Author Archives: Stephen Gordon

About Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Constitution: a suicide pactOne would think that a key qualification to be the executive editor of Roll Call would be a minimum level of normal intelligence. Apparently not, as Morton Kondracke said that QWest was helping terrorists by not turning over phone call records of millions of ordinary Americans to the NSA. The last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment was still in the Bill of Rights. This makes Kondrake and the NSA the bad guys — and we are their targets. Here’s the footage from Media Matters.

Props.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Here’s some history of the “Consitution is not a suicide pact” quote that was actually coined in 1949 by an anti-civil-liberties judge (it has since been flipped to be an anti-anarchy statement). The author makes a bolded distiction between when today’s judges say it and when pundits say it:

Pundits, Unlike Judges, Tend to Use the “Suicide Pact” Slogan to Defeat Civil Liberties

If judges have inverted the “suicide pact” slogan, however, pundit have hewn more closely to Jackson’s original meaning. For them, the situation seems always to be so urgent that a compromise with liberty is required.

Rather than being assured that the Constitution was not designed as, and thus will not become, a suicide pact, they are constantly worried that without an immediate crackdown, it will soon morph into just such a pact. Academics invoke “suicide pacts” in the law reviews when they want to demonstrate that they are tough-minded about hypothetical conflicts between liberty and security; editorialists do the same.

( -)-(- )8 comments

I Wish I was a Lesbian

This one’s OK until you get to the song, then it gets pretty funny. Louden Wainwright III outlines almost all of the reasons why it’s preferable to be a lesbian. Props.

( -)-(- )7 comments

DEA Supporting Alcohol Prohibition?

Here is a clip of Drug Enforcement Agency Administrator Karen Tandy arguing that alcohol prohibition is a good thing. Perhaps Tandy needs to read this CATO policy analysis written by my friend (and Loretta Nall donor) Mark Thornton. Here’s the executive summary:

National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)–the “noble experiment”–was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure

The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition–most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.

Props.

( -)-(- )8 comments

Fixing Electoral Problems in Alabama

iraqballotaccess.gifThe Alabama Secretary of State race is starting to become a bit interesting. Beth Chapman, the Republican candidate, has been receiving ink for this recent publicity stunt:

Secretary of State Nancy Worley, a Democrat, has accused Republican Beth Chapman of politicizing the voting process by promising to watch polls in a heavily Democratic county and offering monetary rewards to voter fraud whistleblowers.

Chapman, the state auditor running for secretary of state, announced her plans last week in a made-for-TV news conference, complete with Chapman and a group of Hale County voters raising purple index fingers, a la Iraq, in support of honest elections.

The heat started for the incumbent Democrat Nancy Worley (site down at this moment) shortly after she was elected. One of her first official acts after taking office was screwing the taxpayers:

As the 2003 fiscal year neared an end she learned that there was some unspent money in her budget which if not spent would have to be refunded to the General Fund on Sept. 30. Her choices were two: Spend it or refund it.

Very quickly she found a way to spend it – she bought herself a new “set of wheels”, as we used to say up home. She went to a Ford dealership in Huntsville and drove out with $30,275 V-8 Eddie Bauer Expedition, which included $7,831 in upgrades.

Mind you, only days before she had announced that five employees in her office would be laid off on Sept. 30 due to the financial crisis.

When asked why she couldn’t have been content with a Ford Taurus which she could have bought for about $11,000 she replied that the $19,000 difference wouldn’t have saved anyone’s job.

Worley is now in a pissing match with Chapman over the cash for fraud gimmick:

Worley said offering cash rewards could lead citizens to manufacture fraud that they could then report. “We should encourage all Alabamians to follow the law, not offer them monetary rewards to do what is right,” she said.

On June 6, Worley will face Ed Packard, one of her employees in the state elections division, for the Democratic nomination. Packard has filed a complaint with the state AG because of Worley’s campaign activities:

An employee and political rival of Secretary of State Nancy Worley says she has asked her employees to contribute to her re-election campaign in apparent violation of state law.

