Joel Skousen appears to me to be a real “conservative” that understands and explains how the Globalists have been able to manipulate and take over such movements like the Tea Party.
I don’t agree with him 100% (but I am not easily shoehorned into any “side” or philosophy). Some call me liberal, some call my conservative. But I am simply someone who seeks truth and I fall into both “sides” depending upon the subject matter.
I think that you, too, will enjoy this as much as I have. He has more faith in Glenn Beck than I do, and he may be right that Glen is learning, but is afraid to totally jump on the bandwagon in the way Rush or Shawn has. Personally, I put Glen into the level 4 listed below (a useful idiot playing his part in the theater).
To me (and this man gets into this a bit), those who will not look into the conspiracies and suggest those that do are nutcases (Rush, Shawn, and Bill O’Reilley) are not being real and have some other agenda.
(This can be said about the “other side”: ie, Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart and a host of others).
A few significant points:
There are various levels of control/support/acquiescence to control:
1st Level are the controllers: tell Administrations what they will and will not do/ what they say and what they won’t say. These are people like Rockefellers & Rothschilds (otherwise known as “Elitists”)
2nd level are the extreme rich who desire a NWO (people like Kissinger, Berger, Brezinsky) These folks work to instill the NWO)
3rd: Useful hired guns, hacks, shills
4th: Useful Idiots that believe there is a Control System but it is benevolent: they will not buck the system. I call them ass-kissing sycophants. Maybe not evil, but ideologically believe and tout the BS
(To name a few: Gingrich, Hannity, Clinton, W, O’Reilley)
Obviously, some of these have aspirations to move up this corrupt ladder and don’t mind selling their souls to get there.
I hope you will give me your thoughts on Skousen and my initial take on him.
It’s all about the divide and how you and I keep falling into line with it. Even those of us who see the reality of the false paradigm have long held, brain-washed ideologies that can be difficult to break. It is ingrained in us, but that doesn’t make it impossible to break.
Every President since Kennedy has been hand picked by the Trilateral Commission. As a matter of fact, every candidate on either Party that made a November election were members of the Trilateral Commission and hand-picked to be the POTUS. The Elitists within this group doesn’t give a rat’s ass who wins, for they are all owned puppets and will carry forward the agenda prescribed for them.
Kennedy was the last POTUS to not be a member of this group and see what it got him.
But the world gobbles it up. White against blackany color, Rep vs Dem, Abortionist against Right to life, Liberal vs conservative, sugar vs hugh fructose corn syrup, just name it and claim your “side”.
Fall into the divide and help keep it that way. Focus your efforts on the “side” you dislike the most, barrage the Tea Partiers with your “progressive” rage, defend the current POTUS in lieu of all the bald faced lies he said to get elected, because God knows John and the reTHUGlicans would be worse (worse than what, B’Man asks). You think Papa Walnuts (as my buddy Tengrain calls him) would “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”? You think he would have pulled the troops out of Iraq just to send them to Afghanistan? You think he would have put Big Money and Big Banking in their place? Do you REALLY believe there would be ANY damned difference, except the color of their skin?
Seriously, in your need to protect and defend your favorite “side”, can you NOT see they are playing you like a fool? Have you not the mental ability to know when you are being conned? Being played as a chump?
We MUST stop this shit. We must disallow them control over our every thought.
And it doesn’t help to keep silent… to not rock the boat. To just get along.
Complacency is as bad as participation in their circus.
We MUST stand up and as a nation of patriots (not Sheople) and take back the Republic. I am telling you that one of the fastest ways is to never vote R or D again. Of course, you cannot allow the thieves to leave R or D and gain control of any other “Party”, as the Tea Partiers are wont to do.
We can start anew, but it will take a concerted effort that is NOT impossible. IF enough people feel the real pain.
I feel it.
I have mentioned Bruce Fein here before (mainly because he was one of the very few “conservatives” that was calling out the monstrosity we call the Bush Administration). I, too, have commented many times about how true conservatism has disappeared and has been replaced with some false suggestion that is anything BUT conservative. Neoconservatism is not conservative… it is anything but.
The fact is that most of the congressional leadership and ranking file members are more “right wing” corporatists, funded and indebted to Big Money, with none actually representing what used to be known as the “Left”. Sure, the MSM talking heads still tout some imaginary divide, but truly, where is that line? It is so far right to make true lefties non-existent.
So, thank you, Bruce for being real.
An example of a real, conservative Republican with a real, progressive view:
h/t Pete at Drug War Rant
My blog is neither “right”, nor “left”; “liberal”, nor “conservative”, “Dem”, nor “Rep”. You can tell that by how I hold them all accountable and would never defend the paradigm either wants me to defend, just for defense sake. You will read me attack the so-called “liberal” blogs that are nothing more than Ass-Kissing Sycophants, just as much as the “conservative” Ass-Kissing Sycophants.
I visited (by accident) a blog called The Provocateur, who’s owner (I assume), or at least one of the bloggers there (Mike Volpe) wrote the following article (I must say well written, altho he is truly far off base in his analysis. He was kind enough to let this gruff old bear share a few words with him that didn’t get too heated, but were poignant and significant for the paradigm he is trapped in. I am tryng desperately to speak with these people (being I am from SW TN and around many of these people daily). I am a conundrum for them and was even called a “Paulian” (when perhaps “Kucinichian” is a bit more apt). I like Paul for his anti-war conservatism, but Dennis is just as anti-war as Paul is, maybe more.
