Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Air America on Ad Blacklist?

The only fun thing about this, will be my returning to every one of these advertisers, all the products in my house which they produce--in shreds. And my solemn oath to boycott every product they make--not just the ones listed--until their black-out is reversed. Are they interested in finding out the price of throttling the dissenting voices in America? What happened when Charlie the Tuna got caught hunting dolphins? Worse can happen and I strongly encourage ALL AAR and listeners to all liberal programming, do the same.
Air America on Ad Blacklist?: "An internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates.

The October 25 memo was provided to FAIR by the Peter B. Collins Show, a syndicated radio show originating on the West Coast.

Headlined 'Air America Blackout' and addressed 'Dear Traffic Director'—referring to the radio station staffer who coordinates programming and advertising—the memo gives the following order to affiliates:

Please be advised that Hewlett Packard has purchased schedules with ABC Radio Networks between October 30th and December 24th, 2006. Please make sure you blackout this advertiser on your station, as they do not wish it to air on any Air America affiliate.

The directive then advises ABC Radio Network affiliates to take note of a list of other sponsors who do not want their programming to run during Air America programming.

Please see below for a complete list of all advertisers requesting that NONE of their commercials air within Air America programming.

The list, totaling 90 advertisers, includes some of largest and most well-known corporations advertising in the U.S.: Wal-Mart, GE, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft, Bank of America, Fed-Ex, Visa, Allstate, McDonald's, Sony and Johnson & Johnson. The U.S. Postal Service and the U.S. Navy are also listed as advertisers who don't want their commercials to air on Air America."
Boycott them all, let God sort it out:
  • Allstate
  • American Heart Association
  • Aventis
  • Avon
  • Bank of American
  • Bayer (all products)
  • BMW Motorcycles
  • Carrier
  • Chattam
  • Cigna
  • Cingular
  • Clorox
  • Coke
  • Coty
  • Deans Morningstar Foods
  • Dell
  • Denny's
  • Discovery Channel
  • Eharmony.com
  • Epson
  • Expedia.com
  • Exxon Mobil
  • Farmers Insurance
  • Fedex
  • Frito-Lay
  • GE
  • Gillette Venus
  • Goodyear
  • Heinekin/Amstel Light
  • Hershey's
  • Hewlett Packard
  • Home Depot
  • Hormel
  • Hyatt
  • Interstate
  • JC Penney
  • Johnson& Johnson
  • Kohl's
  • Kraft Foods
  • Levi's
  • Masterfood's USA
  • McDonald's
  • Merial Frontline
  • Microsoft
  • Morningstar
  • National Cattleman's Beef
  • Nestle
  • Nissan
  • NYSE
  • Office Depot
  • Outdoor Life Networks
  • Proctor & Gamble
  • Paramount
  • Pepsi
  • Philip Morris
  • Pier 1 Imports
  • Red Lobster
  • ReMAx
  • REI Sporting Goods
  • Rentway
  • Robert Hall
  • Shering Plough
  • Sherwin Williams
  • Sony
  • State Farm
  • Toys R Us
  • Travelocity.com
  • True Values
  • United Healthcare
  • US Navy
  • United States Postal Service
  • Visa
  • Walgreens
  • Wal-mart
  • Welch's
  • Wrigley
  • Wyeth
UPDATE 11-01-2006: From Media Matters:
However, one of the advertisers included in ABC's list, REI, apparently claims it did not request that its ads not be aired during Air America programming. Several Media Matters readers have sent this response from REI, which reads, in part:

Today, an internal memo on ABC Network letterhead was posted on the Air America website and picked up by various blog sites. The memo lists companies that refused to have their radio advertising supporting Air America and Al Franken's programming. REI was listed as one of the companies declining to advertise; however this information is incorrect.

The memo posted on the internet is not correct. REI has not refused to advertise during Air America's programming. In fact, REI has placed radio ads on stations carrying Air America programming.

It is unfortunate that this misinformation has been widely distributed. We are currently working with our advertising agency and the ABC radio network to track down how this happened.

Monday, October 30, 2006

This is Why Rove Feels Smug (The "Real Math") or Why the GOP Doesn't Need No Stinkin' Americans Anymore...

(I don't ordinarily take entire emails and reprint without permission, but this can't wait), from Mark Crispin Miller's email bulletin (sign up for them yourself here):
From Robert Glenn Plotner:

Despite David Kuo's recent book "Tempting Faith" that exposes the Bush Administration's and RNC's disingenuous, contemptuous exploitation of evangelicals, the same foul church-state smoothie is being blended in churches ahead of the 2006 elections. An overlooked story as America goes to the polls for a hard self-examination over the next week is the Rove-Mehlman strategy to target not only close battleground races with their theocratic believers but also to employ them to pick off vulnerable Democratic or gerrymandered districts in their own stomping ground, the Bible Belt. In Georgia and Alabama, for instance, where local polls run contrary to the rest of the country in support of Bush and the Iraq War, the focus is to balance House losses in other areas with gains against Democratic incumbents in rural districts. Indeed, while Bush is shunned by all but the most desperate Republicans running for office nationwide, he has made several stops on behalf of rural Republican candidates in the South. The target audience -- the evangelical flock.

