The Republican talk radio “big lie”
It has always been known that more people will believe a lie, the bigger the lie is and the more often the lie is repeated. Talk radio as defined by the Republican Right mindset is completely based on lies. The entire way Republican Right talk show hosts present political events and issues are based on lies designed to deceive their listeners instead of educating them.
The Republican Right dominates talk radio entirely by using business pressure to keep Democrats, environmentalists, labor leaders, progressives and independent thinkers off the air. Arnie Arnesen in New Hampshire and Guy James in Florida are two of the most recent examples of Republican using business pressure to censor Democratic talk show programs. This writer will write more columns soon giving details on Arnie Arnesen and Guy James among other talkers forced off the air by what should be illegal actions by Republican businesses.
The Republican Right dominates talk radio entirely by using business pressure to keep Democrats, environmentalists, labor leaders, progressives and independent thinkers off the air. Arnie Arnesen in New Hampshire and Guy James in Florida are two of the most recent examples of Republican using business pressure to censor Democratic talk show programs. This writer will write more columns soon giving details on Arnie Arnesen and Guy James among other talkers forced off the air by what should be illegal actions by Republican businesses.
Pogo was right
Paul Hackett and Senator Russ Feingold did the unthinkable this last week,
they dared to say what is true, something that is horribly unfashionable
these days. In doing so, they laid bare some ugly truths about the
Democratic Party.
In his announcement that he was dropping out of the Ohio Senatorial race, Hackett minced no words in explaining the pressure that was brought to bear by the party powerful, who somehow felt that it was theirs to decide who could run and whose voices should be heard. Their omnipotent power play wasn’t about who could win in November, it was about the powers that be pooping in their pants at the prospect of new blood that might not kiss their asses. After all, if newcomers are allowed to step up and speak the truth, there is a serious danger that the party faithful might finally figure out that a bunch of butt-naked old donkeys are running the show.
In his announcement that he was dropping out of the Ohio Senatorial race, Hackett minced no words in explaining the pressure that was brought to bear by the party powerful, who somehow felt that it was theirs to decide who could run and whose voices should be heard. Their omnipotent power play wasn’t about who could win in November, it was about the powers that be pooping in their pants at the prospect of new blood that might not kiss their asses. After all, if newcomers are allowed to step up and speak the truth, there is a serious danger that the party faithful might finally figure out that a bunch of butt-naked old donkeys are running the show.
Founding Fathers, baseball, apple pie, and impeachment
Remarks prepared for February 18th pro-impeachment rally in colonial dress in Charlottesville, Va., home of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, and near the home of James Madison.
Impeachment has been part of American culture longer than baseball or apple pie. Only Mom has been around longer than impeachment.
The Scottish take pride in having invented impeachment. The British got it from them, and we got it from the British. Impeachment is in the US Constitution, and was further developed by Thomas Jefferson in the manual of procedural rules that he wrote for the Congress.
The Constitution mentions impeachment six times. It makes clear that impeachment is a power the legislature has over the executive and judicial branches of government. And this power is not an afterthought. It is central to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution created, and which the current administration is well on its way to destroying.
Impeachment has been part of American culture longer than baseball or apple pie. Only Mom has been around longer than impeachment.
The Scottish take pride in having invented impeachment. The British got it from them, and we got it from the British. Impeachment is in the US Constitution, and was further developed by Thomas Jefferson in the manual of procedural rules that he wrote for the Congress.
The Constitution mentions impeachment six times. It makes clear that impeachment is a power the legislature has over the executive and judicial branches of government. And this power is not an afterthought. It is central to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution created, and which the current administration is well on its way to destroying.
DINO stands for "Democrats In Name Only"
The reason our republic is in crisis is not that we have a ruthless, criminal administration in power; it is not that the press is controlled by self-serving corporations; it is not because rampant bribery has overtaken the Congressional agenda; and even the massive program by Republicans to subvert democracy is inadequate explanation for the crisis. The reason our republic is in crisis is that we have no opposition party.
Why have the Democrats lost their voice at this crucial moment? Why are they doing so little to retake their position at the helm? I have begun to suspect that there is more going on here than incompetence or cowardice or disorganization. Perhaps the Democratic party has been infiltrated.
Why have the Democrats lost their voice at this crucial moment? Why are they doing so little to retake their position at the helm? I have begun to suspect that there is more going on here than incompetence or cowardice or disorganization. Perhaps the Democratic party has been infiltrated.
Impeachment could be the Democrats' best get-out-the-vote message
In the 2004 election, Karl Rove masterfully used gay marriage as the catalyst to drive normally apathetic voters to the polls and achieve historic turnout. It worked. Republicans of all ages, shapes and sizes who couldn't care less about manufactured WMD intelligence, record deficits and gas/oil prices, CIA leaks and warrantless wiretappings raced to polling places across America just to keep homosexuals from tying the knot.