Ed Packard, director of the elections division in the secretary of state’s office, filed a complaint Tuesday with Republican Attorney General Troy King alleging Worley sent letters to employees that included pledge cards for her campaign.

As there is no third party or independent candidate in this race, I’ve had to take a look at candidates the two big parties. Obviously, any ethical person will dismiss any consideration of voting for Worley for the reasons outlined above. see more…

( -)-(- )10 comments

Ann Coulter’s Gender: Inquiring Minds Still Want to Know

coulteradamsapple.jpgWhen an article begins like this, I’ve got to read the whole thing:

What was that sound on the phone just now? A NSA goon slurping his coffee? We are all wondering if that is static we hear on the line today or Big Brother. And we have also learned that Big Brother has a sister, and her name is Ann Coulter.

Melinda Pillsbury-Foster was writing about Ann Coulter acknowledging the covert NeoCon war on Americans. While the topic is interesting, it’s this little gem that had me LMAO:

Is Ann Coulter a female? While the answer would appear to be obvious; she is after all, blond, curvy, and attractive, real affirmation is not in evidence. Coulter is a fag hag, her best friends are gay. She has never married or evidently been in a long term relationship and she has had no children and is nearly menopausal.

So is she or isn’t she female? Rumors includes the titillating piece of gossip that she might not really know herself. Coulter could have been born with both and had her parents pick wrong. It happens. That would explain the hysterically violent tone in her writing and other signs noted elsewhere. So how can Coulter prove her gender?

I suggest that we turn to the Daughters of the American Revolution. They can oversee a DNA test that will settle the question This is appropriate because Ann is a member of that rectitudinous body and if the lovely Ann is not really female the DAR would certainly want to know that so her membership could be shifted to the Sons of the American Revolution. That would made for interesting meetings.

Inquiring minds want to know and all it takes is a swab from the inside of the mouth, not nearly as intrusive as Ann’s rhetoric I might add.

Hey, Ann, come on. Give us a pic. We want to know if NeoCons really have balls or not.

( -)-(- )28 comments

Best Headline Ever

Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

Drug Czar Jailed For 22 Years

From AHN via Pete.

( -)-(- )5 comments

Religion and Politics Mixing Like Oil and Water

Is there a political cost to the use of religious rhetoric in politics? This study coming from Afghanistan Alabama suggests there may be, even in the land where the Taliban Republicans try to raise taxes in the name of Jesus or worship graven images for political gain.

Politicians engaging in religious rhetoric risk being called hypocrites, according to a new study by University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) researchers. The phenomenon is called the Pharisee Effect and is based on biblical references to Jesus’ rebuke of religious leaders, known as the Pharisees, for using public prayers to enhance their own image. The theoretical study appears in the latest issue of The Journal of Communication and Religion.

The Pharisees’ public piety made them subject to accusations of insincerity and hypocrisy. The same accusations can be leveled against politicians who make religious appeals, say study authors Larry Powell, Ph.D., and Eduardo Neiva, Ph.D. Political leaders like former President Ronald Reagan successfully used religious appeals to win over groups like the Christian Coalition. But such efforts can backfire, say Powell and Neiva. They say claims of religiosity in the political context actually encourage an escalating exchange of messages between competing candidates until eventually one candidate’s rhetoric ““ in the eyes of voters ““ goes too far.

When a religious appeal goes too far, audiences’ negative reactions can fall into five different categories, say Powell and Neiva. The categories are: self-serving motivations or intentionality; deception or hypocrisy; inappropriateness; fanaticism; and the holier-than-thou attitude. Any of the five evaluations can cause the public to reject the candidate, his or her ideas, or both.

Alabama rejected the raise taxes for Jesus approach in 2003; perhaps America will learn to reject it, too.

( -)-(- )4 comments

Jumping in the Hot Tub

Speaking of hot tubs, Paul Trujillo just decided to test the water.