Ahead of this background strategy there has been an interesting development with the RNC's favorite bed mate, the Christian Coalition. In a settlement reached with the IRS last year over the group's tax-exempt status, the Christian Coalition was required to allow all candidates to write up to 25 words to explain their views on issues in the comparative voter guides with which the Coalition floods churches the Sunday before elections. Frustrated that they would have to allow Democratic candidates equal space in their "guides", several state chapters have broken ties with the national Coalition to form renamed organizations as a way of explicitly thwarting the IRS ruling. What states? The battleground states of Iowa and Ohio and the Bible Belt Buckle states of Georgia and Alabama.

Also cited by Sadie Fields, chairman of the splinter Georgia group, as reason for the break with the national Coalition was the national Christian Coalition's "liberal drift." What does that mean? According to an article that appeared in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in September, Fields was upset that the national Christian Coalition had taken up "such issues as global warming, an increase in the minimum wage, and control of the internet." The solution to these unacceptable moral inroads of doing something about planetary destruction and battling poverty? Withdraw and rename the state organization, the "Georgia Christian Alliance." It is as brazen an admission as it gets. The great reformation of the Christian Coalition has nothing to do with religion, but it has everything to do with a Republican political machine that seeks to feed what they believe are precast evangelical votes into the system. The address and phone number of the newly created "Georgia Christian Alliance" is identical, by the way, to the Christian Coalition of Georgia (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=001772M).

This past Sunday, October 29th, one million or so "2006 Georgia General Election Voter Guides" from the "Georgia Christian Alliance" in association with the "Georgia Conservative Coalition Education Fund, Inc." began to infect churches across the state. I assume similar initiatives are under way in Alabama, Iowa, and Ohio. The flier lists the statewide races and the respective candidates under which are listed four or five issues presumably important to Christians. All Democratic candidates are listed as "no response," unless the authors of the guide have deemed it important to answer for them. All Republican candidates have stated responses in accordance with the particular wedge they are exploiting. Included is a judicial race for the Georgia Supreme Court in which Carol Hunstein is given an asterisk to her "no response" while Mike Wiggins heartily agrees with all their tailored views on Roe v. Wade, school vouchers, etc. Hunstein's asterisk is a response letter posted to their website in which she reserves her judicial responsibility of impartiality on issues that might come before her. But of course this is not what they want to hear -- that is, unless it suits their purposes for a favored Supreme Court nominee to use it in congressional hearings.

It is the specific issues themselves, in their wording and in their very selection, that give away the pure political gamesmanship. Issues are excluded where the Democrat might agree with their view on a moral issue. Every Democratic position must read "No Response" or "Oppose." Other obvious straw issues are raised in races meaningless to the issue such as "Prohibit abortion except in cases where the life of the mother is endangered" as an issue for Labor Commissioner. It allows them to mark down the Republican as "Supporting" the statement while the Democrat is marked as "No Response." No issue appears regarding poverty, global warming, genocide in Darfur, anything that in any way might be misconstrued as a Christian wanting to help the unfortunate or downtrodden or to take seriously the role of Earth's caretaker, seemingly defining Christian issues.

But what is most telling about the Voter Guide (in pdf at http://www.gachristianalliance.org/) is the unmitigated pandering to racial fear in the South. This is clearly an organization that understands the racial divide in evangelical churches and plays to it as a cynical wedge issue. They are courting white voters based on race over issues that have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with religion. "Affirmative action programs that provide preference to minorities in hiring and promotion" appears as an issue beneath six races, all (R) Oppose (D) No response. GA's photo ID bill that would require a state issued photo ID in order to vote and has already been struck down in the courts as discriminatory towards minorities receives prominence in three races, all with Republicans supporting it and Democrats either marked as "No response" or "Oppose." The issue of in-state tuition and scholarships for the children of illegal aliens also apparently gets their moral goat. There is absolutely no reason for these and other similar issues to be pushed as moral issues to white churches except that the Republican lackeys know that they are white and are courting them based not on morality but on immoral prejudice.

Also of note are two (and only two) special guides directed at churches in specific districts, Georgia's 12th and 8th, the two districts recently given the royal visit by Bush to stump for Republican House candidates (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/elections/15880658.htm). Indeed, from the specifically targeted house races alone, it's laughable to read "The Voter Guide is provided for educational purposes only and is not to be construed as an endorsement of any candidate or political party." It is so explicitly an *absolute* propagandistic endorsement of and by a crafted cog in the Rovian machine that I'm certain when the next ruling is handed down against them, they'll simply perpetually rename themselves and continue their unholy alliance under a new "Christian" brand name. Where is the simple counter strategy to produce a progressive and fair Christian guide with an emphasis on poverty issues? It might have gone a long way to balancing Rove's math. In Georgia, subtract two from any potential Democratic gains and add two for the strange bedfellows as they continue their unholy alliance.


Restore Voter Confidence Through Exit Polls

This is an excellent article and solution to voting fraud concerns of every stripe. We don't have time to institute it now, but we do on the local level by 2008.

Why didn't we think of this sooner? Probably because it would be just too darn easy!!
A way to restore confidence: South Florida Sun-Sentinel: "Widespread concern over recent reports from Princeton University on Diebold machine susceptibility to tampering, and from New York University on e-voting more generally, confirm what computer scientists have long known and contended: There is little reason for confidence in election results obtained from electronic voting machines.

Yet voters in the United States are denied the one powerful technique that might restore confidence in election results -- an independent exit poll."
Hat-tip: Mark-Crispin Miller

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Boys Anally Raped at Abu Ghraib Photos

Will Bush's heinous get-out-of-jail free Terror Act let his cronies off the hook for this as well--or is there a sense of decency left in the American public?
Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos: "''The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'

'A report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a 'male MP guard having sex with a female detainee.'

'Rumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.''

The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other.

In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: 'Some of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their men ... . The women were passing messages saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened.'

'Basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.'

Judge Hellerstein said today that publication of the photographs will help to answer questions not only about the unlawful conduct of American soldiers, but about “the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the persons in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldiers who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs.” "

Monday, October 23, 2006

Let's Train Al-Qaeda There So We Don't Have to Train Them Here

Terrorists are using US troops for target practice, but why--even after documents recovered from Al Qaeda show they WANT BUSH TO "STAY THE COURSE"--does the administration continue to do just that, give Bin Laden exactly what he wants?
Desperate GOP Stoops to Lowest Fear Politics Imaginable: "The Republican National Committee has released a new campaign ad to rally the GOP base and other voters by showing threatening quotes from al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden followed by the pitch: 'These are the stakes. Vote Nov. 7.' (Watch the ad here)

President George W. Bush has flogged the same theme in lashing Democrats who favor a military withdrawal from Iraq.

'If we were to follow the Democrats' prescriptions and withdraw from Iraq, we would be fulfilling Osama bin Laden's highest aspirations,' Bush said at an Oct. 19 campaign speech in La Plume, Pennsylvania. 'We should at least be able to agree that the path to victory is not to do precisely what the terrorists want.'

But these appeals from the RNC and Bush ignore U.S. intelligence information indicating that what al-Qaeda really wants is for the United States to remain bogged down in Iraq so the terrorist band can use the American occupation to recruit and train a new generation of jihadists, who can then be deployed against targets outside Iraq.

In effect, Bush and bin Laden share a common goal in Iraq. They both want U.S. forces to 'stay the course.'"
Is there an alternative goal? One which is more valuable than the death of American troops (effectively adding lives to the 9/11 toll daily)? Does it involve neoconservative PNAC goals that require at least one "win" in the Middle East to realize?

Saturday, October 21, 2006

The Economic Debate: Fear vs. Corruption

The winger spokes models are on a mission to distract potential Republican voters from massive and ongoing Republican failures of moral and strategic issues (corruption and the disintegrating Iraq occupation). What are they trying to sell? A strong stock market in take-home economics clothing and the usual schoolyard character assasination tactics i.e. name-calling (yawn). Childish as all that lieing is you'll have to be vigilantly armed with the right sticks and stones yourself--a counter argument--so here's a pretty good place to begin:
The Economic Debate: Fear vs. Corruption: "'This economy of ours is strong,' George W. Bush informed voters in Ohio. But if Democrats win control of the House of Representatives, he warned in Florida, 'they'll raise your taxes. It will hurt our economy, and that's why we're not going to let them get control.'

In late September the President momentarily interrupted his drumbeat on the threat Democrats pose to the failing 'war on terror' to trumpet the threat they pose to the flailing economy. With Americans squeezed between sluggish wages and rising costs, the slogan 'they'll raise your taxes' rouses fears, just as 'cut and run' does on Iraq. As in the Iraq debate, the President doesn't tell us what he'll do to get us out of the mess he's made; he simply charges that Democrats will make it worse."

$764 Billion Failure: It IS the Economy Duh-bya!

The $764 Billion Failure (fully linked at originating site):

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a yearly budget surplus of $284 billion. At that time, he predicted a $516 billion surplus for fiscal year 2006. Yesterday, the Bush administration announced that, in 2006, the federal government ran a deficit of $248 billion, missing its projection by $764 billion. President Bush considered this a smashing success. In a speech yesterday, Bush said the numbers were "proof that pro-growth economic policies work" and an example of "sound fiscal policies here in Washington." Although the deficit declined from $318 billion last year, "the long-term outlook remains bleak." If the President is successful in implementing his economic agenda -- including making his tax cuts permanent for the wealthy -- "deficits will total nearly $3.5 trillion over the next 10 years."

THE SHELL GAME: Bush's main talking point yesterday was that he "cut the federal budget deficit in half" since 2004. This is only true in fantasy land. This year's deficit of $248 billion is more than half of the $413 billion deficit in 2004. In early 2004, the White House predicted a deficit of $512 billion, but that never happened. At the time, experts warned the number was inflated for political purposes. The political manipulation of budget estimates continues. Yesterday, Bush bragged, "In February this year we projected the federal budget deficit for 2006 would be $423 billion...Today's report...shows that the deficit came out at $248 billion -- so, $175 billion less than anticipated." It was "the biggest forecast miss in 21 years." Even his right-wing allies are skeptical. Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation said, "The White House has a track record of projecting budget numbers to be a lot worse than they end up, which therefore helps them defeat the gloomy expectations and declare victory."

TAX CUTS DON'T PAY FOR THEMSELVES: Yesterday, Bush said, "Tax relief fuels economic growth, and growth -- when the economy grows, more tax revenues come to Washington. And that's what's happened." There is absolutely no evidence for Bush's claim. A 2006 analysis by the Congressional Research Service found "no evidence of supply-side effects from the tax cuts exists thus far." Even under the Bush administration's "best case scenario," tax cuts "would raise long-run income by 0.7 percent, enough to pay for less than 10 percent of the cost of making the tax cuts permanent." The cost of the tax cuts passed since 2001 was $251 billion last year, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. Thus, "the federal budget would have been in virtual balance in 2006 if the tax cuts had not been enacted."

