it within his own mind. Indeed he does, and he's far-and-away more obsessed by so-called "smut" and "pornography" than the rest of us here in North America. But are any of these films genuine "pornography"? No. This isn't the case, and these reactionary elements know this. Statutes already exist under Canadian law that bar public funding of pornographic productions.

McVety's congregational rank-and-file likely don't know this, and it's even money that they've all been told not to ever watch the aforementioned films. A Canadian-blog named "Slap Upside the Head" adds some pertinent insight into the McVety take on "Breakfast with Scot":

McVety—who previously claimed responsibility for Bill C-10, but has since backpeddled—summarized Breakfast With Scot as a film about “an 11-year-old boy who is being raised by a homosexual Toronto Maple Leaf to be a homosexual.”

Ignoring, for a moment, that the notion that someone can be raised to be homosexual is rejected completely by the psychological, medical, and academic community, I’m amazed by this misclassification. Either McVety has never seen the film, or he is lying about what he saw. ("Lobbyist: No Tax Credits for Adorable Gay Comedy," Slap Upside the Head, 04.18.2008)

Well-connected activists like McVety appear to have very robust sexual imaginations, but have they even seen these movies? Why do they have such easy-access to politicians? These kinds of acts of political theater are familiar to Americans looking across-the-border at the Canadian versions. They fall-short, and the strings are showing. It's likely that they extend from the corporate boardrooms, Hollywood, right-wing think tanks, and the evangelists congregations of America. Canadian autonomy is being assaulted on all fronts.

Fat, smug demagogues like the Rev. Charles McVety are the avatars of this push, and they and their unfortunate supporters should be resisted aggressively .

"Activist decries tax break for gay comedy," The Toronto Star, 04.17.2008: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/415391

"Film tax credit proposal falls short, evangelists says," The Globe and Mail, 04.17.2008: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20080417/FILM17/national/National

"Lobbyist: No Tax Credits for Adorable Gay Comedy," Slap Upside the Head, 04.18.2008: http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/2008/04/no-credits-for-gay-comedy/

The Palfrey Verdict: A Message to the "Johns"

The Washington D.C. area--The guilty verdict has an unintended consequence for some of you, particularly Senator David Vitter, Harlan Ullman, and Randall Tobias: it's now confirmed in a court of law that you all solicited prostitutes.

For most of you, the statue of limitations has expired--though this is not the case with the likes of Mark Capansky (former intern for GOP Rep. Bob Goodlatte), and Ret. Colonel Ronald Roughead, former head of the Iraqi Media Network and employee of SAIC.

A little-known fact is that former World Bank president's lover, Shaha Ali Riza, was also employed by the IMN through SAIC. It's unknown if it was during the same period that Mr. Roughead ran the operation. One has to ask the question of why Mr. Capansky and Mr. Roughead called the number of Pamela Martin & Associates in late-2005.

Was there a connection between Chris D. Baker's Shirlington Limousine with Palfrey's escort service? The verdict has only left more unanswered questions, something the "Johns" are probably relieved about. You're not out of the woods yet. Sentencing comes on July 24th. The prosecution refuses to comment on the case until after that time.

Postscript: Don't think for a moment that the possibility of a deal with the government and the defendant has escaped me. The Washington Post was saying that the sentence could end up being a mere 3-4 years. Months before my legal work, the defendant conveyed to this writer that very early-on the government offered a deal of a couple years inside, but she would have to forfeit nearly all of her assets. If it did happen, it probably occurred some time after March 20th, after of our last correspondence. Perhaps a deal of this sort went through after all? July 24th it is: I'll be barbecuing, gardening, and the rest of TCB. Know what-ah'-mean, man?

"White House Sings Deutschland Űber Alles to Visiting Pope"

"Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope, do you think he's a fool?" --Geezer Butler, lyrics from Black Sabbath's "After Forever" ("Master of Reality," 1971).

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington D.C.--This was incredible. It was Pope Benedict XVI's birthday today. French tourists could be seen crying off in the distance of Lafayette Park, a favorite meeting-place for crackheads, the police, and spies posing as tourists, police, and crackheads.

The band chimed in today with a Sousa-like version of "Deutschland Űber Alles"--don't worry, the Pope knew all the words. He's 81. Why do I think my grandfather shot him in-the-ass at the Battle of the Bulge? I certainly hope so. My family is on my mother's side is German-American with an Anabaptist background. Unlike the Pope, my grandfather didn't enlist during WWII: he was drafted. As we all know, the Pope enlisted whole-heartedly into the Nazi cause. Because of this, the band also played the "Horst-Wessel-Lied," national socialism's greatest hit. Don't worry, he knew all the words.

While I'm not a practicing Anabaptist, I can safely say that we were the first to call for an ending of military conscription and for a separation of Church and State. Somehow, even though my family stopped being Anabaptists over 150-years-ago, the values remained as part of our familial culture. Pope Benedict XVI reminds me that Dr. Strangelove lives. Auf Deutsch und Englisch (aus http://german.about.com/library/blmus_deutschland.htm):

Germany, Germany above all,

Above everything in the world,

When always, for protection,

We stand together as brothers.

From the Maas to the Memel

From the Etsch to the Belt -

Germany, Germany above all

Above all in the world.

German women, German loyalty,

German wine and German song,

Shall retain in the world,

Their old lovely ring

To inspire us to noble deeds

Our whole life long.

German women, German loyalty,

German wine and German song.

Unity and law and freedom

For the German Fatherland

Let us all strive for that

In brotherhood with heart and hand!

Unity and law and freedom

Are the foundation for happiness

Bloom in the glow of happiness

Bloom, German Fatherland.

[Ed.-The Nazis added this stanza. It was removed after WWII.] Germany, Germany above all

And in misfortune all the more.

Only in misfortune can love

Show if it's strong and true.

And so it should ring out

From generation to generation:

Germany, Germany above all,

And in misfortune all the more.

DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey found guilty by federal jury

Washington D.C.--It's over...or is it? Is this story ever over? It certainly hasn't been for me since early-June of last year. There will, of course, be an appeals process, but will it lead anywhere? That's unlikely. For the record, I was employed for the defense in December of 2007 to do specific research. An interesting fact is that I was finally paid by the federal defender's office the day the trial began, on April 7th.

The likelihood is that the prosecution didn't want any openings for a claim of an unfair trial and that proper resources weren't allocated to the defendant.

The research was factual not legal. This is why I generally stopped writing on the story. To do so would have been a conflict of interest. I know this doesn't bother many in Washington, the press, or in corporate boardrooms, but it bothers me. And the "Johns"? They get their free-pass as usual. Guilty? It's a matter of degree. There were other players here, and most of them never had to testify, because that's how Washington works (or doesn't, depending on your viewpoint).