Check out the dialog at the end to see how it ended up and let me know if you think it is worth the time online (for in person, things are generally easier to express face to face).
I think it’s fair to say that the Obama presidency could be viewed as a controlled experiment on the worthiness of liberalism. With a very liberal president and overwhelming Democratic majorities, America is going to get a heavy dose of liberalism until at least 2010. (unless that is the President has a moderate epiphany as I suggested) Yet, if the president continues on his current path, he will also lead an imprint for history to judge liberalism in America.
So far, that judgment is incomplete but it’s also near an incomplete failure. We first started with the stimulus. On the economy, the president famously said, “only government has the resources to jolt our economy back into life”. He went on to say, “Tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems” and so totally rejecting the conservative fiscal solution to an economic recession. Nothing could be more liberal than seeing the government as the driver of economic growth. So, he passed his $787 billion stimulus. Its results so far have been well documented. Our unemployment rate is inching toward ten percent. Our deficit is nearing two trillion dollars and we’ve only spent one tenth of it. Meanwhile, the president took over several banks, two auto companies, and an insurance company. One way or another, the outcome of all this government intervention will also be a historical judgment on liberalism as well.
In fact, though, the greatest judgment against liberalism so far has been the president’s total inability to move his agenda going forward. In fact, despite overwhelming popularity, he barely got the stimulus through. Since then, he’s been totally impotent. Things don’t look to get any better. Cap and trade barely passed the House and the Senate has no plans to take it up anytime soon. Health care reform is in even worse shape. What sort of a judgment on liberalism is it if the liberal party has veto proof majorities in both chambers and still can’t pass a liberal agenda? One might ask if liberalism can’t pass now when will it pass.
Even lesser known policies like his $75 billion loan modification plan have been colossal failures. It’s important to point out again that this judgment is still incomplete. The economy could have a stunning turnaround and by this time next year our unemployment might be in the 6′s. GM and Chrysler might both be profitable by 2012 and the government will have sold its shares by then. In light of all of this, the president will then be able to pass sweeping health care, energy, and education reform. In 2012, we’ll be a liberal nation and history’s judgment on liberalism in America will be a glowing success. It’s still early and so the judgment is incomplete.
There will also be those liberals that will claim that the Bush presidency was a failing referendum on conservatism. That is a popular and totally inaccurate argument. There are some liberals that claim the tax cuts caused the recession we are in now. That’s just ludicrous. The tax cuts were enacted in 2001-2003. The recession didn’t occur for five years. The two have nothing to do with each other. Others proclaim that deregulation caused the meltdown. Of course, it wasn’t a lack of regulation but a lack of enforcement that lead to the crisis. It isn’t a conservative policy to look the other way on mass fraud, but a bad policy. In fact, most of Bush’s biggest problems came from embracing liberal ideas, big budget deficits, bloated government programs and bailouts. In fact, history’s judgment on conservatism should already be written with the wildly successful Reagan presidency. Yet, those with an agenda attempt to cloud the issue. Our economy came out of a recession because government shrank, regulations were slashed, and taxes were cut. Yet, some cloud the issue and leave that debate open still.
Make no mistake, by November 2010, and certainly November 2012, history will be ready to judge liberalism as well. While its currently incomplete, the judgment so far is a total failure.
B: If you think Obama is a liberal, you don’t know what the word means.
mike volpe: Enlighten me, how am I wrong? What does the word mean and who was and is a liberal if not Obama?
B: He voted lockstep with Bush’s policies and McCain during the POTUS run.
It is but one party with two perceived differences, but in actuality, it is the detriment to our country.
They do and act the same… both “liberal” and “conservative”, “right” vs “left” Dem vs Repub; and only the ignorant feed from it and agree.
This isn’t rocket science, yet too many are too gullible and/or brainwashed to know the difference. Much to my chagrin and the consternation of the Founding Fathers.
mike volpe: Bush wasn’t actually acting like much of a conservative in the last six months. Obama certainly didn’t vote in lock step the whole campaign. They did in the last couple months but that’s because Bush turned into a liberal in the last few months.
Come now. Bush was never conservative, except in the “shiny little object that gathers your attention” realm. Abortion (even tho he wasn’t die hard) is one of those wedge issues they use to divide us, but that is meaningless.
Bush spent money like a drunken sailor. This is no secret. He lied to get us into wars to propagate the war profiteers and the PNAC agenda.
Mike, what I am saying is that they have their kabuki dance that many Americans fall for. But by and large it is bogus.
There is but one really socially liberal in the all of congress: Dennis Kucinich (and Bernie Sanders). There is but one truly fiscally conservative in the all of congress and that is Paul.
Most every other dance the dance. Look at their votes, especially the leaders. Every so-called “liberal” leader voted lock-step on the most prescient issues. Every Republican leader voted lock step with war funding, eliminating rights left and right.
All of this is obvious.
Follow the money and the votes.
I view myself as fiscally conservative, but look how Bush spent the money. Sure, he cut back the taxes on the wealthy and look what that got us. But he spent money on ginned up and bogus wars.
I am Socially liberal, in that I believe that each and every American should be taken care of as our own. Especially medically.