Incumbent Paul Trujillo decided before the major party filing in date on March 21 to change parties. He has switched from the Democratic Party to the Libertarian Party officially on May 4.

Because of that decision, Trujillo said he will file his candidacy the day after the major parties primaries.

“I think, at this level of government, there shouldn’t be parties. It’s more like a municipal council or school board,” he said about being affiliated with a major party. “It’s different if it’s a state office where there is a larger population and larger area to represent.”

County Democratic Party Chairman Moises Griego said he was sorry Trujillo left the party but that the party has two good candidates representing it in the race. […]

Trujillo said he selected the Libertarian Party because its philosophies resonate best with him.

The national organization’s Web site says that Libertarians “are neither liberal nor conservative, but rather advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering, as long as you don’t violate the rights of others,” it said.

However, Trujillo says he’s not an ideologist no matter which party he joins.

“I don’t follow ideology. I listen to the situation and see what can be done in that situation,” he said. “And, as far as the county government is concerned, I believe the problems facing the county are not partisan problems. It doesn’t matter what party the constituents are affiliated with, as a commissioner I am serving them all.”

Welcome aboard!

( -)-(- )3 comments

Keeping Big Brother Out of My Hot Tub

So, libertarians: It’s time to get out of that hot tub! Put down that wrench! And start thinking about how you’re going to reclaim your rightful place in the conservative coalition.“– Ryan Sager

Ryan Sager wrote an interesting article yesterday suggesting that, as Nick Gillespie words it, libertarians “are as ‘politically impotent’ as Bob Dole sans Viagra, Pepsi, and Britney Spears commercials.” Sager suggests that we should pop the GOP Viagra (which, interestingly enough, is a blue pill) in order to “reclaim [our] rightful place in the conservative coalition.”

Sager’s general theme seems to be that libertarians should form a coalition with conservatives to force the Republican Party to become more fiscally responsible. The Cranky Insomniac suggests that it will be difficult for such a coalition to work because of the influence of the religious right in the conservative movement:

If these people feel strongly enough about these issues to join the party least likely to match their economic views, there’s no way in hell they’re “coming home” to the modern avatar of the Republican party unless the party fundamentally alters its relationship with fundamentalists. And it’s here that the libertarians lose the numbers game, at least as long as 60% of them will seemingly vote Republican regardless of in what direction the party moves. To do what it would have to do to get these Democratic libertarians to come its way, the GOP would more than likely lose much of its vaunted “base,” a loss that would hurt it far more than losing those libertarians does.

I’m in general agreement with Cranky. The issues which seperate libertarians from “traditional” conservatives are the ones people often become the most emotional about: Gay rights, abortion, civil liberties, foreign policy and drug policy.

I note that Sager suggests that libertarians align with the Republican Party, but I didn’t notice him suggesting any sort of alliance with the Democrats. I’d argue that aligning with the left makes more sense at the moment. This is not because the left has any valid claims of moral superiority (they don’t), but because they are out of power and wish to regain it. I’d expect them to govern just as poorly as Republicans if they win back control of Congress, though. But at least some of them are campaigning about the right things, while most Republicans are focusing on gay bashing or treading on the edge of racism with respect to immigration policy.

The Howard Dean campaign was certainly more libertarian than the Bush campaign. Dean was embraced by the NRA and cut spending in Vermont. The GOP has made no progress in the restoration of Second Amendment rights, despite controlling both houses of Congress and the White House. As a matter of fact, Bush had stated his intention to sign an extension of the Assault Weapons Ban. While Republicans might have rightfully complained about Dean’s single-payer health care plan, they seem to forget that the GOP just passed what Ron Paul called “the single largest expansion of the federal welfare state since the Great Society programs of the 1960s.”

I doubt that libertarians and groups on the left could maintain an effective coalition for very long. Despite it’s poor electoral track record, I don’t see any long-term libertarian home outside of the independent movement or Libertarian Party.