It's my hope that the defendant releases myself and others to disseminate the raw-materials we may have uncovered. It's also hoped she can provide further context for these materials. The heat's off for the politicians and defense contractors for now, but a window was opened here. Now that the defense on the technicalities surrounding money laundering, racketeering, and prostitution charges have all failed, it's possible that there's more-to-come. She pulled-her-punches for a defense strategy that wasn't going to go anywhere; that's the cold, hard truth. It's up to her now, unless most of this has been a bluff. But has it?

I don't think that's the case: we've seen very real damage inflicted on the Bush administration and her appointees. There has been a political body count, a record that Congress should envy. We saw the downing of now former USAID director Randall Tobias at the State Department, and much needed pressure applied on Senator David Vitter for his illegal solicitation of prostitutes in multiple-locations.

We've seen people like Harlan Ullman--the military strategist who devised the "shock and awe" strategy used in the invasion of Iraq--dragged into the spotlight, and quite a few others. For many of them, this story is never going to end, and it never should. It should dog them for the rest of their lives. The fact that many of their former phone numbers are now in the public record is a victory. Did I always think she was guilty? That's not exactly the right question.

Does the verdict prove Palfrey's guilt? Ask me some time. What I believe to be certain is this: the prosecution and the defendant did their best to drag the process out for different reasons. Deborah Jeane Palfrey was found guilty by a federal jury on tax day. This had to end months before the 2008 elections, but also had to continue long enough to limit any potential damage to the White House and the GOP in a general sense. Tax day. It all makes a certain sense.

Candidate Barack Obama's comments on "bitter" working-class

The Campaign Trail of Tears--Elitist? That's rich. Pun intended. Fancy that: two Republicans (Clinton and McCain) tag-teaming on a Black American. The comments--like those of Rev. Wright--are being taken out-of-context, and the media and the candidates they favor (anyone but Obama) are running with it. That's hate crime. The whole plan is to detach Obama and traditional conservative voters from each other and to direct them back to corporate reactionaries like McCain and Clinton. It still won't prevent the food riots that are coming...oops! Did I write that?

Jury Deliberating on the Fate of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (aka "The DC Madam")

Washington D.C.--This has been a long road, and so the breakneck-pace of the trial has been a genuine surprise to almost everyone. What will the jury decide? Coverage hasn't been very detailed, but the evidence presented by the prosecution appears to have been what it always was: purely circumstantial.

Depending on the verdict, there could be much more excitement to come in this whole saga. We could know tonight whether there has been an acquittal, or if the appeals process is about to begin.

Don't expect a hung jury, a mistrial is unlikely. This story frequently reminded this writer of the case of Klaus and Sonny von Bulow--did Palfrey know, or didn't she? Does it matter? Probably not, especially when one considers the high crimes going on right now in our names. The key, then, is to commit crimes so massive, so wide-in-scope, that society cannot even begin to comprehend it in its totality. You know, the clients of Pamela Martin & Associates.

That's how the world is run. This trial regards a narrative that is likely to be a minor historical footnote with a lot of uninvestigated leads. Somehow, this writer believes things are hardly going to be over after the verdict. Not even close. We caught some glimpses of how things work in Washington, and they're not going to be forgotten anytime soon.

Seven degrees of Deborah Jeane Palfrey: http://www.muckety.com/Deborah-Jeane-Palfrey/100972.muckety

On the last day of proceedings:
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/04/palfrey-case-go.html
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1386556

"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

"Former rapper Vanilla Ice arrested"

West Palm Beach, Florida--Robert Van Winkle has proven two things: one, that he actually can get arrested (for domestic battery), and two, that he can take his wife in a fight (battery). I gotta say, his music not only never did anything for me, it was an object of my own hate when he was popular during the early-1990s. To say it sucked would be euphemistic. But today, I feel sorry for him.

The profits for "Ice Ice Baby" were stolen from him by Suge Knight and the record company people. The song-structure itself was stolen from the rock band Queen and David Bowie from the superior song "Under Pressure," from 1981. Don't worry, another reality show is coming out of all of this, it's certain.

It's not a new story, but there it is, it's wrong. What? He was ripped-off after ripping-off others, who-in-turn ripped-off someone else. Bosch would be horrified. Fame is awful, and Mr. Van Winkle has my sympathy--just don't push your wife, man. Now, if she hits you, pushing her away is alright, but you should never hit a woman. It's just wrong. Well, it was a push, and that's ain't too cool.

Van Winkle's 40, he should know better. Either fix the relationship or leave. You did this in 2001, so admit it's not working and move on. Still, he's not a bad guy by-all-accounts, and I wish him the best for the future. He's not the Devil, that's reserved for music executives. Shouldn't he judging on American Idol instead of Paula Abdul? The iceman cometh, an image none of us wanted. Thanks Madonna, thanks a lot.

The Calls for a Special Counsel for Impeachment Continue, text by Virginia Braddock Simson

Global People for the Impeachment of Richard Cheney

Now that George Bush and Michael Hayden have publicly confessed to government waterboarding in a press conference on February 6, 2008, and in testimony before Congress on February 5, 2008, you may find the following information useful:

The law review article referenced below (available at no cost at: http://www.law.utah.edu/_webfiles/ULRarticles/150/150.pdf) makes clear that waterboarding is torture and is a crime and a war crime punishable under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party and several U.S. statutes.

The article also explains that there is no defense available due to either (1) prior legal advice, or (2) circumstances (including, without limitation, terrorist acts – see citations in Footnotes 21 and 25 in the article), contrary to the claims of Bush and Hayden.

The law review article (see pages 359 to 374) also establishes that under a number of treaties to which the United States is a party, the U.S. has an obligation to initiate an official investigation regarding confessed acts of torture. For example, the 1984 U.N. Convention Against Torture, (1465 UNTS 85), Article 12 reads as follows:

“Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.” (NOTE: The article also explains why “territory under its jurisdiction” includes GITMO and all DOD and CIA secret detention sites for the United States.)

The following case, among others, have held that waterboarding is torture:

In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, 910 F. Supp. 1460, 1463 (District of Hawaii, 1995).

Waterboarding is torture regardless of the surrounding circumstances – there is no circumstantial or necessity defense to torture claims.

It is time for the appointment of a special prosecutor – General Mukasey must recuse himself because of his refusal to publicly state that waterboarding is criminal torture. As explained in the law review article and elsewhere, the following individuals played primary roles in the authorization of waterboarding and should be immediately identified as the primary subjects of the investigation:

George W. Bush
Richard “Dick” Cheney
John Ashcroft
Alberto Gonzales
Donald Rumsfeld
George J. Tenet
John E. McLaughlin
Porter Goss
David Addington
Jay S. Bybee
John Yoo
Jack Goldsmith
General Ricardo Sanchez
General Geoffrey Miller
General Janis Karpinski

Bush/Cheney Pardon Calendar

Under the circumstances – a public confession of criminal acts by George W. Bush -- you should expect that immediately after the November elections George W. Bush will pardon all of the people listed above, then resign. At that point, Richard “Dick” Cheney would become President, and you should expect that in that capacity Cheney will immediately pardon George W. Bush.