They all bow to the Corptocracy, verging on Fascism. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama. All the same, with just enough of the kabuki dance differences to keep Americans divided and fighting (thanks to the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Olberman and the like). They all play for their masters and we are too stupid to make them stop.
Obama spends money in the same fashion and look at his rhetoric regarding abortion and gay rights, etc. Telecom immunity. Patriot Act.
These are NOT liberal views, but just the portrayal of the dance.
Please stop watching the magician’s right hand, because it is the left hand that holds the secret. Americans are fixated on the sleight of hand.
Patriots will know the difference and speak to it.
Read my blog some and you will realize I cut NONE of them any slack because they are all full of malarkey.
Again, Opensecrets can show you so very much. Follow the money.
Thanks for your time…
mike volpe: Now it all makes sense. You’re a Paulian. That’s why you are so conspiratoria.
That doesn’t mean that Obama is NOT a liberal. Obama is still a iberal and frankly you proved it, you just seem to think that the rest of the government is also liberal. That’s true to some extent though not entirely. Of course, I wasn’t talk about the rest of government. I was only talking about Obama.
I am not “Paulian”, whatever you think that is. Do you deny that he is conservative? The MOST conservative in all the congress?
Look at the votes and where they get their money.
Let me explain something that you can’t seem to grasp, spending money on bogus wars does not make one “liberal”, it makes one a criminal.
War profiteering is that. A crime, and all of the past presidents, since Kennedy are guilty.
Allowing the Federal reserve to rule this country is not “liberal” or “conservative”, it is criminal.
Just as I said, you don’t know what the word means, except in the mind of Limbaugh.
I can enlighten you, but you may be too far gone.
That isn’t surprising, for it is rampant on both “sides” that fall for their show.
Enjoy the show Mike, but as for this real Patriot, I’m working to to fix things. I need your help, but not if you can’t shuck the brainwashing.
PS: If you will not delete these posts, I would love to link back to forward the discussion and to show that it is possible to have a decent conversation with a person like you. Few and far between.
OK, I tried and it shows that the ignorance runs so deep that it is likely impossible to have any meaningful discussion with such a personality:
mike volpe: By Paulian, I mean you voted for and supported Ron Paul. I am guessing you did given how cynical you are toward everyone except Paul. Yeah, Paul is a conservative except when it comes to earmarks for his district and then he’s very liberal. It’s funny how that works. He’s ideologically pure except when it comes to pork in his district and then he’s one of the most liberal folks in the Congress.
It’s easy to be ideologically pure when you’re a back bencher legislator your entire career and never lead to get a law passed. When you’re actually passing laws, you have to legislate and then it’s much more difficult. That’s the main difference between McCain and Paul. McCain actually got things done while in the Senate while Paul criticized everyone else and got nothing done. He is ideologically pure though. That’s why not a single law has his name on it.
As for war profiteering and the fed, I know the conspiracy theories. Libertarians are full of them and it’s corrosive to the philosophy.
I added a post a while back, taking from the ListVerse, a list of 10 Liberal Hypocrites. I said back then:
Now, ListVerse, time for that Con List (and right off the top of my head, that list is far more criminal and embarrassing for America).
And they didn’t let me down (although they went light on a few of their picks). The one I will highlight is a person I already called out here. But the real hypocrisy isn’t just that asshole’s calling for prosecution and imprisonment of drug offenders (just like himself), but all the right-wing ‘tards that back the hypocrite and conveniently forget the morals unless there is an attack on someone on “The Left”.
Kelso and I had a long conversation about this earlier.
#4 Rush Limbaugh
Hypocrisy: Illicit Drug Sourcing
Rush Limbaugh is the host of “The Rush Limbaugh Show”, a nationally syndicated radio program devoted to conservative issues and news of the day. On his program, Limbaugh has espoused a deep respect of law enforcement and tough penalties for drug offenders (In 1995, he said drug users “ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”) Yet on October 10, 2003, Limbaugh announced that he was addicted to prescription painkillers and would immediately check himself into a rehabilitation program. Law enforcement sources had noted that Limbaugh’s name had come up during an investigation into a black market drug ring in Palm Beach County, Florida, specializing in the illegal sale of prescription drugs OxyContin and hydrocodone. Limbaugh said he first became addicted to prescription painkillers following unsuccessful spinal surgery, but has remained clean since his 2003 treatment. Limbaugh was not incarcerated because Palm Beach does not jail drug offenders unless they’ve failed opportunities to deal with their addiction and have turned to crime to maintain their habit. Thus, benefiting from the soft position on drug crime that he hates so.
Others who made the list are: Strom Thurmond, GHWB, Nixon, Bob Barr, Ted Haggard, Robert Tilton, Mark Foley, David Cameron, and John Wayne????
Surely, “W” is far more a hypocrite than John Wayne! Remember the “Compassionate Conservative” who spent more money and increased the budget over lies and deceit, killing (compassionately, of course) what will end up being over 1 Million people. I think that “W” deserves a spot over John Freaking Wayne, any day.
Whatever. My list of CON hypocrites might include a few of these, but I can think of others far more hypocritical than John Wayne.