THE PUSH TO EXTEND TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY: Bush made clear that the centerpiece of his economic policy would be to convince Congress to make "the tax cuts we passed permanent." Bush argued this will be essential if we "want to be the leading economy in the world." Respected economists disagree. William Gale and Peter Orszag of the Brookings Institution concluded that extending the tax cuts are "likely to reduce, not increase, national income over the long run." The reason? "[E]ven if tax cuts have modest positive effects on work and savings decisions, those effects are outweighed by the negative consequences of higher budget deficits." Overall, "making the tax cuts permanent would add more than $3 trillion to deficits over the next decade." For a fairer, simpler, fiscally responsible tax policy, see the Center for American Progress plan.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Arizona Secretary of State INSISTS on UNconstitutional Voter Suppression

Even though Brad Blog reports:
We've now had a chance to review the unreleased report [PDF] in full. It's just twelve pages. But it slams the notion that there is any massive problem in America with "Voter Fraud", despite American Citizens for Votimg Right's (ACVR) continuing campaign to suggest the problem is an epidemic — versus all of the many other forms of disenfranchisement that really do occur and really do threaten our democracy.

"There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud," the report explains, "or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, noncitizens voting and felon voters."
The report singles out ACVR as the only named proponent of the discredited notion that voter fraud is plaguing the country — ACVR is ignominously named as dissenting three times in the report! — so it is little wonder they didn't want this report to see the light of day.

ACVR's main perpetrator and Democracy-Hater-in-Chief, Mark F. "Thor" Hearne II, was actually a part of the "working group" assembled for this report. Notably, Hearne failed yet again to mention that he was the National General Counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. in his bio at the end of the report.

Similarly, Hearne withheld that information in his testimony on behalf of ACVR during now-disgraced Rep. Bob Ney's U.S. House Adminstration Committee hearing in March of 2005. ACVR was the only "Voting Rights" group invited to discuss the travesties of Election 2004. He testified only that he was a "longtime advocate of voter rights" and must have just forgotten to mention his Bush/Cheney connections…or that the ACVR had been formed just three business days prior to the hearing!
Arizona SOS brewer has no issues on which to win EXCEPT her unquestioning Republican rubber-stamp ideological compliance. Now she can tell her misinformed white nationalist supporters:
AZ Secretary of State - Press Release: "Sec. of State Brewer Gets ID at Polls Reinstated Voters Prevail in Having ID at Polls and Proof of Citizenship Upheld

PHOENIX -- The United States Supreme Court today supported Secretary of State Brewer’s emergency appeal to uphold Arizona’s identification at the polls and proof of citizenship provisions for this coming November 7th general election. The court decision was a big victory for Secretary of State Brewer, as the ruling specifically vacated the recent decision by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to suspend the Arizona voting requirements pending further litigation."

Thursday, October 19, 2006

GOP Democratic Voter Suppression Begins

For all those who can't understand what ballot suppression looks like--this is an example. My winger friends--this is voter suppression. Like endorsing candidates from a religious pulpit--this is illegal. Don't worry though, when Nancy Pelosi is Speaker, the roots (i.e. backers) of this unAmerican behavior will be exposed--and destroyed. I can hear a collective sigh of relief already...
BREITBART.COM - AG: Voter Warning Linked to GOP Campaign: "State investigators have linked a Republican campaign to letters sent to thousands of Southern California Hispanics warning them they could go to jail or be deported if they vote next month, a spokesman for the attorney general said.

'We have identified where we believe the mailing list was obtained,' said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

He declined to identify the specific Republican campaign Wednesday, citing the ongoing investigation. The Los Angeles Times and The Orange County Register both reported Thursday that the investigation appeared to be focused on the campaign of Tan D. Nguyen, a Republican challenger to Democratic U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez.

The letter, written in Spanish, tells recipients: 'You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.'

In fact, immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens can vote.

Complaints about the letters this week prompted state and federal investigations, and Barankin said investigators had been questioning people in Orange County."

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Government Doubts Threat on NFL Stadiums

Sean Hannity is right now--at this moment--warning his listeners that this "threat" is REAL--evidence of what will happen if Republicans dare stay home and let Democrats be elected to the House.

Get ready for about a half-dozen of these wolf cries in the upcoming weeks. As a matter of fact, let's tempt Rove fate, let's bet on whether one of these WARNINGS actually bears out as an evidenced attack. Then maybe we can finally get our confidence back in the administration. Whatever you do though, don't start stocking water unless you are among the elite Republicans making dough off that "strong economy" which is only market and dividend related--not real wage--and have a pool you need to fill after elections...
ABC News: Government Doubts Threat on NFL Stadiums: "Government Doubts Threat on NFL Stadiums"

WASHINGTON Oct 18, 2006 (AP)— A Web site is claiming that seven NFL football stadiums will be hit with radiological dirty bombs this weekend, but the government on Wednesday expressed doubts about the threat.

The warning, posted Oct. 12, was part of an ongoing Internet conversation titled "New Attack on America Be Afraid." It mentioned NFL stadiums in New York, Miami, Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, Oakland and Cleveland, where games are scheduled for this weekend.