Immediate Appointment of Special Prosecutor

As a result of the expected pardons, a special prosecutor should be appointed immediately

Commencement of Impeachment Proceedings

As a result of the expected pardons, on the day after the November elections, the House of Representatives should impeach George W. Bush and Richard “Dick” Cheney for high crimes-- torture--violating the following statutes, among others:

18 USC 3231
18 USC Sections 2340-2340A
18 USC 2441

Please note the strategic importance of simply presenting the impeachment to members of the House with no hearings and an immediate vote on the day after the November elections. There is no reason for hearings or delay, since George W. Bush has admitted the criminal act that is the basis of the impeachment.

International Crimes Not Subject to Pardon Power

It is worth pointing out that torture violations of the Law of War and international treaties are not subject to the Presidential pardon power. We will see these individuals on trial in the Hague for their publicly confessed war crimes.


Primary Article cited: “Above the Law: Unlawful Executive Authorizations Regarding Detainee Treatment, Secret Renditions, Domestic Spying and Claims to Unchecked Executive Power,” Jordan J. Paust, Utah Law Review, 2007, Number 2, Pages 345 to 419.

Third Parties are Always the Answer: The Nader Campaign

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--If we had a healthy political culture, Ralph Nader would be on the ballot of every state in the Union, but he isn't. In fact, Nader's independent candidacy for president cannot be found on the ballot of any state at the time of this writing. In his speech at the historic Constitution Center in Philadelphia last Saturday, the candidate hit on the fact that all three of the current contenders for president are essentially the same in their views and voting behavior on social issues, and that our political process is being held-hostage by a "duopoly" by the Democratic and Republican parties.

But they aren't the real power according to the noted activist attorney (and anyone with eyes and ears that still work), it's corporate America, our de facto government. Good luck refuting his contention, you'll need it.

In recent weeks, Ralph Nader has asked the three contender campaigns of McCain, Obama, and Clinton to promise to adopt at least three-points of his progressive campaign's platform--not one of them accepted even one out of roughly fifty that address social issues important to the American public. What are they afraid of? Being pushed to do what's right, one would imagine. As hopeful a candidate as Obama appears, he's no Ralph Nader, and by accepting even one progressive point of his--or that of any other progressive third party candidate--he would have tipped-his-hand to the fact that politicians can be pressured by the public to start delivering. If Obama had agreed, it's likely that several "super delegates" would have abandoned him. Those are known as "handlers," incidentally.

What's wrong with us? I don't put everything on Mr. Nader, he's just trying to get us all energized; but we have a complacent attitude that somehow some "strong-man" (or woman) is supposed to save us. That's irresponsible and not the behavior of self-respecting adults. We are the missing-ingredient in American democracy, and we and our values are superior to those of individuals seeking office, and those of their corporate masters. We project our deepest aspirations and desires onto these "strong" individuals, and when they fail without our prodding them to do what is productive for our nation, we blame them. Granted that we should, but we should also blame ourselves for not participating in this democratic system. We share the blame.

I was recently paid for research work in the defense of a defendant currently at trial in a reasonably prominent case. The money came from the Office of Defender Services--as you might have guessed, a donation went directly to the Nader campaign. Don't worry, it was all done legally, I leave it to corporate donors to violate campaign finance laws (ostensibly enforced by the FEC). Why would I do this after writing so glowingly about the potential prospects of presidential candidate Obama? Because, you need people like Ralph Nader--and myself--to keep pressuring them to do what the public wants them to, not solely what the corporations want.

This worked wonders during the Great Depression when activists like Dr. Francis Townsend, an elderly man who saw the old suffering horribly during the aftermath of the crash. Dr. Townsend and millions exerted incredible pressure on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Congress to create an old-age pension. It worked. They were very successful in their efforts because of their willpower and the fact that they actually kept pushing for change. Third Party pressure has delivered, and there was hardly any New Deal program that hadn't first been suggested by a very active American public. President Roosevelt also had to contend with the rising popularity of the traditional Left.

The Socialist Party of America's ranks were filling, and even the Communist Party was enjoying a popularity they had never known. After a century of bitter struggle, the labor movement was coming into its own, and would crest in the early-1970s. Since then, Americans have become lazy and apathetic, if not almost entirely ignorant of the sacrifices of previous generations. It wasn't about "winning," but about the power of a groundswell of public demands. The public should never stop making demands of the government and their representatives, but we've forgotten the lessons of the 1930s. Discontent is greater now than it was then. Crucially, the traditional conservatives could be another essential-ingredient in all of this: figures such as Louisiana Governor Huey Long, and the "radio priest" Father Coughlin had the ironic effect of pushing FDR's policies to-the-left. Ultimately, sincere Populism has no political boundaries.

81% of the American public believes we are on the wrong course, and real change isn't going to happen without all of us getting angry and taking that energy to push the politicians to do our bidding. Note how snugly the current president's recent approval-rating fits into that statistic. From this, there should be some sort of a response to the public's will, but we aren't pushing hard enough. That's how a democracy is supposed to work, and we share an enormous share of the blame in what can be described as a dying polity that's rapidly sliding into a perverse form of Monarchism. Without impeachment proceedings, or at least reasonable declassifications of this administration's internal record, a terrible precedent will have been set.

Ironically, the majority of the American public is on the same page, we just use different words to describe what's wrong. Politicians are very skilled at exploiting this fact, which they use to divide us. Even Obama is guilty of this, but it's possible he'll be more malleable to public pressure. That's the key. Get mad, and get active. Communicate with your representatives and let them know full-well that they serve you and that you're going to remove them if they don't.

Further abuses by the executive branch will be guaranteed, and we can expect more encroachments on our cherished liberties. Not one contender candidate appears to want to do anything about this, which is why it's up to us to hit them with questions on the "whys" on the campaign trail. This is precisely what Ralph Nader's candidacy is about, and a new beginning to broaden the political spectrum in this troubled nation. Accountability is key, and it can only be achieved with demands, not requests. You cannot be neutral in this life, it doesn't work, and never has.

We need Third Parties to balance-things-out, and we should support every viewpoint's right to participate and to run. For Democrats who still believe that Nader lost their man Al Gore's chances at election in 2000, consider that over a quarter who voted for Nader were going to vote for George W. Bush, and that's not even counting the many thousands of Black Americans who were disenfranchised. Ask the candidates if they think those kinds of electoral practices should be allowed to stand--then ask them why they never acted on them, and show no signs of ever doing so.