I would start by saying that any viewpoint of “across the aisle” plays directly in to the game. It is this two party system which has become, if it wasn’t always, corrupt. The real owner/masters are the elitists: like bankers, political power players and those that control the media. People who run lobbyist efforts that form the government agenda, even when apparently against the will of the people (CFR, PNAC, AIPAC, etc); or, worse, lie and deceive them into policies that are not just unwise as a country, but immoral. Entities like the Fed Reserve and the IMF and the bullshit council Obama just attended. All that is what is driving the agenda for America.
What should be driving the agenda for America? First and foremost, The Constitution. Secondly, the citizens. It shouldn’t be money, power and world domination.
Why would I blame Bush for the past issues? He was in the driver’s seat. But just look around. I haven’t cut Barack Obama a bit of slack. I am one of his worse critics, imo. This has nothing to do with “across the aisle”, “them or us”, “Dem or Rep”. This is simply holding those that lie to us with abandon, accountable for their lies.
I am sick of those that do not have my, or most Americans’ best interest at heart, making decisions and lying to/brainwashing my compatriots to go along. I am sick of the hypocrisy and apparent lack of attention by most Americans… or those who only take their news from the MSM of the USA. I am even sicker of those who now claim the mantle of progressiveness, when in fact, they are nothing more than water carrying sycophants for the Demorat Party. I explore that more here with kelso’s nuts help:
“Progressive Blogs” have really become nothing more than water carriers for Obama and his administration, no matter what new lie is discovered or new negation of a promise made. The C&L’s, Daily Kos and ThinkProgress seems to be much more interested in playing to the MSM (you are seeing the “left” take over the airwaves slowly but surely).
The sad part is that it is so damned obvious that many of these are simply enamored by the attention they get, the power of the TV appearance, the search for more hits on their website, drawing in more money that they would back Barack Obama’s policies and lies, no matter how atrocious. It is virtually no difference between their ilk and the ones who defend Bush. The modus operandi is the same. Protect the party, and to hell with those that disagree.
Just yesterday, C&L’s David Neiwert (a favorite of my fake progressive attack dog, Gene’O) posted a congratulatory and agreeable post to Glenn Beck. Honoring him for “debunking” the FEMA camps set up. David and the Democrats at C&L posted a similar piece a few days before and now, all the sudden, these water-carriers are best buddies with Beck because he did the same piss-poor investigation into this issue that The Elite’s mouthpiece spouted.
Damn, David (and John Amato), you must be very proud that you are on the same erroneous page that Glenn beck is on. Nice work, geniuses.
Did it ever occur to you that a real investigation would actually investigate the paper trail of the government’s outline of the programs or the fact that Halliburton was give the contracts to build these FEMA camps? Why, of course not. Methinks that these “crack investigators” learn how to use that sleuthing tool called a Google Search, perhaps. Maybe even just for jollies. Google “PDD51″ to see that we could be arguably under a form of Martial Law right now. Google Executive Order 11,000 or go here to see that they have implemented a contingency plan for mobilizing a civilian work force, can take over the electrical grid and every other utility in the nation, or any other myriad of actions that take over the country and put people in to a controlled situation. Or try “H.R. 645″ to see the outline for such “Emergency Centers” and their implementation. Maybe this paper, “Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support” may give you something to “investigate”.
In other words, these crack “investigators at C&L, the ones who give Popular Mechanics all sorts of back pats and suggestions that they are some sort of viable debunking source (why on earth this is assumed is beyond me, especially after their “debunking” of the 9/11 conspiracy… another area David and the Demorats from C&L will likely agree with the right-wing idiot now).
I have no patience for those who defend the past atrocities, most especially through their silence, like is Barack Obama’s tact. I hold him accountable now for those past atrocities and lies, because he will not honor his constitutional pledge and obligation to this great country of holding these thieving, murderous bastards accountable. But those who defend Bush now appear to me to be either party brainwashed, ignorant, or idiotic. Anyone who looks at what he allowed, even if he is a nincompoop, and not consider something horribly wrong, perhaps even downright evil may have occurred, is suspicious. I’m sorry, but that is the truth at this point.
But it isn’t just Bushies… now I see the exact same sheople-like following of Barack Obama by “the other side”. As a matter of fact, it is far worse with the Cult of Obama. People have invested themselves into a liar and now (just like the Bushies of past) are not willing to admit the mistake, much less actually scream and hold the man accountable for his lies and rhetoric that took their money and votes. I can think of no other description except “fools”. The “lesser of two evils” meme has gotten us a real Corporately owned master, but that was the plan all along, yet these “Progressive investigators” are too stupid to understand this simply issue.
Now, let me describe the moving target of my self-applied label (for my world view has changed over my lifetime):
Am I Liberal? On many issues regarding social welfare and the health of American citizens. Yep. Even “Progressive” about it.
Am I Conservative? When it comes to financial issues, especially regarding the MIC, the pork, and all the shenanigans… most especially the expansion of the American Empire. A resounding YES, I am Conservative.
But, we should not even be thinking about those wedge issues when the very heart of our Union is being torn apart by thieves and murderers (or covering up for them making them complicit). We should not be playing into their games of division and look more deeply at the issues that matter the most and then, you and I (Conservative and Liberal, whatever) can truly get shit done.
Who knows, if you strip away your “conservative” label, you may even realize that you are “liberal” in some ways.
Wouldn’t that be some shit?
This is how gullible and ignorant most us rednecks are: we don’t realize that our very own Senators are working very hard against us… because they are so stupid and short-sighted (and/or corrupt).