Today, Good Morning America Let Bush Kiss America Good Night

Good Morning America provided detention bill supporters' arguments, ignored opposition: "Today, Good Morning America provided detention bill supporters' arguments, ignored opposition:
Summary: In their coverage of President Bush's signing later that morning of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell reported that 'there has been plenty of controversy' surrounding the bill but did not elaborate on what that controversy might be, while ABC News' Kate Snow did not mention that there is opposition to the bill, much less any of the reasons for that opposition.
In their coverage of President Bush's signing later that morning of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, both NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America adopted or reported the arguments of the legislation's supporters, but provided no substantive coverage of the bill's opponents or their specific reasons for opposing the bill. Wholly absent from their coverage was any mention of the bill's most controversial provision, which, as Media Matters for America has noted, effectively grants the president the authority to detain any non-citizen in the United States or outside its borders, for any reason, and for as long as the campaign against terrorism continues. Also, as Media Matters has noted, several Senate Democrats stressed this provision in their denunciations of the bill. Moreover, as Media Matters has further noted, Bush has asserted the same authority with respect to U.S. citizens, a claim that the bill leaves unaddressed."
As Media Matters has noted, many Democrats strongly objected to this part of the legislation, with 48 senators -- including three Republicans -- voting to remove the habeas-stripping section of the bill.

In addition, Snow described the bill in a way that ignores the bill's broad scope, saying that the legislation "sets the rules for interrogating and trying top terror suspects." But the law does not limit the use of those interrogation procedures to "top terror suspects" but purports to allow their use on anyone -- citizen or non-citizen -- who the government claims is a "terrorism suspect." If, during their "tough" interrogation, a "suspect" happens to confirm what the government suspected about them, then the government can bring them before its review board. If not, the statute does not contain a deadline for the government to bring terrorism suspects before a review board, and, at least for non-citizens, purports to eliminate their right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeas corpus.
Since no one bothered to stop Bush from making himself a Hitler (which I now may, without hesitation, claim him to be) we will have to do the job ourselves, and rightly so. This is how we start:
  • Presume your ballot for the election of people to replace those in Congress who had neither the grit nor the patriotism to stop this megalomaniac sooner, will be in jeopardy. Why? No Party allows a man to go this far without having plans in place to allow him, to use this power.Your votes are going to be tampered with. Your access to voting in key positions throughout the country will be barred. Every attempt by Bush supporting partisans in control of key voting areas will be areas of potential tampering.
  • PROTECT YOUR OWN VOTE, by protecting your ballot. Starting with your own registration. If every citizen who wants to vote understands how the voting process works in his or her precinct, county and state--and can mentally walk through that process from registration to the final vote count and tally--he or she has begun the process of their own ballot protection. Then go one step further.
  • On election day, know how to interpret the behaviors you see--how poll workers are doing their jobs--and know what it means if you see bags or boxes of ballots changing hands--any and all activities around YOUR BALLOT--and if something looks 'wrong' know who to call and what to do. And do that immediately.
Your first step for restoring America, for restoring your right to confront and have an accuser who detains you present evidence of the crime you have committed (habeas corpus protections) and therefore your free speech right to learn about, talk about and criticize the government of this country without fear of unlawful imprisonment, is electing a partisan, obstructive Democratic Congress. Yes, a cantankerous body that will immediately put the brakes on the rubber-stamp traitors (those who put Republican dominion above their sworn obligation to protect and defend the Constitution) out of business.

Oh, and I say that now, since Republicans have taught Democrats just how uncivilized and partisan a party can be in the name of ideologues, so-called Christians and fascists--we use that same uncivilized lock-step power to push through the work of The People--now that's a vision.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Air America and Nova M Radio

It's true, being a host on AAR affiliate KPHX put me in a pretty fine position to watch the goings-on around the AAR rumors. I did know "stuff", and I kept it all to myself. Why? My loyalties are first to my values and my values tell me that when I am directed to keep a secret, well, I do--especially one the details of which were developing on a near-daily basis. And there will be more changes to come. And yes, I'll be keeping the insider info I know about those to myself as well. However this is one thing I can say and you can take to heart: wherever there's a Nova M radio station, there will be liberal radio!!

Congratulations Mike Newcomb. You've earned it!
Nova M Radio - About Us: "Air America's Future By Sheldon Drobny (Link) The rumors are true. We did offer to fund AAR and prevent this from happening. We believed that the company was very well positioned to be successful with a change in management and fundamental changes to the operation of the company. Despite our weeks of negotiations and hard work, the board chaired by Rob Glaser who is also the CEO and Chairman of RealNetworks, Inc. (RNWK:Nasdaq) and their attorney Tracy Klestadt advised the board to file a bankruptcy petition. As founders and investors in the company, we have a significant interest in the future of AAR and will do everything possible to protect our investment in the company and its operations. We continue to support liberal talk radio with or operation of Nova M Radio, Inc. that is managing AAR affiliates in Phoenix and Little Rock. We plan to continue our efforts to make liberal talk radio a success. Stay tuned."

Who is Regnery and Why Are Its Editors So Blood-Thirsty?

If you wonder why the line between left and right in this country is hard it is because of diamond crushing pressures like this; a publisher, backed by ideologues fueling war-mongering nationalism. When will it be time to get to the bottom of Regnery? When will it be time to boycott all the products and the businesses its owners fuel? When will good reasoning liberals stop letting paranoid seperatists like Regnery and Mark Steyn (is that a clone writer for David Horowitz?) drive us down. Why is their agenda so bloodthirsty? Why do they see hate where others are clearly showing fear and the need for understanding? Why do they want to kill, breed and dominate? Are they just neanderthals after all?