We don't have to be nice about it either, and sentimentality towards the current candidates is foolhardy. After all, if Ralph Nader somehow won--which this writer grants is a long-shot--and didn't attempt to deliver on progressive issues, he should be removed by the American voter. The same should apply to candidates McCain, Clinton, and Obama. For many Americans, the sports comparison applies to the elections: "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." That's untrue. We successfully--and illegally--invaded Iraq. Are we "winning" right now? That depends on who you define as "we."

The selfish interests that forced the current Congress and administration on us are "winning," while the public isn't. We're being robbed. On that note, President Bush "won" (stole) the 2004 elections, and is now embattled by people like myself from nearly every quarter...except in Congress and the Supreme Court (and where are the lawyers in all of this?). That's because of that missing-ingredient again--namely, us. The time for apathy and laziness has got to end, and the groundswell must come before November when we can expect the pardons to come from the president of his own people. This would be unacceptable, but pardons aren't going to protect them from war crimes charges--only the Supreme Court and Congress can-and-will--do that. However, that doesn't rule-out pressure from other nations, particularly in the EU...

No, "winning" has been redefined in the American-lexicon...by George W. Bush and his many allies who also need to be thrown into the dustbin of history and out of office. The American public is the embodiment of those most-cherished principles of liberty that make us uniquely "American." The majority of the current incumbents don't represent this. We foolishly invest them with our power and our aspirations, then we walk away from the table. That's irresponsible. They aren't the hope for America, we are, and it's time we started believing in ourselves and our very real ability to push things in a direction we want. How sentimental are you? Sentimentality is for fools.

An introduction to the Great Depression and the New Deal: http://iws.ccccd.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html

Nader on Impeachment: http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/04/04/put-impeachment-on-the-table/

Vote Nader: http://www.votenader.org/index.html

Postscript, 04.13.2008: I sometimes cross-post these articles over at governmentdirt.com. This interesting exchange (my part, not his) came about from the editor/owner of that site, an L.A. attorney named Sam Deskin. How did I first come upon Sam? There's a story in that one, what. What is the question? To be, or not to be, of course. I read my Bard. Funny thing is, I'll likely vote Obama. I know, "Shut-up and get back to work, we do the thinking around here." And hasn't that worked-out grandly? (snigger!)

But what is the question?

Ralphie cost Kerry the election, he even cost Gore the election. [Ed.-This is assuming they're any different, a poor assumption-at-that.]

How can you tell me that a Gore or Kerry presidency would be anything like a Bush presidency? [Ed.--I though lawyers were supposed to detect subtleties. Guess not in this case.] While they may all have similarities as far as corporate interests, that is a fundamental problem of allowing lobbyists to much control. [Ed.--Something Kerry and Gore are both guilty of. I know, I'm mean.] So we should elect Nader so that we can get rid of corporate interest in politics? How about the rest of the issues?

Barack has gotten us energized - we don't need Nader.

• By govdirt at 04/12/2008 - 7:01am

You're not understanding the real issue...

Nader doesn't have to get into office to steer the dialog. It should be added that what he's saying as a platform is supported by what the public wants in the national polls.

You see, as bad as the Bush administration is, it's just a bolder more open version of what Gore or Kerry would have done. Clinton was hardly better, and incredibly interventionist, just not in the economy or anything resembling progressive taxation. None of that's important because I like totally believe in dragons now. ;0)

It's not an all-or-nothing equation, that's where you're missing-the-point entirely. You actually read the article? Also, our domestic laws should never trump international law, that's a formula for another world war.

"Energized" is great, but it has to have substance. I believe Senator Obama does want to do good, but he can be swayed in the wrong direction, and his assumptions of what can and should be done are likely very limited, and therefore, not very useful without the public pushing him, Congress, and the lobbyists further out of the picture in decision-making. The public has been the true corrector in the process, but maybe you don't believe in the public having much of say, and have more a psychological yearning for easy answers and "strongmen." I do not.

We'll always need the Ralph Naders, people like Cesar Chavez, everyone who worked to get Black Americans registered to vote, the Charles Townsends, and even the Huey Longs to pressure these people to do our bidding and to meet our needs (to serve the common good). Life isn't about being neutral--voting isn't nearly enough, you have to keep hammering them all. Nice-nice time should end after inauguration, and sentimentality is for people easily affected by John Williams movie scores...

And why do ignore the fact that the 2000 and 2004 elections were likely stolen? What about voter apathy in the picture? So much for accepting responsibility. I doubt I'm responding to an ACLU donor. Dragons. Insofar as "allowing lobbyists too much control," that's the fault of people like Al Gore, John Kerry, and even Barack Obama. Tell them to clean their own house. Sentimentality is the American disease. Reread the article, you didn't understand it at all.

• By Matt Janovic at 04/13/2008 - 3:36pm

And on impeachment...

How about you lawyers get behind impeachment? You won't, because many of you have no sense of social responsibility. We can beat our brows and complain about Bush all we want, but that won't allow us to slip-past the judgment of history--especially those of us who have the tools and the resources to make impeachment a reality, namely, lawyers. No excuse for it, none at all. Just bitching about the Republicans, Bush, the lobbyists, that isn't going to accomplish anything. But it's safe, and at least the appearance of doing something is there...even if it's not real. At least the one rationalizing feels better. You disappoint me, but it isn't the first time, and it won't be the last by any means.

• By Matt Janovic at 04/13/2008 - 3:50pm

On the Palfrey Trial So Far...

Washington D.C.--Pretty uneventful, eh? The prosecutors don't seem to want to ask any truly probing questions of their witnesses (primarily former escorts), such as: "Did you ever work for anyone else besides Ms. Deborah Jeane Palfrey?" Just thought I'd mention that possibility. Perhaps it escaped the FBI's investigators and the government's prosecutors. Or, it's just going to bring-up too many embarrassing questions for the people who appointed some of them. And where are all the other former-clients in all of this? Where are the defense contractors and their employees? Will there be more names? You'll have to ask the defendant on that one. Perhaps she'll have more to say in-the-aftermath...perhaps not.

Presidential Candidate Barack Obama's Visit to South Bend's Washington High School

South Bend, Indiana--No presidential candidate has visited the city since the appearance of Bobby Kennedy in 1968 at our local Democratic Club. Since then, there was no reason. Many Hoosiers in Indiana's 2nd District and the rest of the state were dead-set on voting against their own interests by voting Republican since that pivotal year. Now the fruits of that foolish behavior have been borne-out, and the reality behind the last few decades of political rhetoric are being seen for what they always were: a way to disenfranchise the general public on-all-fronts, and the dismantling of a civil society with a regard for the social contract.

But that changed with the 2006 midterms, when a historical-shift in voting behavior in the state upended expectations. Once an easy domain for the GOP, Indiana is now going to determine who the Democratic president-elect will be. It cannot be repeated enough that this change in voting-patterns was unexpected. Bigotry and racism are extremely entrenched in Indiana, and the 2nd District is no-exception. Yet, even many of the holders of these attitudes are having a change-of-heart. The message of the civil rights, social justice, and labor movements of the 20th century are beginning to sink-in.