Sager commented that I accused him of being a conservative. He totally ignored third party and independent solutions or coalitions in his article. He never looked at the left side of the arguments or even approached issues like how to keep the government out of our hot tubs. Using the traditional two party spectrum, right is conservative. If the shoe fits…

While being able to afford a hot tub is crucial to libertarians, knowing that what happens in the hot tub stays in the hot tub is equally important.

Sorry about the mental image on that one, but you get the point.

( -)-(- )3 comments

Georgia’s Gay Marriage Ban Loses with Judicial TKO

Oopsie! They put too many subjects on the ballot (apparently only one is allowed) and Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance C. Russell has at least temporarily killed Georgia’s ban on same-sex marriages. From MTV:

“People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place “” although not marriage,” Russell wrote. “The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote.”

Gay-rights supporters had been anxiously awaiting Russell’s ruling since Jack Senterfitt, representing the gay-rights organization Lambda Legal, challenged the amendment in November 2004.

Aaron Margolis calls this legislating “immorality form [sic] the bench.” His prefered mechanism of morality seems to be wiping entire countries off the map and making illegal immigration a capital crime.

( -)-(- )11 comments

DOD Releases 9/11 Pentagon Footage

I’ve been trying to post this all day, but keep getting caught up in other issues. There is now so much out there that I’d use Google or Technorati to get the full load of commentary about the United Flight 77 video being released today. Judicial Watch gets the big props on this one, as they are the one who really pushed for the release of the film. From their release:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Department of Defense released a videotape to Judicial Watch at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon that shows American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The Department of Defense released the videotape in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request and related lawsuit.

“This is in response to your December 14, 2004 Freedom of Information Act Request, FOIA appeal of March 27, 2005, and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” wrote William Kammer, Chief of the Department of Defense, Office of Freedom of Information. “Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video.”

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department of Defense admitted in a January 26, 2005 letter that it possessed a videotape responsive to Judicial Watch’s request. However, the Pentagon refused to release the videotape because it was, “part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.” Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2006 arguing that there was “no legal basis” for the Defense Department’s refusal to release the tape.

“We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks.”

Here’s the video:

( -)-(- )22 comments

NM Poll Tax for Recounts Eliminated

A minor win for freedom:

New Mexico’s highest court struck down a 2005 law that allowed the state canvassing board to require candidates to pay the estimated full cost of a recount upfront as a deposit.

The ruling came in a dispute over the razor-close 2004 presidential election in New Mexico.

The state Supreme Court’s unanimous decision was a victory for Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik.

They had challenged the state’s handling of their request for a recount in 2004.

The bad news is that they won’t do the recount, but at least they got rid of the prohibitive tax on justice.

( -)-(- )Comments Off

Loretta Nall Media Update: “Most talked about topic on the blogs…”

Note: this article contains dead links, the url is still in the hover/alt text. Keep the web working, curate content well!

Here’s some recent media coverage of Loretta Nall’s race for Governor in Alabama:

The Cleburne News on gay marriage:

In a state where the label “pro-family” is usually understood to mean “pro-family, as long as your family looks exactly like mine,” Loretta Nall is the exception: “When I say I’m pro-family, I mean I’m pro-family for everyone,” says Mrs. Nall, mother of two and the Libertarian Party’s 2006 nominee for governor of Alabama. “The last thing the government has any business doing is peering up the skirts and down the trousers of citizens who come down to the courthouse and pay good money for a marriage license, or who offer a loving home and dedicated parenthood to children who would otherwise grow up abandoned or orphaned, Nall said.Nall is the only candidate who has so far chosen to openly appeal to Alabama’s gay and lesbian community.


AP wire
that hit a handful of papers in the southeast:

Libertarian Party nominee Loretta Nall said she objects to using the Guard to militarize the border with the peaceful neighbor. “The last thing I want to do is make it more like a police state,” she said.