Well, the Democrats have an even better weapon this year: impeachment. If they're smart, they'll make it the linchpin turnout strategy and the single biggest motivator for liberal voters. To be sure, it'll be hard for individual candidates to make this message the cornerstone of their campaigns. They'll need to run on more than that if they want to be taken seriously. But the impeachment issue could be our Swift Boat weapon. Organizations like MoveOn.org, as well as individuals like billionaire George Soros who heavily back such groups, should pull out all stops and launch a massive campaign. I can hear the 30-second spot now:
Well, the Democrats have an even better weapon this year: impeachment. If they're smart, they'll make it the linchpin turnout strategy and the single biggest motivator for liberal voters. To be sure, it'll be hard for individual candidates to make this message the cornerstone of their campaigns. They'll need to run on more than that if they want to be taken seriously. But the impeachment issue could be our Swift Boat weapon. Organizations like MoveOn.org, as well as individuals like billionaire George Soros who heavily back such groups, should pull out all stops and launch a massive campaign. I can hear the 30-second spot now:
Guns don't shoot people--Vice Presidents do
Of course, many of you may already know I've never been the Vice President's biggest fan. I've often confused him with Lon Cheney, and yes, I've had him in my sights before
er, so to speak. But I find it unconscionable that the left wing punditocracy is having such unearned fun over Cheney's unfortunate hunting accident. I mean who is the victim here? The Vice President, who was deprived of the chance to become a marksman through proper training in Vietnam just because he had other priorities? Or some wealthy Texan (a conservative and a lawyer-—hello!) who had the bad sense to go on a hunting trip with ol' Duck! Cheney.
For whom does the Secret Service's bell toll?
Lost amid the sardonic humor of late-night TV comics and the metaphors of editorial critics of the Cheney-Whittington hunting accident is the role of Secret Service agents who accompanied Vice President Cheney to the Armstrong ranch. On the surface at least, their conduct was anything but accidental…and anything but appropriate.
Either of his own volition or on instructions from Mr. Cheney, a Secret Service man notified the local sheriff immediately after the accident. But when a sheriff’s deputy arrived at the ranch to investigate, he was barred from speaking to the vice president. It wasn’t until the next morning that Mr. Cheney spoke with any law enforcement officer. Meanwhile, President Bush, Andrew Card, and Karl Rove had all been notified that an accident had occurred and that Vice President Cheney had fired the shotgun and injured Mr. Whittington. Without having spoken to Mr. Cheney, the sheriff’s office nonetheless announced that no liquor had been involved and that it was an accident. Case closed.
Either of his own volition or on instructions from Mr. Cheney, a Secret Service man notified the local sheriff immediately after the accident. But when a sheriff’s deputy arrived at the ranch to investigate, he was barred from speaking to the vice president. It wasn’t until the next morning that Mr. Cheney spoke with any law enforcement officer. Meanwhile, President Bush, Andrew Card, and Karl Rove had all been notified that an accident had occurred and that Vice President Cheney had fired the shotgun and injured Mr. Whittington. Without having spoken to Mr. Cheney, the sheriff’s office nonetheless announced that no liquor had been involved and that it was an accident. Case closed.
Bush, Republicans, and Judas Priest: Breaking the law, breaking the law
Whenever Bush or a Republican member of either the House or Senate
appears before cameras, the chorus from an old Judas Priest tune starts
running through my head:
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
It doesn't matter what the topic is, the American people know that if Bush and Republicans are publicly discussing an issue, it is because they have or are, somehow, breaking the law. In matters large-n-small, Republicans have implemented a strategy of breaking the law, breaking the law.
1. Illegally imprisoning US citizens without a trial
2. DOD and FBI spying on Quakers and vegans
3. Torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib
4. Torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
5. Misrepresenting intelligence in order to go to war
6. Illegally outing a CIA agent (Plame) while working on Iran's nuke program
7. Trying to cover up their Katrina-related incompetence
8. Bribing the Abramoff prosecutor with a judgeship so that he leaves the case
9. Illegally funneling money (laundering) to Texas elections, i.e., DeLay
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
Breaking the law, breaking the law
It doesn't matter what the topic is, the American people know that if Bush and Republicans are publicly discussing an issue, it is because they have or are, somehow, breaking the law. In matters large-n-small, Republicans have implemented a strategy of breaking the law, breaking the law.
1. Illegally imprisoning US citizens without a trial
2. DOD and FBI spying on Quakers and vegans
3. Torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib
4. Torturing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay
5. Misrepresenting intelligence in order to go to war
6. Illegally outing a CIA agent (Plame) while working on Iran's nuke program
7. Trying to cover up their Katrina-related incompetence
8. Bribing the Abramoff prosecutor with a judgeship so that he leaves the case
9. Illegally funneling money (laundering) to Texas elections, i.e., DeLay
The Iran crisis -- “Diplomacy” as a launch pad for missiles
The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be
groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.
Illusion #1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what’s on the horizon is not an invasion -- it’s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion #2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home -- for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs -- that it wouldn’t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 3, “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.
Illusion #1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what’s on the horizon is not an invasion -- it’s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion #2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home -- for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs -- that it wouldn’t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 3, “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
A "100 percent certainty": the FBI and the myth of fingerprints
Few law enforcement institutions have been so thoroughly discredited in recent years as the FBI's forensic laboratory. In 1997, the Bureau's inspector general (IG) at the time issued a devastating report, stigmatizing one instance after another of mishandled and contaminated evidence, inept technicians, and outright fabrication. The IG concluded that there were "serious and credible allegations of incompetence" and perjured courtroom testimony.
My view is that taken as a whole, forensic evidence as used by prosecutors is inherently untrustworthy. Of course the apex forensic hero of prosecutors, long promoted as the bottom line in reliability -- at least until the arrival of DNA matching -- has been the fingerprint.
My view is that taken as a whole, forensic evidence as used by prosecutors is inherently untrustworthy. Of course the apex forensic hero of prosecutors, long promoted as the bottom line in reliability -- at least until the arrival of DNA matching -- has been the fingerprint.