The changes could end-up being much deeper for the nation, and the tribes are restless again, just as they were during the Great Depression and the 1960s-70s. While this writer doesn't believe radically fundamental changes would come about from an Obama presidency, sweeping reforms would be possible under his stewardship. This would at least restore some of the traditional cycles-of-correction in our political process, swinging from drastic economic excesses without oversight under Republican rule, with the cleanup being relegated to the Democrats afterwards. We didn't get that under Bill Clinton, and it was a good cause for alarm. But what are some of the roots of the problems we face? Surely, they are economic. America is a business-dominated society unlike most others, and there's the challenge.

Limiting the influence of lobbyists is going to be very difficult, and so too will GOP opposition to a reasonable social agenda--but that's not going to stop a determined American public, and Congress is going to have to start delivering. It really is up to all of us, and apathy isn't going to accomplish change, only willpower ever has. Divisions that seemed so potent very recently don't seem so important anymore. When you cannot pay your bills, you don't care about gay marriage or the color of someone else's skin. That hasn't always been the case, and certainly so in backwards Indiana. Let us return once again to the 1920s...

In times of economic downturn and decline, Americans have tended towards race-baiting and the scapegoat. We like to blame minorities who cannot hit back. The issue of illegal-aliens and immigrants is nothing new to this country, and it was at an even higher pitch during the run-up to the Great Depression (which would have been impossible without an era of Republican control of government much like our own). It remains-to-be-seen if this gap can be breached with the immigration issue, but it would behoove our national unions to start organizing migrant workers as Cesar Chavez did forty-years-ago to break the scapegoating spell. The time for a working-class solidarity that rejects racism and sexism--only just imagined a century ago by unions like the IWW--could finally be arriving. The rest is up to us.

In this spirit, Senator Obama spoke of many of the problems facing this nation last night at Washington High School, and he knows how to speak to and with the poor and the working-class. It's obvious that he understands what Americans need, and he understands our aspirations for a just and sustainable society. If we give him the support to do so and he fails to muster the will to seize those opportunities, the onus will be on him and Congress. One of his strongest statements--and promises--last night was a pledge to end NAFTA in his first term, as well as a full-rollback of all Bush tax-cuts to the wealthiest. That's a return to progressive taxation folks, you read it right here.

Even traditional Republicans in the 2nd District are being very vocal about the fact that they will be voting for Barack Obama, and not John McCain or Hillary Clinton. It's not hard to understand why when you look at the records of the other two candidates. Barack isn't untainted either, but there is the hope that as he's only been in Congress for a short time that the compromises have been fewer. I have worked on the West side of South Bend. I know the people there. They are good people who want a better life, and they deserve it. Forty-years-ago, the West side of South Bend was in-flames after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. For a long-time hope was dead. It's alive again, and we owe it to future generations to make life better. Did we ever expect this day to come? No.

But imagine this: a political-shift in this region is occurring that few would ever have predicted, even a mere four-years-ago during the dark days of the stolen 2004 national elections. Not even race is stopping this Populist trend, and individuals who would never have thought they would vote for a Black American are going to do so in November. That's right: even the rednecks. It took eight years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, an illegal war, renditions, torture, Mark Foley, daily and weekly corruption scandals, and endless abuses of power, for the American public to finally understand why they have to pay-attention to politics and participate in it. People who have never voted are registering like never before because they finally understand how much politics affects their lives directly.

Senator Obama stayed the night in South Bend, and had his breakfast at a locally-owned restaurant. Of all of the candidates, he understands what the average person needs: stability, and a sense that they have a stake in their nation, and that there can be justice. The alternative is social chaos, a predictable repressive reaction and possible tyranny, with an untimely demise of what could have been a great nation. In that spirit, it's hoped that a president Obama will prosecute the current president after January 21st, 2009, and the rest of his administration for their profoundly criminals acts of corruption, war crimes, and treason. Every major law they had a hand in creating must be reversed. There's more hope for that in candidate Barack Obama than the other two candidates, hands-down. Out of all of the remaining candidates, I trust him to restore habeas corpus.

Obama's Campaign Not Accepting Donations from Lobbyists

The Campaign Trail of Tears--This facsimile comes to us from www.governmentdirt.com, though it could be second-hand. Click on the image for detail. I believe candidate Obama and his campaign, though donations from the wealthy can be hidden. War-profiteers like Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade simply have their employees donate, then reimburse them later. It's not difficult to hide donations from the privileged. Just a note of caution. Note that the letter also states the campaign's policy of not accepting donations from foreign agents. You know, like the Saudi ones that contributed millions to the Bush campaign back in 1999-2000.

Senator Barack Obama Speaks in South Bend Tonight

South Bend, Indiana--In the 1920s, Notre Dame University students routed the Ku Klux Klan when they marched through downtown South Bend. This part of Northern Indiana is atypical of much of the rest of the state, and it's heavily-populated by orthodox Catholics. We're a kind of a citadel of Democratic voting, but even the rest of the 2nd District of Indiana has voted primarily Republican for the last 40 years, when they became the predominant party of racism and general division.

That trend was virtually reversed in the now-historic midterms of 2006 when the GOP was routed from many of their "easy-win" enclaves. Those wins not only aren't easy anymore, they're becoming impossible in a state that has previously been determined to vote against their own interests, beginning in 1968.

But in 2006, Michiana was part of a larger trend in overall Hoosier voting behavior: things have changed radically in the voting-patterns in a way that goes beyond generational or demographic lines. As in many other states, people are simply tired of the Republican Party and their obviously corrupt nature and policies. With scandal-after-scandal, it's not hard to understand the outrage, and the declining economy is only going aid in spreading the love back to the GOP and her allies in the business and financial-sectors.

I'm not going to support Barack Obama whole-hog, but he's the best bet that Americans who want reasonable have. He at least has my vote already. We don't want social chaos, we want fair-play for the average American (as well as immigrants, legal and illegal), and we want a return to progressive taxation. We don't want a police state, something both parties appear intent on. It's time for the wealthy to pay their shares, and the excuses have lost their steam (Libertarians-be-damned).

How you phrase the questions to Americans--we don't mind paying our taxes if we get what we pay for--is key to understanding the polls. The majority of us feel that government can be made to deliver. It's why we pay taxes at all. That the bridge that unites us all. We all want social services whether we're going to admit it or not. Runaway military-spending prevents this being expedited properly, as the Johnson administration learned during the Vietnam War. But then, there are the nuts out there with their science-fiction answers to everything. But enough about 9/11 truth zealots, harping on phantasms when there's plenty of evidence on other issues towards impeachment of the Bush administration. Then, there are the real kooks...

