CHICAGO — As Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Wednesday signed a new law that will put in place tougher penalties for selling guns to minors, he also announced he’s got a new idea to help combat the violence that Chicago is experiencing: he’s talking to the Illinois State Police and the National Guard to see if they could help.
The Chicago Sun-Times depicted Blagojevich as the “new sheriff in town” Thursday morning in its coverage of the governor’s plan to form an “elite tactical team” to help the city fight crime.”Violent crime in the city of Chicago is out of control,” Blagojevich said at the bill signing ceremony. “I’m offering resources of the state to the city to work in a constructive way with Mayor Daley to do everything we can possibly do to help stop this violence,” said the governor.The summer of 2008 will be remembered as especially violent. Blagojevich said there’s been a child shot nearly every day since June 26, with 29 Chicago Public School students shot since last fall.
“Twenty-eight of those kids are African-American and Latino. Hard to imagine that that would be acceptable if that were, in fact, the case in other parts of the city or in a middle-class suburb somewhere,” he said. “Something is wrong, and this violence has to stop.”Bringing in state troopers — even National Guard helicopters to high-crime areas — is still very much in the planning stages.”It might be able to free up some resources that the Chicago police uses for capital needs, to be able, to maybe to, hire more police officers, or possibly ask some to come out of retirement, to put them into these violent zones, hot zones, where, clearly, I think, part of the challenge is that gangbangers outnumber police officers five to one,” Blagojevich said.The governor said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley hasn’t asked for help, but Blagojevich said he’ll call the mayor once he has some concrete suggestions about what help he can provide. He didn’t have many specifics, but he said it’s more likely that state police will be brought in than the National Guard.In fact, Daley’s office said the mayor did not know anything about Blagojevich’s comments and did not know he was going to make them.”The mayor welcomes partnerships, not just on this issue but on a variety of issues,” said spokeswoman Jody Kawada. “Beyond that, it is difficult to comment because we don’t have any facts.”And police department spokeswoman Monique Bond said they learned of the comments after Blagojevich made them as well, and said it was too soon to comment.But Bond took issue with the governor’s contention that crime is “out of control” in Chicago, pointing out that if the current murder rate holds in the city, 2008 may end with fewer than 500 homicides and that it is expected to be one of the least deadly years in the city in the last 40 years.On Wednesday, Superintendent Jody Weis was grilled by members of a city council committee, who complained both about rising crime and statistics that suggested to them that the police department wasn’t doing enough to stop it.They also come as the governor tries to find support for a massive statewide construction program that would be funded by expanded casino gambling. So far, Daley has refused to go along because he objects to the amount Blagojevich wants to charge Chicago to run a downtown casino.Blagojevich raised that issue as he discussed the possibility of state aid with Chicago’s crime problem.”We need help in that legislative process and the mayor could be a big help in this in getting the House Democratic leadership to pass that big capital program or versions of it,” the governor said.Blagojevich’s offer, whether or not it comes to anything, also puts him in the position of trying to help on an issue dominating the news in Chicago.Blagojevich said it is far more likely that state troopers would be used than guardsmen. In fact, his office moved quickly after the governor’s comments to stress in a news release that Blagojevich was not considering bringing in National Guard troops to the city.”The only way the National Guard would be involved, if they are involved, is with the use of tactical helicopters that are currently used in narcotics operations,” spokesman Lucio Guerrero said in a prepared statement.Blagojevich had few details, but suggested that one possibility would be to assign state troopers to areas of the city with lower crime rates, freeing Chicago police officers for areas where there is more crime.”Maybe we can play a role in providing more manpower so that the mayor doesn’t have to make that choice between taking a police from, let’s say the North Side, and putting that police officer on the street on the South Side,” he said.He also suggested that retired Chicago police officers and state troopers could be hired on a temporary basis to help out during the summer months when the violent crime rate typically climbs.
Blagojevich Signs Tougher Gun Bill
The bill signed Wednesday puts the adult who provides a gun to a minor in the same legal hot water as the minor who uses it to commit a crime.The bill signed Wednesday means that adults who sell or give guns to minors are eligible for the same sentence as minors convicted of violent crimes — including murder — in which they used the weapon.Before the law was signed, the maximum sentence an adult could get for providing a gun to a minor — whether it’s used in a crime or not — was seven years.Senator Kwame Raoul sponsored the bill after a spate of shooting deaths of Chicago school children.Supporters of the bill said they hope the possibility of a stiffer sentence will make adults think twice about handing over guns to minors.
A dozen people around the country filed suit in U.S. District Court in Idaho this week demanding the return of all the copper, silver, gold, and platinum coins — more than seven tons of metal in all — that the FBI and Secret Service seized in November during raids of a mint in Idaho and a strip mall storefront in Indiana.