Liberals ran the world for decades--nationally and internationally--and for the wars we entered and even those we rightly conceded (Vietnam)--there was never the global explosion of hate and fear against the United States as has ensued since Neocon empirists have taken hold with Reagan. We used to make peace where there was conflict that could hold at least until the world and resources evolved to a point of possible change. We held uneasy truces and demagogues continued to pop up here and there--isolated (like Saddam) and rare (like Amin)--unable to connect with the basic resource of terrorism--unmitigated poverty. Now? Globablism has driven more populations into grinding poverty. Failed Mid-East talks intentionally abandoned by a neocon-driven foreign policy have driven desperate Arabs further into deeper desperation, especially in the hottest spot of all--Palestine. The threat of terrorism is spreading like a brush fire. And what is the nationalists' response?

Burn baby, burn:
America is hated for every reason.

Fanatical Muslims say we are too decadent. Secular Europeans think we are Bible-thumping rednecks. Anti-Semites hate us for supporting Israel. Too Jewish, too Christian, too godless... whatever you're against, America is the prime example of it.

So says conservative columnist Mark Steyn in his first and eagerly awaited new book, America Alone.

With disarming wit and startling clarity, Steyn shows how the world is irrevocably changing and how America must get serious and fight, or be consumed.

As Steyn puts it, "the future belongs to the fertile and the confident." And the Islamists are both, while the West—wedded to a multiculturalism that undercuts its own confidence, a welfare state that nudges it toward sloth and self-indulgence, and a childlessness that consigns it to oblivion—is looking ever more like the ruins of a civilization.

But Steyn also shows why the future, if the West has one, belongs to America alone.

America Alone will change the way you look at the world. It is sure to be the most talked-about book of the year.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Coming to a County Near You: Habeas Vote Nullification

Warning from a favorite informed Democracy Activist friend of mine:
Reflections on Dorothy Fadiman's "Stealing America, Vote By Vote": "Well, on June 6, 2006, or 6-6-6, the mark of the beast visited our democratic elections. Not only did we have the dreaded but expected secret vote counting, but in a very close election with recount requests and election contests on the way, the Speaker of the House chose to swear in Brian Bilbray as the Congressman from the 50th! This was a selection, not an election. They actually filed a motion saying no court or anyone else even had power to look into the election now that the speaker had essentially indicated his preference of candidate. We called this what it is: ELECTION NULLIFICATION AND ELECTION TERMINATION.

They claimed article I section 5 of the constitution providing that congress shall judge the qualifications of its members, means that Congress can ignore the state's role to implement and supervise both counts and recounts, as expressly provided in the paragraph immediately before section 5, in article I section 4. Prior to the election, everyone expected that the state would do the count and the recount. If you recall the arguments made by Republicans in Florida 2000, they screamed at the top of their lungs the mostly misleading claim that rules were being made up after the fact for the election, which was illegal. Here, they had no problem changing all the rules of recounts including whether one could even be had, and destroying citizen rights generally. "
IF they will do this kind of stuff way out in the open, intentionally, and without remorse or regret, might Dorothy Fadiman's film, which concerns the limited but compelling evidence of what is happening under conditions of secret electronic vote counting, be RIGHT ON THE MONEY? Might they do MUCH MORE with the benefit of secrecy to protect them than they did in open court in San Diego's 50th?

We've appealed to the 4th Division of California's court of appeals but I make a further appeal to all of you: Do not think for a moment that things as popular as freedom and democracy will stay without a struggle. One person's freedom is another's irresponsible act, and another person's democratic decision was the ill-informed decision of people who watched too many misleading political ads. In short, freedom and democracy are always under attack by PEOPLE WHO HAVE BETTER IDEAS and are therefore willing to enforce them.

At 9:15 a.m. on Tuesday October 17, 2006 President Bush will sign the Military Commissions Act of 2006, providing for military courts where citizens rights to ask why they are being held in jail and whether that detention is legal or not are ELIMINATED. This is called the elimination of habeas corpus, around in some form as a limit on the power of the kind since the Magna Carta in 1215. Fighting terrorism is a better idea than freedom, folks. The bill will also legalize many forms of torture, but since it also authorizes the President to interpret all international law, it is already apparent that the President intends no limits be put on his Administration in these areas. Even the most conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the case of Hamdan which the Military commissions act tries to reverse, that "the very core of liberty under our Anglo Saxon system of laws is the right to be free from the fear of indefinite detention at the will of the Executive." Habeas corpus is the writ that protects this principle. On Tuesday October 17, 2006 at 915 a.m. PST the very core of liberty comes to an end. There is no such thing as partly free.
Do you not find it odd, that tomorrow at 6 AM, the Constitution will be "executed" and the United States of America taken by a coup without a single defending shot? Is it true, that you get the democracy you deserve--and this is what you deserve--the end of it?

Why Would Anyone Want to Limit the Internet?

"Unclassified Media Project #2"

Sunday, October 15, 2006

"Emergency Paper Ballots" Will Sink Dems in November

From a man who knows his election reform stuff election integrity attorney Paul Lehto--opposition to the call for Emergency Paper Ballots!
"Emergency Paper Ballots" will sink Dems in Nov (& I'm a paper ballot guy): "I'm against emergency paper ballots and am starting to say so in various writings. Ironically, emergency paper ballots will greatly help to snatch Democratic defeat from the jaws of Democratic victory.

On the other hand, if you're one of my Republican friends you will like these emergency paper ballots.