Ron Paul was never the answer to anything, contrary to the pipe-dreams of closet racists, terminal reactionaries, and rednecks-in-general. There are plenty of these mooks right here in Michiana, and being tolerant, I even know a few of them...but, some of them are finally changing and seeing the light that racism is a traditional divider in American politics and its relation to commerce (the two being inextricably-linked).

"Revolution" is merely the turning of the wheel when an established power crumbles and a new order arises. The interim is key, and ordinary people have to seize-the-day when the opportunities for greater liberty--or the reinstatement of old ones--arises. That time is now. I'm still waiting for habeas corpus to be restored, but I'd trust Obama on that one before I would Clinton. Where my trust is flagging surrounds charging the key-members of the Bush administration with war crimes, and rolling-back every piece of legislation (including executive orders) that they either backed or pushed.

My own brother was one of a few thousand who signed Senator Barack Obama onto the ballot here in Indiana. He's going to see the candidate speak at Washington High School tonight, at 10:00 PM, and he's very excited about what hasn't happened here since 1968 when Bobby Kennedy came here to speak. Say what you want about RFK, but he inspired genuine hope in people. Obama has the same effect.

Just last-week, Bobby's widow Ethel and his son Max came here voicing the same excitement over Senator Obama. I echo their hopes, but we need to temper this all with a bold-pragmatism: a president Obama will have a lot of roadblocks, many of the coming from the GOP, but also from within his own fractured party.

But School Board President Sheila Bergeron says the superintendent had good reason to veto a visit by Clinton and sign off on a stop by Obama. "We've never held political things during school hours in the school building,” she explained. The Clinton campaign wanted its rally at the school mid-morning on a school day. That, Bergeron says, would've violated the district's long-standing policy against campaigning of any kind during the school day. But because the Obama camp wants an evening visit and while students are away on spring break, Bergeron says “the situation is different.” ("School Board Members Defend Decision to Deny Clinton, Allow Obama," WSBT News-22, 04.08.2008)

As a sign of that fracture, many local Democrats are making very vocal protests over the fact that Senator Clinton was unable to speak at the predominantly-Black Washington High. This was brought about by the South Bend School Superintendent, Robert Zimmerman. Zimmerman isn't responding to requests for an interview on the subject, but the outrage on-the-part of Clinton supporters here is palpable.

Local television news station WSBT went so far as to run a telephone poll asking, "Does Barack Obama have a right to speak in South Bend?" From that, you can safely presume who they support. WSBT is owned by a local corporation, old money. They exactly aren't known for their "progressive" tendencies, but there it is.

Never mind all of that: the main concern is exactly how much willpower Senator Obama can muster to bring about truly fundamental change in America. This is where my concern is greatest; but as he's the best candidate we have for this, we're going to have to at least give him the ability to choose which road he wants to go down. Will it be one of radical reforms that help average Americans, something in-the-middle, or more of the same, leading to social chaos and repression.

The stakes have never been higher, and there is concern that the normal historical cycle in our politics of excess, then reform, have been broken. The GOP and their backers are hoping for the latter to preserve their power. They don't care what the cost is to the public, and never have (and likely never will). Nonetheless, "Obama girl" is incredibly annoying.

"School Board Members Defend Decision to Deny Clinton, Allow Obama," WSBT News-22, 04.08.2008: http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/17396079.html

Schurz Communications, the owners of WSBT and the South bend Tribune: http://www.schurz.com/sci_pages/about_us/

Infragard (first in a series), by Virginia Braddock Simson

[Ed.- From February 13, 2008. "Infraguard" sounds very similar to anti-union business associations, and the old role of private security in suppressing progressive organizing. It also sounds like the old "Red Squads," or anti-radical police intelligence units that began around WWI. What it definitely constitutes is yet another attempt at privatizing nearly everything as American Empire declines. That's known as desperation, kids. ]

Recent public disclosures of the InfraGard system no longer obligates silence on abuses. We've been following the developments behind the scenes. These are issues warranting increased public oversight at the State and Federal Level.

As reported, the InfraGard system is designed to protect the nation's infrastructure. What has not been well discussed are the detailed operations of InfraGard, the policies, and the operational procedures used to gather intelligence.

InfraGuard has two broad functions. One is operational protection of infrastructure, the second is the intelligence gathering arm. InfraGard members claim they are protecting the infrastructure. They're more interested in abusing power, and using resistance to that abuse to broaden their intelligence gathering and intrusions. We need to know who is abusing their authority, end this misconduct, and ensure the public is treated with respect, not as "the enemy".

The abuse of this intelligence gathering for non-official purposes designed to intimidate a civilian population and dissuade lawful activity, but not engage in bona fide law enforcement or infrastructure protection.

InfraGard relies on civilian contractors providing information to the State and federal authorities. What's not been well discussed are the liberties these contractors have been taken under their deputization; and how law enforcement supports questionable InfraGard contractor conduct.

If there are problems with InfraGard management, these need to be openly discussed, not hidden. Oversight is needed to determine whether:

- InfraGard contractors show they need assistance organizing information, providing timely reports, and conducting investigations.

- Internal communication channels are a problem. - There are inadequate internal communications to ensure bona fide threats are timely communicated.

InfraGard appears ill-equipped to conduct in-house auditing. Congress needs to ensure oversight occurs, and does not abuse the secrecy of the by-passed FISA Court. Judicial oversight is needed, especially as abuses might be mitigated with warrants with credible, written investigation plans reviewed by senior management appearing before the magistrate.

InfraGard intelligence gathering relies on interrogation methods publicly disclosed in the open media. Private citizens without notice are detained, removed from their vehicles, and taken to DHS holding cells for warrantless interrogations. Private contractors also engage in deception when confronting civilians.

InfraGard relies on employee reports to security personnel. Reports include information related to unusual incidents and apparent efforts at intelligence gathering. Of concern are the missing oversight needed to ensure these reports from employees are truthful; and that the public has a reasonable way to challenge false reports by InfraGard officers, employees, and law enforcement. Without oversight improvements, we can expect to see more unreasonable denials of access to public accommodations based on dubious assertions.

The focus should be on protecting the infrastructure. However, in the zeal to gather intelligence, InfraGard intelligence gathering is undermining public support for bonafide law enforcement actions. Of concern are the ineffective InfraGard standards of conduct which permit retaliation against the public. The public a reasonable, timely forum to challenge dubious claims, without a threat of loss of services.

Better cooperation by InfraGard will motivate more of the public to voluntarily disclose real evidence of bona fide threats to the infrastructure. The InfraGard abuses are undermining public support, and the InfraGard is using this public resistance as a pretext to increase intelligence gathering, intrusions, and illegal searches of innocent civilians. The solution is not to suppress reports of abuse, but to more effectively manage, discipline, and train the InfraGard contractors and officers.

Table A: InfraGard Abuses The following are not acceptable, and increase public hesitancy to trust InfraGard motivations:

- Deception to gather non-public information.

- False accusations to intimidate the traveler.

- Prextextual stops.