Instead, she advocates embracing illegal immigrants who are working in the United States. “We should naturalize them and make them part of the tax base,” she said.

Mobile Press-Register on the Flash for Cash campaign:

There’s been some discussion lately about whether all the pollsters and consultants have sapped the fun and spontaneity from politics. Folks who espouse that opinion apparently haven’t viewed Alabama Libertarian Loretta Nall’s ads.

One posted on the Mobile Libertarian Party’s site boasts a photo of Nall, who’s running for governor, leaning forward in a low-necked top, displaying her cleavage.

The slogan reads, “More of these boobs, and less of these boobs!!” Small photos of Gov. Bob Riley, Roy Moore, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and Don Siegelman are included.

Nall still needs money to get on the ballot in Alabama. After watching the MSNBC footage below about her fundraising campaign, please pop by her site to leave a contribution. Here’s the G-Rated page, and this one’s PG13.

( -)-(- )21 comments

Shifting the Libertarian Voting Bloc

The article begins:

As the Republican Party abandons its commitment to small government, how politically impotent are libertarians? Let me count the ballots.

Ryan Sager wrote a halfway good article on what libertarians need to do to actually win elections. Here’s his assessment of the Bush race:

But here’s one measure of how libertarian-leaning voters voted in the last presidential election: While George W. Bush gained 10 points between 2000 and 2004 among voters who thought government should “do more,” he stayed essentially even among voters who felt government should not do more or should “do less.”

The writer seems to be suffering from some distortions about what the word libertarian means beyond this point. To begin, he seems to miss the point that libertarians are fiscally conservative while being socially liberal.

Perhaps the most interesting fact in the Pew survey, however, was that less than 6 in 10 libertarians voted for Bush in 2004. While few libertarians seem to have deserted the president between 2000 and 2004, they are split roughly evenly between the two parties. The Pew survey finds 50 percent of libertarians identifying as Republicans, 41 percent as Democrats.

Further proof of his conservative bias comes here:

The challenge, then — for those who don’t want to see the Republican Party succumb once and for all to big-government conservatism and who don’t want to see it become overrun with populists lacking in respect for taxpayers’ money and individuals’ right to be left alone — is either to organize existing libertarians more effectively to vote and contribute time and money as a bloc or to identify new constituencies with an overriding interest in remaking the time bomb we call the New Deal (everyone under 40 comes to mind).

Other than playing lip service to the Second Amendment, when has the GOP been sensitive to individual rights? Is big-government conservatism the economic equivalent of the compassionate conservatism practiced by the GOP on homosexuals?

There is but one natural home for libertarians: the Libertarian Party. However, it’s understandable that many libertarians avoid the LP because of frequently embarrassing election results.

Sager concluded:

So, libertarians: It’s time to get out of that hot tub! Put down that wrench! And start thinking about how you’re going to reclaim your rightful place in the conservative coalition.

He’s half right. It is time to reclaim our libertarian roots, but the GOP is clearly not the answer. The time is now to form effective third-party and independent coalitions to get liberty-minded people elected to public office.

Update by Stephen VanDyke: Commenter john had a request for us to use the word LIBERTY more. Here it is:

libertarian ad
( -)-(- )15 comments

The Pro of Prohibition

BushDrugLords.jpgUsing his typical dry sense of humor, Crispin Sartwell just poked a needle in the eye of drug prohibitionists. Here’s a sneak peak:

As Mexican President Vicente Fox backs off a bill to legalize possession of small quantities of illegal drugs, including cocaine and heroin, it is worth remembering some of the obvious reasons why drugs should remain illegal.

For one thing, as many have argued, the unenforceable prohibition on drugs brings the law into contempt. When average citizens of your country know they are criminals, they lose respect for law and for the agents of the law.

But contempt for the law is the sure — indeed really the only — sign of a free people. People who respect the law simply on the grounds that it is law deserve every nasty little thing that happens to them after that. They ought to spend some time cultivating moral and intellectual autonomy.