And indeed, my favorite top political operative for Republicans in the Republican California Secretary of STate's office is indeed highly in favor of emergency paper ballots: Susan Lapsley."

Saturday, October 14, 2006

American Cold-War-Mongering Continues

Very interesing--read the whole piece.

Wingers, this is for people who value creating a peaceful world in which America is an equal partner, not a dominating behoumouth. You might want to skip this:
Walter C. Uhler.com--Blaming Others First: Warmongering and the "Pseudo-environment" of Warped American Exceptionalism: "For example, just two days ago, New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman suggested that the apparent nuclear test by North Korea might mark the end of the post-cold war international order. 'The Berlin Wall fell on 11/9 - Nov. 9, 1989, which ushered in the post-cold-war world. The apparent North Korean nuclear test went up on Oct. 9, 2006, which may have ushered out the post-cold-war world and ushered in a more problematic era - the post-post-cold-war world.' Thus, 'one day historians may argue that the post-cold-war started on 11/9 and ended on 10/9.' [NYT, Oct. 11, 2006]

Might mark the end of the post-cold-war era? Yes, according to Friedman, 'unless China and Russia get their act together.' Wow! First of all, Friedman ignores the gigantic historical elephant in the room - the fact that the United States first developed the atomic bomb, was the only country ever to drop it on another country, the only country to threaten its use on other nations dozens of times, while remaining to this day the state-of-the-art innovator of new uses (bunker busters) in order to continue to threaten or use such dreadful weapons.

But, rather than cite '10/9' as the end of an era, and then blame China and Russia for not persuading North Korea and Iran to end their nuclear programs, why not cite '3/19' for exacerbating the proliferation problems facing the world today? 3/19 is, of course, March 19, 2003, the fateful day the United States launched its illegal, immoral preventive war against Iraq."
Hat tip: Buzzflash.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Six Years of National Security Failure

Great piece from American Progress (fully linked at article):
Yesterday, North Korea sent off a global panic when it announced it had successfully tested its first nuclear weapon. China, one of North Korea's closest supporters, called the test a "flagrant and brazen" violation of international opinion. President Bush reported that he had spoken with leaders from China, Russia, South Korea, and Japan, all of whom had agreed that the North Koreans' actions are "unacceptable and deserve an immediate response." This irresponsible act should not have come as a surprise. Intelligence released last week pointed to a likely nuclear test and in July, North Korea defied the international community and test-fired seven ballistic missiles. North Korea's rapid nuclear build-up can be traced back to the beginning of the Bush administration, when President Bush abandoned successful diplomatic initiatives put in place by the Clinton administration and ramped up the hard-line rhetoric.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Is The "October Surprise" An Attack by IRAN?

On October 1, I interviewed investgative journalist Larissa Alexendrovna regarding the neoconservative drive to dominate the Middle East. Specializing in national security, Larisssa stated her knowledge that an aircraft carrier had been cleared for movement into the Persian Gulf. So, here we are:
War in Iran 'probable': "Chris Hedges, former Middle East bureau chief for the Times (and a man of understated but firm faith) responds to the news that the aircraft carrier Eisenhower has been deployed to the Persian Gulf:

The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

War with Iran—a war that would unleash an apocalyptic scenario in the Middle East—is probable by the end of the Bush administration. It could begin in as little as three weeks.

Meanwhile, over at Motherjones.com, Laura Rozen profiles the Iranian Chalabi. In case you've been quarantined for half a decade, Ahmed Chalabi was the disingenuous criminal on the pentagon payroll, advising high-level administration officials -- and certain NY Times reporters -- on the 'real' situation in Iraq. You know, the one that required an invasion."
I also know that there are theories abounding that an October surprise involving a 9/11-style attack on "American soil" may be needed to reinvigorate the Republican base. I can easily believe certain radical administration-linked parties would be willing to sacrifice 5,000 or so Americans to "secure the peace"--in other words--continue Republican party domination.

Such parties, convinced "mistakes" in Iraq and Afghanistan are just part of the learning curve, are compelled to prove out their Utopian theory of world peace via American hegemony. Their own proponents, most notably Michael Ledeen, have stated that several "wins" in the Middle East and the subduing of Iran and Syria are necessary to that "proof".

Given the current scandal-driven meltdown of the Republican party, creating a 9/11 disaster as an election ploy may be the only "surprise" this adminsitration's cohorts have left.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Conspiracy of Silence - US Politicians Pedophile Ring

Think that cover-ups of government abuse involving children is new? Think again...

Friday, October 06, 2006

Arizona Voter Suppression Prop 200 Suspended

Voter-ID rules suspended for Nov. election: "Arizonans won't have to prove citizenship to register to vote or show identification at the polls in November, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the controversial new voting requirements passed in 2004 as part of Proposition 200.

Opponents argued the provisions were unconstitutional, amounting to a poll tax that could keep legal voters from casting ballots. "
UPDATE (10-07-2006)
Voter Registration during Prop 200 Injunction

Although the Prop 200 ID requirements for Voter Registration, and Polling Place Voting were enjoined by the 9th Circuit Court of appeals, there doubtless will be counter-injunctions and appeals, ending up in the US Supreme Court some time in the future.

Although technically, voter registration could proceed without proof of citizenship until a court orders otherwise, it's possible that the Prop 200 requirement will be reinstated later, and registrations made without proof might be subject to challenge. Although a voter registered without ID while Prop 200 was enjoined might prevail in court, we're recommending that voter registration proceed WITH proof of citizenship - as if Prop 200 were still in effect - thereby avoiding future hassle. Since we don't know what the final result will be, and since voter registration for Nov. 7 ends on Monday, Oct. 9 anyway, why not?