The Justice Department had decided that the coins, many of which bear the familiar symbol of Lady Liberty and the phrase “TRUST IN GOD,” were being illegally marketed as government-sanctioned currency, according to the sworn affidavit of an FBI agent.
The creator of the coins, Bernard von NotHaus, who lives in Miami, claims that the federal government is trying to shut down production of his liberty dollars, as the coins are called, because of the competition they pose to the greenback. In recent years, his precious metal coins have outperformed the dollar, whose value has plunged in relation to gold.
The raids in November were the result of a two-year undercover investigation of Mr. Von NotHaus and how he sold liberty dollars. The Justice Department has not followed up with any criminal charges against Mr. Von NotHaus or the regional distributors of his coins.
In the suit filed in Idaho, the various plaintiffs say the federal government has no right to continue holding onto their coins any longer.
While it is common for agents to warehouse property seized during criminal investigations, such as firearms or surveillance equipment, the plaintiffs say coins of precious metal should be off-limits.
The coins “do not constitute contraband or other property subject to seizure,” the legal papers state, adding that the seizures violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.
For the most part, the plaintiffs had possessed bearer certificates for the silver liberty dollars that were being warehoused in Couer d’Alene, Idaho, at a mint. The mint, Sunshine Minting, is one of the sites that federal agents raided.
In an unusual request, the plaintiffs ask for an order, at the very least, forbidding federal agents from touching or moving the coins so that they are not dirtied in any way.
“Mishandling numismatic material can negatively impact value,” the legal papers say.
A spokesman for the Justice Department, Charles Miller, said that the agency had not yet seen the legal papers and could not comment.
E-mail messages circulating among Liberty Dollar enthusiasts have expressed fears that the federal government intends to publicly auction off the coins. There has been no public announcement indicating that to be the case. The U.S. attorney’s office in Asheville, N.C., which led the investigation that prompted the raids last November, did not return several calls for comment over the last few weeks.
Mr. Von NotHaus markets his coins via the Internet as an inflation-proof currency and claims that between 100,000 and 250,000 Americans own them. They have attracted the interest of coin enthusiasts, as well as critics of the Federal Reserve.
A 1999 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said that many of the stores that accepted liberty dollars “are run by men and women connected to the radical right.” The coins have caught on particularly well in Asheville, N.C., and Austin, Texas, and are accepted by some merchants there.
More than 50,000 of the coins seized last year bear the likeness of Rep. Ron Paul, whose monetary policies Mr. Von NotHaus supports.
“About a quarter of a million people holding liberty dollars are almost up-in arms — not up in arms yet, but almost — about having their property seized, and rightly so,” Mr. Von NotHaus told The New York Sun yesterday.
Opponents of the VeriChip implant are launching a new offensive against the controversial human microchip this week, amid reports that VeriChip plans to put its chipping division on the auction block. A new report titled “Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” released today by CASPIAN Consumer Privacy reveals dirty laundry the company would probably rather keep hidden as it seeks a buyer for its beleaguered product.
The 42-page report was authored by CASPIAN director Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a Harvard-educated privacy expert and long-time critic of the VeriChip. The highlight of the report is an eleven-page section titled “Cancer Cover-up” that describes a systematic pattern of lies and deception engaged by VeriChip executives in an effort to downplay the fact that implantable microchips cause cancer in laboratory animals.
The report reveals how news outlets like Time Magazine, Business Week, and the RFID Journal were used as unwitting pawns in a VeriChip scheme to spread misinformation about the cancer studies. Since research linking the product to cancer first surfaced last year, each of these publications has repeated misstatements from VeriChip company executives, in many cases printing the inaccurate statements verbatim and unchallenged.
“These were not subjective issues, they were plainly verifiable issues of fact,” Albrecht said. “We were saddened to see the misstatements fall through the fact-checking cracks of these respected publications. Now that VeriChip is back in the headlines, we felt it was time to set the record straight.”VeriChip’s media efforts have done little to salvage the company’s public image or its financial performance, both of which plummeted after research linking the implantable microchip to cancer was widely revealed by the Associated Press in September 2007. The same company that once predicted revenues in the “billions” earned just $3,000 from its microchip implant operations in the first quarter of 2008, as patients shun the device that many are now calling the “cancer chip.”
Investors have also distanced themselves from the failing company, with VeriChip’s stock plummeting from a high of $10.62 last year to just over $2.00 today. VeriChip’s VP of business development, Jay McKeage, acknowledged the implant division suffers from “a substantial cash burn” and is “not sustainable on its own.” As a result, he says, VeriChip plans to “shop the VeriMed / Health Link [human implantable chip] business around widely” in hopes that another company will take the unpopular product off its hands.