I, personally, doubt that ending the war on drugs could reduce the contempt — verging on total — with which any decent American regards the law. For that, we’d have to legalize, speeding, tax evasion, and gay marriage. Still, we must move with circumspection.

You’ll have to read the rest of the column to find out why Sartwell concludes with this sentence: “And that is why keeping drugs illegal is saving the American dream.”

( -)-(- )1 comment

ROFL of the Day: Diebold as Secure as a Wells-Fargo Truck

DieboldMan.jpgDon’t click the picture unless you wish to see Diebold Sales Rep ‘Buck’ Jones demonstrating a Touch-Screen Voting Machine as the Mississippi Secretary of State declares it “The Most Secure Thing Outside of a Wells-Fargo Truck!” From BradBlog:

Not long after Jones says to the camera: “I’m not gonna see it on the Internet or anything like that, right?”, Mississippi Secretary of State, Eric Clark declares incredibly: “I think this is the best machine that’s available in the country. That’s what I think. And that’s based on a lot of folks who have studied it. And I think it was already secure without the voter-verifiable paper trail. But I think it is so secure now, it is the most secure thing outside of a Wells-Fargo truck!”

Diebold: Voting for AmeriKa so you don’t have to.

( -)-(- )5 comments

John McCain Says Screw the First Amendment

Senator John McCain to Don Imus:

“I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected.”

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Senate Oath of Office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

H/T to Scott.

( -)-(- )15 comments

Aaron Russo on the Air Tonight

Listen to Aaron Russo LIVE on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory!

Monday, May 15th from 11pm-2am (PST)

Tune in to the show and call in to support Aaron as he discusses his new film, America: Freedom to Fascism. Aaron will cover subjects such as the IRS, RFID Chips, the National ID, the Federal Reserve, Fort Knox and the gold that belongs to Americans and other themes from the film.

Check the Coast to Coast website, http://www.coasttocoastam.com to find an affiliate station in your area.

Looks like a good night for Libertarian radio. Shame I’ll be in meetings and such. Loretta Nall just hit the AP on another article, too. We’ll see how many papers this hits over the next 24 hours.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Bush Immigration Plan: New DMZ or Iron Curtain?

dmz.GIF

I’ll be the first to admit that there is a problem with U.S. immigration policy. However, the plan we anticipate that Bush will present tonight is far scarier than any of the problems involved. From Reuters:

U.S. President George W. Bush will announce plans on Monday to deploy thousands of National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border to support efforts to catch more illegal immigrants, as he tries to placate conservatives demanding a tougher policy.

Bush is to address Americans for about 20 minutes from the Oval Office at 8 p.m./0000 GMT to announce increased security along the 2,000-mile (3,219 km) U.S. border with Mexico, and to insist a temporary guest-worker program loathed by many conservatives is needed as part of an overall reform of immigration law.

DMZ

To begin, let’s take a look at what naturally occurs when a country places troops on an international border. Obviously, when country A places guns and tanks on the border, country B begins to feel threatened and places a few troops their side of the border. The result of country B placing troops on the border is that country A will place a few more troops on the border. Why not add a couple of heavy artillery units at the same time. Then country B adds a division and a few helicoptor squadrons. Then county A…

You get the idea. Of course, some nitwits might actually argue that Mexico would know that we are a peace-loving nation and of no possible threat to them. However, our track record in the Middle East won’t comfort many Mexican minds when our tanks and guns are pointed in their direction.

As a matter of fact, Mexico is already worried about this:

Mexico’s President Vincente Fox called Mr Bush yesterday to express his concerns about White House plans to “militarise” the 3200km U.S./Mexico border with up to 10,000 National Guard troops.

If you don’t believe that hawks aren’t already gearing up to engage Mexico with military force, please explain why protesters are using the line “Remember the Alamo.”

Move over Korea, as the current plan from the White House is to turn the Rio Grande into a giant demilitarized zone.