Is there anyone that actually voted for that fucktard, Shelby of Alabama? There must have because he was elected, but the funny thing is that I can’t seem to find anyone in my travels that will own up to voting for him.
How about that dickhead, Bob Corker, who wanted President Obama to automatically force a wage cut on American autoworkers, so wages will be more in line with the transplants Asian automakers? (Now ain’t that a hoot, rednecks. Your Senator wants to cut your wages to bring it DOWN to match the rest of the world. And you seem to be oblivious and in some cases agree wholeheartedly.)
I prospered as the automotive sector made a move from higher wages up north to the “right to work” states that have so many uneducated workers who have lived basically poor lives that it was heaven for us. But now we are seeing how this shift affects us because many of the good jobs that were shipped here because of cheap labor have now all gone overseas, leaving us dumbass rednecks poor and stupid. Why? Cheaper labor (and in some cases, slave labor).
When will we act as if we have just a little bit of sense and cull these absurd fools out? When will you ignorant and complicit rednecks realize the royal f#cking you are getting from your own redneck leadership?
I have nothing to lose (its already gone), but you might. You better get vocal before you lose all of your shit, too. From Alternet:
Cheap labor. Even more than race, it’s the thread that connects all of Southern history—from the ante-bellum South of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis to Tennessee’s Bob Corker, Alabama’s Richard Shelby and the other anti-union Southerners in today’s U.S. Senate.
It’s at the epicenter of a sad class divide between a desperate, poorly educated workforce and a demagogic oligarchy, and it has been a demarcation line stronger than the Mason-Dixon in separating the region from the rest of the nation.
The recent spectacle of Corker, Shelby and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky leading the GOP attack on the proposed $14 billion loan to the domestic auto industry—with 11 other Southern senators marching dutifully behind—made it crystal clear. The heart of Southern conservatism is the preservation of a status quo that serves elite interests.
Expect these same senators and their colleagues in the US House to wage a similar war in the coming months against the proposed Employee Free Choice Act authorizing so-called “card check” union elections nationwide.
“Dinosaurs,” Shelby of Alabama called General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler as he maneuvered to bolster the nonunion Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and other foreign-owned plants in his home state by sabotaging as many as three million jobs nationwide.
Corker, a multi-millionaire who won his seat in a mud-slinging, race-tinged election in 2006, was fairly transparent in his goal to expunge what he considers the real evil in the Big Three and US industry in general: unions. When the concession-weary United Auto Workers balked at GOP demands for a near-immediate reduction in worker wages and benefits, Corker urged President Bush to force-feed wage cuts to UAW workers in any White House-sponsored bailout.
If Shelby, Corker, and McConnell figured they were helping the Japanese, German and Korean-owned plants in their home states, they were seriously misguided. The failure of the domestic auto industry would inflict a deep wound on the same supplier-dealer network that the foreign plants use. The already existing woes of the foreign-owned industry were clearly demonstrated in December when Toyota announced its decision to put on indefinite hold the opening of its $1.3 billion plant near Blue Springs in northeast Mississippi.
The Southern Republicans are full of contradictions. Downright hypocrisy might be a better description. Shelby staunchly opposes universal health care—a major factor in the Big Three’s financial troubles since they operate company plans—yet the foreign automakers he defends benefit greatly from the government-run health care programs in their countries.
These same senators gave their blessing to hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the foreign automakers to open plants in their states, yet they were willing to let the US auto industry fall into bankruptcy.
In their zeal to destroy unions and their hard-fought wage-and-benefits packages, the Southern senators could not care less that workers in their home states are among the lowest paid in the nation. Ever wonder why the South remains the nation’s poorest region despite generations of seniority-laden senators and representatives in Congress?
Why weren’t these same senators protesting the high salaries in the financial sector when the Congress approved the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street? Why pick on blue-collar workers at the Big Three who last year agreed to huge concessions expected to save the companies an estimated $4 billion a year by 2010? These concessions have already helped lower union wages to non-union levels at some auto plants.
The idea of working people joining together to have a united voice across the table from management scares most Southern politicians to death. After all, they go to the same country clubs as management. When Mississippi Republican Roger Wicker warned of Democratic opponent Ronnie Musgrove’s ties to the “Big Labor Bosses” in this year’s US Senate race, he was protecting the “Big Corporate Bosses” who are his benefactors.
The South today may be more racially enlightened than ever in its history. However, it is still a society in which the ruling class—the chambers of commerce that have taken over from yesterday’s plantation owners and textile barons—uses politics to maintain control over a vast, jobs-hungry workforce. After the oligarchy lost its war for slavery—the cheapest labor of all—it secured the next best thing in Jim Crow and the indentured servitude known as sharecropping and tenant farming. It still sees cheap, pliable, docile labor as the linchpin of the Southern economy.
In 1948, when the so-called “Dixiecrats” rebelled against the national Democratic Party, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina declared war on “the radicals, subversives, and the Reds” who want to upset the Southern way of life.
Seven years later, Mississippi’s political godfather, the late US Sen. James O. Eastland, told other prominent Southern pols during a meeting at the Peabody Hotel in Memphis that the South will “fight the CIO” (Congress of Industrial Organizations) and unionism with just as much vehemence and determination as it fights racial integration.
Eastland, Thurmond and their friends lost the integration battle. Their successors are still fighting the other enemy.