Also, until a court orders otherwise, ID will not be required at the polls. Since there's a chance that a court will do so, we also recommend that voters be advised to be prepared to show ID, just in case.

We ask all campaigns - coordinated, candidate, and ballot initiative - to pass this info along to voters.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Hastert Blames Media, Soros, Clinton

I'm warning my political friends not to get too giddy over this Foley scandal. There is NO WAY Karl Rove and his operatives are not turning over every seedy political connection he has ever known. Looking for the tactics to turn this apparent Republican disaster into a Republican triumph, Rove will invent a perfect storm of whispers, innuendo and smears designed to ensure any defense by the target will only twist him or her deeper into the damage Rove intends to wreck. The following story shows some evidence of sprouting along those evil lines already:
Hastert Blames Media, Soros, Clinton: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert, fighting for his political survival, is lashing out at the news media, George Soros and even associates of former President Clinton.

...Hastert suggested there may be a backlash when Republicans learn how the Foley story came to dominate the news cycle. 'When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy,'' Hastert told the Chicago Tribune of the firestorm over Mark Foley's contacts with House pages. 'The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Demoratic operatives, people funded by George Soros,'' Hastert says in the interview published this morning.

It was ABC news who confronted Foley with e-mails last Friday which led to his immediate resigation. Soros has contributed money to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which turned over some Foley e-mails to the FBI this summer. As for Clinton, the Tribune writes that Hastert suggested that 'operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof.'' 'All I know is what I hear and what I see,'' Hastert told the Tribune. 'I saw Bill Clinton's adviser Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along. If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then.''
but maybe this is the good news:
However The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported today that ABC's original source for the Foley story was a Republican House aide, who has been a registered Republican since he was able to vote."
UPDATE (10-06-06) Hmmmmmm...as I was saying...

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

"Foley Syndrome" Spreads

Foley Syndrome: legislating governing while drunk on power.

Friends Don't Let Friends Legislate Drunk!

The Republican solution to sex education in schools--sex education in Congress:
Conservative News and Community: "This last statement is troubling in its own right, as, according to ABC news, Foley “had internet sex while awaiting…a vote on the floor of the House” in 2003. If this and Tuesday’s statement are both true, then the six-term Congressman was “under the influence of alcohol” while voting on legislation in the US House of Representatives – an offense which should be punished every bit as severely as his other, more public transgressions."

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Foley Scandal: Sexual Equivalent of Missing the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" PDB

Kondracke: Foley scandal "the sexual equivalent of cash in your freezer": "On Special Report, Morton Kondracke stated that the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley is 'the sexual equivalent of cash in your freezer,' referring to bribery allegations against Rep. William Jefferson. "
First, the Republican need to find a Democratic equivalent to the latest in a never-ending string of corruption scandals is understandable, except that the comparison is supposed to suggest that it is an equivalent "no-brainer" in terms of evidence.

However, it is not the "sexual equivalent of cash in your freezer." It is the sexual equivalent of missing the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" PDB and then for five years distracting Americans by shooting at the wrong target--other Americans, specifically--liberal Americans.

It is how these Gingrich/Rove/neocon Republicans win elections, keep their majority and operate while in power--through deceit, chronyism and corruption--had enough yet?

Condi Rice's Split Personality Disorder

Jeez, the neocons need to help their flock keep their excuses straight:
"First of all, I don't know that this meeting took place, but what I really don't know, what I'm quite certain of, is that it was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack and I refused to respond."
-- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 10/1/06, denying she met with CIA officials George Tenet and Cofer Black on July 10, 2001 to discuss an impending attack on the U.S. homeland


"The State Department confirmed that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet about the threat posed by al-Qaeda two months before the Sept. 11 attacks."
-- Bloomberg, 10/2/06
Hat tip -- Think Progress

The Truth About Joe

The Truth About Joe: "Late last week, Sen. Joe Lieberman proudly unveiled a national group called “Dems for Joe,” landing a story in Roll Call newspaper to trumpet his supposedly broad-based support by Democrats. Yet, a closer look at who is in this group shows that many of its principals are, in fact, major corporate lobbyists with a vested financial interest in keeping Lieberman in Washington. As you may recall, Lieberman is still holding regular fundraisers with these lobbyists in Washington, and his D.C. financial operation is being headed up by Michael Lewan – the same Michael Lewan who was Lieberman’s chief of staff, and the same Michael Lewan who was the Enron lobbyist that repeatedly met with Lieberman’s office during the Enron investigation Lieberman helped slow down. Lewan was the one who explained to the Hartford Courant why Lieberman is getting so much support from corrupt interests in Washington. “The Washington lawyers and lobbyists in those rooms will come back for Joe Lieberman,” he said. “Who knows what Lamont would be like?”

Lieberman’s press release celebrating the formation of “Dems for Joe” lists John Breaux, Dennis DeConcini, Mel Levine, Norman D’Armours, Steve Elmendorf, Tony Podesta and Buddy Darden as major founding members. Each of these men is a major Washington lobbyist who stands to financially gain from having a reliable ally like Lieberman keep his job. In all, roughly 40 percent of the former elected officials Lieberman cites in his “Dems for Joe” group are Washington lobbyists. Here is a look at some of the key lobbyists who make up “Dems for Joe”:"