However, with recent blog headlines like “VeriChip Death Watch” making the rounds, Albrecht has a hard time imagining who, if anyone, will want to buy the business. This is a company that has engaged in a consistent pattern of making false and misleading statements,” she said. “It has lied to the public, to the media, to its shareholders, and to regulatory agencies,” she said, citing additional evidence from the report indicating that VeriChip hid cancer evidence from the FDA when the agency reviewed the implant’s safety in 2004. “We laid out all the evidence in our report,” she added. “We want to make sure no one else gets burned by VeriChip.”
ABOUT THE REPORT
CASPIAN’s new report, “Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions,” is a comprehensive reference guide to implantable microchips in animals and humans. It provides thoroughly-researched, footnoted answers to 85 of the most commonly asked questions about the implantable microchip, including religious, privacy, social, and health questions. The report concludes with a list of recommendations for patients, pet owners, and policy makers affected by the device.
The new report is available for free download on the group’s AntiChips.com website at: <http://www.antichips.com/faq/index.html>http://www.antichips.com/faq/index.html
While on the website, readers are encouraged to download Dr. Albrecht’s comprehensive 52-page overview of the studies, “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006,” and to review scanned copies of the original documents.
ABOUT CASPIAN
CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering) is a grass-roots consumer group fighting retail surveillance schemes since 1999 and irresponsible RFID use since 2002. With thousands of members in all 50 U.S. states and over 30 countries worldwide, CASPIAN seeks to educate consumers about marketing strategies that invade their privacy and encourage privacy-conscious shopping habits across the retail spectrum.
WASHINGTON — At the same time the Bush administration has been pushing for deep cuts in a popular crime-fighting program for states and cities, the White House has been fighting for approval of $603 million for the Iraqi police.
The White House earlier this year proposed slashing the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which helps local law enforcement officials deal with violent crime and serious offenders, to $200 million in the next fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.
In 2002, the year before the Iraq war, the program received $900 million.
The administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress are headed for a showdown over the domestic money, probably next month. When the Senate last week passed the emergency Iraq war funding bill, it allotted an immediate $490 million for the domestic grants while keeping the Iraqi police funds intact.
The House is expected to consider the package when it returns from its Memorial Day recess next week. But the domestic grants are the kind of spending that’s causing Bush to threaten a veto.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino did not single out the Byrne grants but made it clear the president is not happy with items that don’t deal with the war on terror.
She talked about how Congress wants “to ladle on lots of special projects. The president thinks that some of those projects may be meritorious. But they should have that debate outside of funding for the troops.”
Some budget experts argue that the Iraq police and domestic grants have nothing to do with one another.
“State and local policing should be left to state and local governments. I don’t see any advantage to federal meddling,” said Chris Edwards, an analyst at Washington’s Cato Institute.
Cato opposed the Iraq war, but Edwards said the issue of Iraq’s police funding “is a foreign policy question, and foreign policy should depend on things other than economics.”
But Travis Sharp, military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, disagreed.
“There are tradeoffs in the federal government, and one of the arguments a lot of people make is that money spent in Iraq is not spent here,” he said.
Those angry with the administration have a powerful ally in Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who chairs the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department.
“While President Bush requests millions of dollars for the war in Iraq, his domestic spending continues to shortchange our safety at home,” she said.
When Budget Director Jim Nussle testified before her subcommittee last month, neither side showed any desire to compromise.
Mikulski called Bush’s policies “outrageous” and labeled Nussle’s testimony “snarky, scolding, dismissive.”
“We have funded the surge of Baghdad, but we have not funded the surge of violent crime in Baltimore, Biloxi or other places,” the senator said. She then asked Nussle if Bush would support restoring most of the Byrne grant.
“I can only repeat what the president has said,” Nussle replied.
“The president didn’t say anything about this,” Mikulski shot back. “You think if I went to see the president, he’d say, ‘No?”‘
“Senator,” Nussle said calmly, “I can only repeat what the president said. And his two priorities he stated were that the bill stay within the $108.1 billion request and that it support the troops.”
The Iraq police funds are listed as money due to Iraq’s Ministry of Interior. Also included in “new obligations” to the “Iraq Security Forces Fund” are $603 million for the Interior Ministry, $744 million for the Ministry of Defense and $153 million for “quick response.”
The Congressional Research Service estimates that since the war began, the United States has spent about $20.75 billion to train and equip Iraqi soldiers and police officers.
Because of congressional skepticism about just how well those forces were being trained, Congress last fall required the Pentagon to provide an independent assessment of the forces’ capability within a year to 18 months.
White House Office of Management and Budget spokesman Jane Lee stressed Tuesday that the administration hardly wants to make America less safe and believes it “should be a reliable partner with state and local law enforcement and that taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely to help meet that goal.”