Joseph B. Atkins is a veteran journalist, professor of journalism at the University of Mississippi and author of Covering for the Bosses: Labor and the Southern Press (University Press of Mississippi, 2008), a book that details the Southern labor movement and its treatment in the press. A version of this column appeared in the Hattiesburg (Miss.) American and the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion-Ledger.
When there are only a handful of true patriots left in Congress, it appears I will have to post more, focused on them. Mr Paul, as usual, hits the perfect home run on Bill Maher’s show last week. A lot has been published about the interview already, but this is my particular field of ineterst and one of B’Man’s solutions for America’s economic woes and a way to decrease, if not eliminate our dependency on foreign oil.
You see, he has nothing to lose by saying what needs to be said. He doesn’t get his money from the Prison Industrial Complex (who want to keep their cash cow) or Big Meds (who know that the competition would be devastating… not to mention the fact that when the truth comes out, their sales will plummet… stopping the golden cow). It all boils down to money and has nothing to do with the truth about the substance.
So, Mr Paul will explain it. Care of Raw Story:
I can list on one hand the number of patriots there are in government. Even though I don’t agree with everything he says and believes, he is a “true conservative” and I respect that. I have no respect for the ones that claim to be conservative, yet lie with every vote and political speech. Ron Paul is always on message.
I noticed that he said, “I don’t like pot.” Does this mean he tried it?
Nevertheless, he is right on with his determination about legalizing weed (and he doesn’t want to tax it, although I have no problem with that, at least right now during this tough economic time).
What if Americans finally woke up to face the fact that we are brainwashed by a bunch of criminals?
I break my YouTube (Manila Ryce will be glad to hear that) boycott to present this video which asks the exact questions each and every American should be asking themselves.
If you don’t ask yourself these questions… or worse, if you believe these questions should not be answered, then you are no friend of mine and are not an American patriot. As a matter of fact, you are a hindrance to America’s progress and need to move somewhere else.
What if I told you that the above video will eventually be historic?
B’Man: I can think of several reasons why I don’t think Dr. Sanjay Gupta should be our next Attorney General. One revolves around the fact that he is a TV personality (and one of People magazine’s “sexiest men alive”, even) and is beholden to the same liars and corporate interests that have been using and screwing us for decades now. Even Keith Olbermann had this to say, “Isn’t this like making Judge Judy the Attorney General?”
The man is owned by Big Money. Obama is owned by Big Money. Virtually every person in appointment is owned by Big Money. The entire establishment is owned by Big Money (with so few exceptions that it is meaningless).
Yes. We. Can. Right?
But another reason I think that Dr Sanjay is a terrible pick is that I have heard him make some of the most ignorant comments a “Resident Neurosurgeon” ought to say (especially in the area of marijuana medical use).
Russ Belville, of NORML wrote an article about him showing that he puts politics before medicine much too often and bases much of what he says of erroneous and outdated information. Russ says:
But is Gupta ready to deliver the Obama administration’s promised end to the politicization of science and medicine? More specifically, will Gupta toe the federal line that cannabis is lacking in any medical value, or will he recognize what 13 states and the past 12 years of research prove — that cannabis is a beneficial medicine for some people and an intoxicant far less harmful than alcohol for others?
In 2002, Gupta was more than willing to echo the outrageous claims that smoking pot would lead to psychosis, depression and schizophrenia:
But the three studies you are talking about talk specifically about schizophrenia and depression, and the fact that marijuana use earlier in life actually may lead to an increased — 30 percent increase — in schizophrenia later in life.
Depression, also a very big diagnosis — roughly 18.8 million in this country have it. Again, they looked this time at 1,600 high school students and followed them over about seven years. This is in Australia, not in the United States. But they actually found that all of these boys and girls, particularly girls, were more vulnerable to the symptoms of depression later on in life, again if they were frequent or even daily marijuana users.
I hope that the next surgeon general has been following the research on cannabis and mental health since 2002. This year, Dr. Mikkel Arendt of Aarhus University in Risskov, Denmark, said that people treated for a so-called cannabis-induced psychosis “…would have developed schizophrenia whether or not they used cannabis.”
I hope that Gupta has kept up with the journal Schizophrenia Research and the research published there last year by the London’s Institute of Psychiatry, which found no statistically significant “differences in symptomatology between schizophrenic patients who were or were not cannabis users,” found no “evidence that cannabis users with schizophrenia were more likely to have a family member with the disorder” and that these findings “argue against a distinct schizophrenic-like psychosis caused by cannabis,” authors concluded.
B’Man: According to Melissa McEwanof Shakesville, the “Villagers“ want Dr Gupta as this appointment. They like him because he says what they want him to say… not what is necessarily the truth. It is a way for their propaganda to be spread to keep various societal improvements from happening (single payer healthcare, medical marijuana, etc). He is a “known” face to many Amereican sheople. Trusted.
She quotes a couple of well known voices about their trepidation over this selection:
I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.
What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It’s sort of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered less “serious” than people who waited until it was fashionable to reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it’s a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way.
Anyone who can utter that many conservative lies and talking points about single-payer/”socialized” medicine is, to put it generously, the wrong choice – and looks an awful lot like a signal from Obama that he doesn’t give a damn about one of the most vital issues facing us. It’s not bad enough that he said before that he doesn’t support single-payer, but he clearly hasn’t learned anything of value in his long period of running for president. Another “Up yours!” to the people who voted for him thinking he had to be better than this.