- Feigned "concerns" with issues, but no serious interest in discussing solutions to those "concern."

- Rudeness.

- Threats of arrest by non-arresting officers.

- Denial of access to public accommodations for asserting one's rights.

- InfraGard contractor unresponsiveness to security concerns raised by the public.

- Using public reports to InfraGard about officer misconduct as a pretext to target the informer.

- Targeting personnel suspected of being on no-notice audit teams with intrusions, surveillance, and harassment.

- Retaliating against unionization efforts within InfraGard under the pretext of "infrastructure protection."

Of concern to Academia are the innocent questions students pose to public officials and private contractors. Student bodies do have contracting relationships with the various transportation companies. Some students applying their academic skills have been threatened with having their names placed on the DHS watch list. American citizens, when applying their academic degrees, are being openly confronted for asking innocent questions about things in the public domain.

Of further concern are the unconfirmed accusations which InfraGard contractors have been making. Notably, to deflect attention from InfraGard misconduct, personnel have been reported providing misleading information to deflect attention from procedural violations, disclosures of classified information, or other illegal activity by law enforcement and the InfraGard contractors.

State licensing boards are encouraged to increase oversight, random sampling, and better protect their no-notice audit procedures when reviewing firms within the InfraGard system.

Congress is encouraged to provide the public with better oversight in the form of public discussion of the abuses; and better disclosures of the specific companies involved with the InfraGard misconduct. The voters and consumers will be able to make more informed voting and business decisions.

InfraGard contractors to engage in deception are viewed as unreliable counter parties. This increases transaction costs. Boards of directors are urged to evaluate the alleged misconduct in terms of cost premiums, lost sales, higher turnover, and union member dissatisfaction.

Student Surveys

Because of reports of abuse, academic leaders are expanding their student surveys. These surveys have been designed to alert the public of the types of abuses students may encounter. Academic leaders are consolidating these findings when reviewing contracts with transportation companies.

When contractors in the InfraGard system are unable to get information using threats or deception, they do rely on local and regional law enforcement. Law enforcement does support the InfraGard intelligence gathering by engaging in pre-textual stops. Pretextual stops are fabricated reasons an officer will invent to "justify" a stop if challenged.

InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been observed falsely accusing people engaged in innocent behavior as being criminals, under suspicion, or matching the description of reported crimes. The officers have been stating that innocent conduct is a crime; or that activity that is not illegal has been placed under investigation.

InfraGard contractors are known for their deceptive conduct. Public complaints of their unresponsiveness have been met with increased observations and pretextual encounters.

InfraGard contractors are typically given advance notice of audits. This is in alleged violation of the "no notice" rules where official auditors are supposed to arrive without warning, and conduct independent data gathering. Federal officials are advised to better secure the audit notification lists, and conduct bogus notifications to test which InfraGard contractors are receiving these fabricated "no notice" audit warning.

When InfraGard contractors and law enforcement encounter citizens, the public is advised to remember they may or may not have the power to arrest. Please discuss these issues with legal counsel.

Some Infragard contractors may attempt to leave the false impression that they have the power to arrest, detain, and prosecute. This may not be correct. Although the security contractors may have handcuffs, this does not mean that they have necessarily been adequately trained on lawful arrests. Citizens are encouraged to discuss with counsel the insurance liability premiums of the InfraGard contractors.

When law enforcement is directed to provide support to the InfraGard intelligence gathering, law enforcement may or may not have a credible story or explanation for their stopping you. Citizens are encouraged to discuss with counsel the difference between an interview, detention, and arrest.

Some law enforcement when supporting the InfraGard intelligence gathering may make insulting comments, attempt to demean you, or imply they have superior experience or information. Whether this is or isn't true is unrelated to their stated reasons for stopping you.

One sign that the InfraGard intelligence gathering is occurring is when the Infragard contractors or law enforcement provide convoluted stories. This is intended to confuse you. You may also notice that they may change their reason for stopping you several times. This is intended to get you to react to new information. They will compare your responses and challenge you on any apparent, real, or fabricated inconsistency.

InfraGard contractors have been linked with procedural violations. InfraGard contractors have been the subject of no-notice audits, and been caught violating guidelines. Some have even established false front companies to gather information. For example, one InfraGard contractor established a fictitious legal entity, falsely portraying itself as an advocate for certain legal issues. This was intended to attract the types of people opposing a specific intrusive security policy. Once the InfraGard contractor was able to fool the public, they were able to identify the leadership who opposed their company's practices. This is an example of the InfraGard intelligence collection being abused.

Table B: Signs InfraGard/Law Enforcement Are Engaged in Intelligence Gathering, Not Bona fide Crime Prevention:

- Inconsistent statements.

- False accusations.

- Insults.

- Threats of arrest unless you disclose private medical information.

- Feigning concern about a "serious issue," then changing the subject.

- Demanding the public "show concern" for a fabricated story.

- Stating their "procedures" require them to do something, but they are not following procedures.

- Claims they have incriminating evidence (If they have it, why aren't you being charged with a crime in court?).

- Threats to "get law enforcement" (But unable to sustain their accusations when law enforcement arrives).

- After being denied consent to search, they search despite stating no specific reason, and having no warrant.

- Physically moving you to move you in front of cameras, but not stating what their concerns are.

- Plain clothes officers following you into dead-end streets, then left no where to go after you depart.

- Acting as if lawful activity is "suspicious" and has "been reported."

- Use of subtle intimidation.

- Asking about morally offensive conduct, personal issues, or brutal details of hideous criminal activity.

- Saying things designed to shock you.

- Refusing to take your suggestions seriously, suggesting their "problem" isn't real; or that they're not serious about doing what they say is a problem.

- Interruptions.

- Lectures about unrelated issues.

- Shifting the burden from them to you.

- Pretending that "your requirement" is to answer questions, when their mandate is to provide evidence to the court to charge you with a crime.

InfraGard contractors have also been linked with requests to conduct illegal break ins of private homes, offices, and protected facilities. It's curious they've supposedly been hired to protect infrastructure, yet they're willing to breach the infrastructure of others.

Law enforcement is not unknown to falsely accuse the public of being engaged in "questionable" behavior, even though that activity is lawful. You may notice during a conversation with an InfraGard intelligence officer in law enforcement that they skip around, and are unable to focus on a single topic. They may insult you and imply that you are not willing to "care" about their "concern". In truth, they are not concerned about that issue, merely hoping to get you to react and respond to something.

InfraGard contractors may attempt to imply that they have a special relationship with law enforcement. InfraGard contractors have been observed discussing "security videos" that they have "proving" there is a problem; and that if the public refuses to fully discuss the "incriminating" evidence, that the private citizen will be arrested. "If we have to, we'll get law enforcement." InfraGard contractors when challenged have shown they are not well coordinating with law enforcement.