ABOUT FACE

The alternative picture I see is equally scary. In military drill and ceremony, there is a command that every soldier knows. When the commander orders “about face”, everyone simultaneously turns around 180 degrees — weapons, too. If Bush is successful in his apparant attempt to place troops on the border, it will only take one “about face” order for the guns on the border to be aimed directly at the American people.

If you think it was difficult for political dissidents to leave eastern Europe during the Cold War, wait until Bush establishes all of America as a “free speech zone.”

( -)-(- )14 comments

Competing GOP Gay Bashing Plans

gayliberty.jpgSpeaking of taking advice, Bush should also listen to his old lady. From IndyStar:

Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president’s ear: Don’t use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.

Just who is that political strategist? Laura Bush.

The first lady told “Fox News Sunday” that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, “I don’t think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously.”

“It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity,” she said.

The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

It looks like the Republicans will be offering two strategies with repect to gay rights: The Open Hatred Plan or the Hide Behind a White Sheet Plan.

( -)-(- )2 comments

The Real Killers

Here’s another one from The Metropolis Times:

( -)-(- )3 comments

Phillies 2008 Has Another Campaign Video

( -)-(- )12 comments

‘Cause the Flag Still Stands for Freedom, and They Can’t Take That Away

It’s truly grand not to be living in a place like the former Soviet Union, where they’d lock people up in mental asylums for vocalizing their political protests.

There is no way something like this might ever happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Fisher is on the staff of Revolution Books, and on January 28, while she was putting Bush Step Down posters on telephone polls in Cleveland Heights, she was ordered by a police officer to take them down or face a fine. When she complied, she was asked for her ID, which she did not have on her. He then grabbed her by the arm, pushed her against a store window, and knocked her face down onto the sidewalk. He was joined by another officer, and they both pressed their feet against her back until she could not breathe. Her chin was pressed down into the concrete; Fisher has osteoradionecrosis in her jaw from radiation treatments for cancer.

Fisher was handcuffed and shackled. During this time, Fisher yelled out to everyone who passed what the posters were about. One of the police officers then told her, Fisher says, to “Shut up or I will kill you! I am sick of this anti-Bush shit! You are definitely going to the psyche ward.”

She was then threatened some more and taken away in an EMS truck. At the hospital, Fisher was asked to undress in front of the police officers, which she refused to do. The officers refused to leave, so a nurse attempted to shield her while she undressed. Fisher says she was then cuffed to the bed, given an IV of some sort, and made to wait hours for a psychiatrist to interview her. By this time, members of her World Can’t Wait group were in the emergency room having a confrontation with the police, who refused to let them see Fisher. Someone called the news media, who never made an appearance.

OK, I know. Things like this happen, but at least we have a more reasonable judicial system to ensure that justice is eventually served:

During the hearing, Judge McGinty made other strange requests baffling attorneys, asking defense counsel to openly read a lengthy message on Fisher’s t-shirt, saying:

“Wanted for Illegally Crossing Borders: The Bush Regime. If you are going to insist that crossing borders illegally is a crime which cannot be tolerated, how about George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice (and yes, Colin Powell) and the rest of that gang, with their highly illegal, and violent, ‘crossing of the border’-into Iraq, among other places?!”

Judge McGinty then said this was proof of her delusional state, adding that “Carol wants to go to jail and that she has a martyr complex.” Fisher had initially refused to taking a state ordered psych _eval, saying there was no reason for it due to the fact American citizens have the right to express political opinions in an open and honest fashion.

However, Judge McGinty’s response to Fisher’s refusal and statements was simply that “I don’t negotiate with felons.”

Fortunately, we don’t live in a place like the former Soviet Union where they confine political dissidents in mental hospitals and stifle organized political resistance. In AmeriKKKa, we truly can thank our “lucky stars, to be livin here today. ‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can’t take that away.”

( -)-(- )15 comments