…I don’t consider Gupta an honest voice in the healthcare discussion, and I don’t think anyone should. As a medical journalist, he’s not really that good – he’s on TV because he says things The Villagers like, which means conservative bull.
B’Man: The NORML article I quoted above (Sanjay Gupta: What the Next Surgeon General Doesn’t Know About Pot) is found at Alternet. It is worth a read because it also explains several instances of recent medical studies done that continue to dismantle the lies and propaganda message Gupta spouts.
But more than any other reason, do we really want a dude with a weird animal penis fetish?
Talk about wasting resources– BRING THE TROOPS HOME!
Sadly, we all now know [or should know] that we have way overreacted to 9/11 by committing innocent lives to Iraq and destroying many civilians while spending billions of dollars, risking our entire economy, jeopardizing relations with allies around the world, and last but not least distracting our focus for 5 years from finding alternative forms of energy, saving our planet, reaching health care solutions and improving life for all? What if we had not been sidetracked by President Bush’s decision and just gone to Afghanistan and Pakistan to find to really criminals? Where would America be today? Let’s not ALLOW those 9/11 terrorists to hurt us with distractions anymore. WE, with votes and voice NEED TO End the war in Iraq now… not in 2011, 2012 or later. Let’s focus on domestic issues and world peace!
Think of an American president being inaugurated. What image comes to mind?
Almost certainly this one, eh?
This picture embodies what is perhaps the essential difference between the qualifications for the presidency and the qualifications for the vice presidency. In a perfect world, we would all like a president who is Ready on Day One (TM); it is not uncommon for a newly-elected president to face a major crisis almost immediately upon taking office. But more commonly, a president takes the Oath of Office under relatively calm waters, allowing them something of a learning curve.
On the other hand, when a vice president takes over for a president, the nation is necessarily undergoing a crisis, because the death (or resignation) of a president is perhaps as traumatic an event as can reasonably be imagined (in the “best” case resulting from a slowly-developing illness, and the worst, an attack by terrorists or foreign adversaries).
From Lincoln though Clinton, Americans have frequently been willing to gamble on a relatively inexperienced President, exchanging some assurances of near-term readiness for longer-term upside (what might be described as “vision”). But the optimal skill set for a vice president is somewhat different. “Vision” hardly matters; a vice president taking over for a president will not get to name his own cabinet, and will initially at least be left to execute upon somebody else’s agenda. Instead, the readiness component is rendered more important.
I suspect most Americans grasp this on a gut level, even if they aren’t quite able to articulate it. Which is why, to my gut instinct, I think Americans can feel sympathy for Sarah Palin, can believe she’s the sort of person they’d want to have a beer with — and still find her a detriment to McCain’s case for the White House.
Article Washington Post>
Palin’s Pregnancy Problem
My first reaction was shock. Then anger. John McCain chose a running mate simply because she is a woman and one who appealed to the Republican’s conservative evangelical base. Now, with news that Palin’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant, McCain’s pick may not even find support among “family values” voters.
It has happened before, of course. Geraldine Ferraro was chosen as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1984 because she was a woman, but that was 24 years ago. I thought we were past this. Apparently not. McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical and calculated move. It is a choice made to try to win an election. It is a political gimmick. And it’s very high risk. I find it insulting to women, to the Republican party, and to the country.
This is nothing against Palin. From what little we know about her, she seems to be a bright, attractive, impressive person. She certainly has been successful in her 44 years. But is she ready to be president?
And now we learn the 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. She and the father of the child plan to marry. This may be a hard one for the Republican conservative family-values crowd to swallow. Of course, this can happen in any family. But it must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.
McCain claims he knew about the pregnancy, and was not at all concerned. Why not? Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. Not only in terms of her job, but from a media standpoint as well.
McCain’s cynical choice has created a dilemma for many women. For still-angry Hillary Clinton voters, they will have to decide if they want to vote against their concscience and political interests by voting to elect a Republican woman who’s even more conservative than McCain.
Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy.
Southern Baptist leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler have praised McCain’s choice. But these are the same men who support this statement from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message:
“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”
Palin’s lack of experience and her family situation are both valid and vital considerations here, especially when she will be running with a 72-year-old presidential candidate who has suffered four bouts of a deadly cancer.
And by the way, how can McCain call Barack Obama unqualified, inexperienced, not ready from Day One, not able to be commander in chief, and then put someone like Palin in a position that is a heartbeat away from the pesidency?
I don’t blame Palin for accepting the position. How could she or anyone turn down such an opportunity? I was once in a similar position. After four years of reporting at the Washington Post, I was chosen by CBS to be the first network anchorwoman in America, to co-anchor their Morning News. I had never been on TV a day in my life. I was 32. There were women at CBS who were much more qualified than I was and certainly other men. They chose me because they wanted a woman. I didn’t even want the job, but I didn’t feel I could turn it down. Of course it was a disaster. I lasted four months. I wasn’t ready for Network TV. Palin isn’t ready to be leader of the free world.