Table C: Progress Indicators When Challenging InfraGard Abuses

- Officer frustration that you are not responding to their insults, intimidation.

- Calling InfraGard officers on their bluffs about "evidence."

- Challenging their inconsistencies.

- Asking to see a lawyer.

- Invoking your 5th Amendment right to silence.

- Not discussing any personal information until your lawyer is there.

- Asking for specific reasons why you are being stopped, detained, challenged, or questioned.

- Asking the InfraGard contactor why they claim they are concerned about procedures, but they are not following those procedures.

- Asking the InfraGard contractors to explain why they claim they are attempting to "protect" a resource, but the public record shows they are not fully meeting that standard.

- Asking the InfraGard contractor why they use deception, lies, and false companies to gather information about people supporting unions, political candidates, or policies that contradict the company's board of directors.

- Asking InfraGard personnel why they are afraid of unionization efforts.

Some of the InfraGard contractors have claimed that they have been conducting an "extensive" investigation into a particular "concern". However, independent review of their records shows there had been no investigation.

Independent encounters with the InfraGard contractors show substantial deception, abuse, and misconduct. Officers are misleading the public. Some of the InfraGard contractors have claimed that they have a "special duty" to protect resources. However, this assertion fails to pan out. When the public has attempted to provide suggestions to address the "concern" the InfraGard officers raised, the InfraGard officers were not interested in solutions. This shows their stated "concerns" or "problems' they were attempting to "resolve" were not genuine.

InfraGard officers have a challenging job: Protecting the nation's resources. However, they make their job more difficult when they abuse the public, especially those who might be inclined to risk providing valuable information and support.

The InfraGard contractors have denied public access to public accommodations. They use pretextual reasons. Citizens engaged in lawful conduct have a right to privacy. InfraGard officers have been falsely asserting that unless this right to privacy were given up, the public could not use the public accommodations.

InfraGard officers have been caught lying. Public services rely on public access. However, the InfraGard officers have falsely stated that the public accommodations were "private".

InfraGard officers do not have clear disciplinary procedures. When there are reports of abuse or misconduct, these are typically explained away as "Officer discretion". The public needs know that InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been abusing their authority. Oversight is needed.

Appendix 1: Oversight Issues of InfraGard Congress and State Officials need to review and independently audit with real no-notice audits the following:

- To what extent InfraGard contractors have relied on law enforcement to engage in pretextual stops to collect information they are otherwise not entitled.

- Extent to which threats of arrest for using public accommodations have been used to gather intelligence.

- Extent to which access to public accommodations have been denied unless the public provides the InfraGard contractors and law enforcement information they are otherwise not entitled to access.

- Reasons for InfraGard officers asserting that they are following specific procedures which have not been coordinated with DHS.

- Reasons why InfraGard contractors have been providing lists of names to DHS and FBI, despite assurances to the public that the collected information would "not" be disclosed.

- Extent to which officers use pretextual stops to gather information InfraGard contractors are unable to collect using deception, threats, and denial of services.

- Reasons why InfraGard officers are fabricating phony accusations related to weapons, surveillance equipment, and criminal activity.

- Extent to which InfraGard contractors are not adequately screening assigned surveillance personnel.

- Reasons why InfraGard contractors are not conducting independent/impartial investigations, but are relying on misrepresentations by InfraGard assigned personnel.

- Extent to which misrepresentations about private citizen conduct have resulted in denial of services to the public.

- Reasons why misrepresentations by InfraGard contractors has not resulted in award fees provided to contractors within InfraGard.

- Extent to which formerly assigned US government officials have been assigned to law enforcement to apply lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan in re prisoner interrogation, abuse, and mistreatment to US civilians.

- Extent to which law enforcement and InfraGard contractors have bypassed the judicial branch, not secured required warrants, and illegally searched and detained US citizens, their property, and private papers without a specific, real reason.

Appendix 2: Sample Survey Questions

Academic institutions are encouraged to survey their student bodies to review the extent to which InfraGard contractors and law enforcement have been targeting members of the Academic community:

- Have students observed officer misconduct around transportation, infrastructure, or public accommodations.

- Were students' reports of misconduct timely handled.

- Were students who provided reports of misconduct targeted for questioning and/or denied access to public accommodations.

- Did students observe plain clothes officers following them.

- Was there an unusual interest by InfraGard contractors in the students' educational background, interest.

- Did any students observe officers or employees misrepresenting conversations to deflect attention from InfraGard contractor misconduct, lies, or illegal disclosures of classified information.

- Have students observed misconduct, attempted to report that misconduct, and the InfraGard officers believe the students were part of a "no notice" audit team?

- Have students observed inconsistent statements by InfraGard contractors.

- Have Students heard InfraGard contractors assert that the contractors, as a reason for the stop or intrusion, were "following procedures"; but later evidence reveals the officers were not following procedures related to documentation, notification, reporting, or discretion.

- Have students been threatened with arrest unless they disclose information that is unrelated to criminal activity, private, or not of any reasonable relationship to the alleged misconduct.

- Have students been accused of engaging in 'criminal-like" behavior for activities that may be unpopular, but are not illegal.

- Have students been told by law enforcement or InfraGard contractors their educational choices were not appropriate, a waste of time, or not up to the level of experience of law enforcement/InfraGard?

- Have students been insulted by InfraGard/law enforcement?

- Have the InfraGard officers asked students about private issues, asked the students why there were "focused" on that issue; then asserted that the InfraGard/law enforcement officer is "above" that?

- Have any students been physically touched by any law enforcement officer/InfraGard contractor without their consent, without being told why they were being arrested, or detained for more than 15 hours?

- Have students been issued "stay away orders" for activities that were not violating any policy, were not illegal, and are not contrary to public or school policy?

- Have students been denied access to public accommodations, services, or public facilities on the false assertion that the property was "private"?

- Have students been followed after reporting law enforcement/InfraGard contractor misconduct?

- Have students attempted to seek assistance from the InfraGard contractor management, but not provided a forum or opportunity to resolve an issue unless additional private information was disclosed to the InfraGard contractor/law enforcement?

- What types of discussions were students engaged when they were confronted, told that conversation was "not appropriate"?

- Have students been accused of engaging in "inappropriate conduct" using false accusations, misrepresentations, or fabrications by the InfraGard contractors?

- How long were you detained, stopped, arrested, or held before you were given access to legal counsel?

- Was your personal property searched despite your assertions that the InfraGard contractor/law enforcement did not have consent to search?

- What was the reason the InfraGard contractor/law enforcement did not provide a copy of a search warrant before searching your personal belongings, school supplies, or academic computing materials?

related web sites: http://www.infragard.net/

http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308

Also found at:
http://ladybroadoak.blogspot.com/2008/02/infragardfirst-in-series.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ladybroa_080214_infragard___first_in.htm

Editor's postscript: I can see many of these businessmen getting shot in-the-ass, if not having it sued off. Works for me.