The calculation on the part of the McCain people is clear. Palin’s candidacy could draw some of the 18-million Hillary Clinton voters who are not happy she lost and who want to vote for a woman on a national ticket. Palin is not of Washington and that will be appealing to some. Most importantly for McCain, Palin is decidedly anti-abortion and that will keep the Republican base under control and appeal to some evangelicals who might be considering Obama. She has a son who is headed to Iraq.
Those are positives for a McCain-Palin ticket, but what about the negatives?
She has no national political experience, especially in the area of foreign policy. That fact that she is not of Washington also will be difficult for her. Barbara Bush once told me that her husband had been a congressman, UN ambassador, ambassador to China, and head of the CIA and they thought they were prepared for the vice presidency (under President Reagan). But she said nothing can prepare you for the criticism and scrutiny of being in the White House. Sarah Palin is not prepared for that.
Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? I’m the mother of only one child, a special needs child who is grown now. I know how much of my time and energy I devoted to his care. He always had to be my first priority. Of course women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Yes, other women in public office have children. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she didn’t get heavily involved in politics until they were older. A mother’s role is different from a father’s.
These are dangerous and trying times for the entire world. This is no time to to play gender politics. The stakes are too high. And given McCain’s age and history of health issues, the stakes for choosing a qualified vice presidential candidate have never been higher.
Maybe this will work. Maybe McCain will win with Sarah Palin as his running mate. But if he does, it will be for all the wrong reasons.
By Elisabeth Bumillerupdated 11:10 p.m. ET, Mon., Sept. 1, 2008
Palin disclosures raise questions about vetting
Alaskans say no one from McCain camp asked them about eventual VP pick
video report of over-shadowing questions at convention>
may have to c/p into address bar… sorry.
[ well just a thought here folks…lol-- I guess since Palin appears to of had no time to think before saying yes to McInsane… her first plane to adopt this child too had to make a different turn…lol lol,…]
ST. PAUL – A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.
On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.
Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.
Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice.
Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.
While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions.
At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.
A rushed pick?
Up until midweek last week, some 48 to 72 hours before Mr. McCain introduced Ms. Palin at a Friday rally in Dayton, Ohio, Mr. McCain was still holding out the hope that he could name as his running mate a good friend, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, a Republican close to the campaign said. Mr. McCain had also been interested in another favorite, former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.
But both men favor abortion rights, anathema to the Christian conservatives who make up a crucial base of the Republican Party. As word leaked out that Mr. McCain was seriously considering the men, the campaign was bombarded by outrage from influential conservatives who predicted an explosive floor fight at the convention and vowed rejection of Mr. Ridge or Mr. Lieberman by the delegates.
erhaps more important, several Republicans said, Mr. McCain was getting advice that if he did not do something to shake up the race, his campaign would be stuck on a potentially losing trajectory.
With time running out — and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable — he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later.
“They didn’t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,” said a Republican close to the campaign. “This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn’t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.”
Mr. McCain’s advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was “thoroughly vetted,” a process that would have included a review of all financial and legal records as well as a criminal background check. A McCain aide said that the campaign was well aware of the ethics investigation and that it had looked into it.
People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a standard form with more than 70 questions.
“It was obviously something that anybody Googling Sarah Palin knew was in the news and there was a very thorough vetting done on that and also on the daughter,” the aide said.
Locals say no one talked to them
Mark Salter, Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, said in an e-mail message that Ms. Palin had been interviewed by Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., a veteran Washington lawyer in charge of the vice-presidential vetting process for Mr. McCain, as well as by other lawyers who worked for Mr. Culvahouse. Mr. Salter did not respond to an e-mail message asking if Ms. Palin had told Mr. Culvahouse and his lawyers that her daughter was pregnant.
In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration.
“They didn’t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn’t speak to anyone in the business community,” said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor.
Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her.
“I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.”
Trying to keep a secret
The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller, said she had not heard of any efforts to look into Ms. Palin’s background. And Randy Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman, said he knew nothing of any vetting that had been conducted.
State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is directing the ethics investigation, said that no one asked him about the allegations. “I heard not a word, not a single contact,” he said.
Mr. French, a former prosecutor, said that he was knowledgeable about background checks and that, he, too, was surprised that the campaign had not reached out to state legislative leaders.
A number of Republicans said the McCain campaign had to some degree tied its hands in its effort to keep the selection process so secret.
“If you really want it to be a surprise, the circle of people that you’re going to allow to know about it is going to be small, and that’s just the nature of it,” said Dan Bartlett, a former counselor to President Bush and an adviser in both of his presidential campaigns.
Former McCain strategists disagreed on whether it would have been useful for Ms. Palin’s name to have been more publicly floated before her selection so that issues like the trooper investigation and her daughter’s pregnancy might have already been aired and not seemed so new at the time of her announcement.
“Had the story been written about the state trooper three months ago, nobody would care about it anymore,” said Dan Schnur, a former McCain aide who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. “It’s a risk. No matter how great the candidate, it’s a significant risk to put someone on the ticket” who hasn’t been publicly scrutinized.
“They obviously felt it was worth the risk to rev up the base and potentially reach out to Clinton supporters,” Mr. Schnur said.
But Howard Opinsky, another McCain veteran, said calling attention to Ms. Palin’s possible candidacy during the search process would have undermined the impact of her eventual selection.
“Had her name been played out in the press for months and months, she wouldn’t have been seen as so bold,” Mr. Opinsky said. “You either get freshness and you have to live with what you get in your vetting or you lose the freshness.”