And, she noted, the president’s fiscal 2009 budget proposes spending a total of $1 billion for a variety of programs to help states and cities.
But that doesn’t mean all the programs should survive intact. “A targeted number of programs that were earmarked, duplicative or had not demonstrated results were consolidated into flexible grants,” she said, “that will permit states and localities to compete for funding based on local needs, as well as national priorities.”
Skeptics were not buying it.
“Without the restoration of this funding, our efforts to limit drugs in Montana and throughout the country will be devastated,” said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. “Our children’s exposure to drugs and crime will be increased, and our families will be torn apart.”
It is with a heavy heart that I report the death of the Libertarian Party. It was only 36 years old — far too young to die. And while there is some dispute over whether the death was self-inflicted or murder, the death itself was tragic and sad.
Once billed as “The Party of Principle” those principles were sold down the river. On Sunday, May 25, 2008 the principles were abandoned, and the party was last seen gasping for air
before expiring.
This author watched 30 years of his life pass before his eyes — wasted. Having been a candidate and supporter of the party since 1978 what I saw ended any respect I had left for the LP.
Far Right Republican congressman Bob Barr was nominated for president and the loudmouthed, huckster, Wayne Root, an “odds maker” from Las Vegas, traded with Barr in order to become his running mate. They brought to the LP the sort of backroom deal-making once only seen in the larger, corrupt parties.
It is true that the principles did not die easily, however. On the first ballot conservative Barr was leading libertarian Dr. Mary Ruwart by just one vote. On the second ballot it was dead even. On the third vote Ruwart was in the lead. And then the “behind-the-scenes” deal of the two neocon infiltrators was announced.
Root, who had sworn he would never take the vice presidential made clear that he doesn’t necessarily mean what he says at all. He got up and announced that he was endorsing Bob Barr. In return Root said that he would be Barr’s vice presidential candidate and in four years time he was promised the top slot by Barr — as if Barr had any authority to make such a promise.
Realize that neither man is a libertarian, both are conservatives. Both endorse foreign interventionism. Root gave $1,000 to the campaign of Joe Leiberman and Barr gave around $100,000 to Republican Right-wing candidates. Almost all of those candidates were on the far Right of the party and advocates of war. The people Barr has supported, for the most part, were the absolute worst among the Republicans — those least likely to respect libertarian principles.
The antiwar Libertarians were duped by both men who had convenient conversions to new positions more satisfying to the delegates. Root entered the campaign a war-mongering hawk. When he ran into trouble with party members he suddenly saw the light and announced a new position.
Barr seemed to hold to his conservative principles. Only two weeks ago he adamantly said he was opposed to ending the war on drugs. Nothing he said this weekend actually changed that but Barr answered questions in ways that made it appear he had. He talked about the failure of the war on drugs for a long time and then said the federal government should get out of the drug war. Of course, he merely wanted the individual states to wage the drug war instead. That part was barely mentioned, making it appear he was more opposed to the drug war than he is.
When Barr arrived in Denver he found a large percentage of delegates sporting anti-Barr buttons — something never before seen at an LP convention. And he had to make some concessions. So he had one of those last second, dramatic conversions. Previously Barr was openly and viciously antigay and he authored one of the most discriminatory pieces of antigay legislation around, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Barr had tried to placate the delegates by pretending that his law was magically libertarian in reality. No one believed him.
Just a few hours before the big vote Barr suddenly announced that he had seen the light and changed his mind on gay marriage. He now said his legislation was bad and he realized he was hurting gay people needlessly and he was sorry. Personally I found him as sincere as a horny teenage boy telling his date that he really loves her and, “of course, I’ll still respect you in the morning.” Often the girl concedes because she wants to believe the promise. And many delegates in Denver wanted to believe the promise as well. I suspect what they will find is that Barr doesn’t actually love them, he used them, and as soon as he can replace them with his fellow conservatives they will find out exactly how screwed they were.
Barr had brought in his own people to Denver, people previously not affiliated with the Libertarian Party. Like him they were conservative Republicans looking for a vehicle to use. And the LP, with its ballot status in numerous states is a prime target for plundering. We have to remember that these dogmatic Rightists have one goal in mind and it isn’t the promotion of libertarianism.
They want to defeat John McCain. While there is little to say in favor of McCain the Far Right doesn’t perceive him as one of their own. He is not theocratic enough, authoritarian enough, or vicious enough to satisfy them. They want to take votes from McCain. And how will they do that? By arguing that McCain is not a “true conservative” and that Barr is. And exactly how will that be sold to the public? Barr will have to campaign, not as a libertarian, but as a Far Right conservative.
How did this revolting coup take place? There are three reasons.
First, over the years the party has recruited from the Right. While the party should have recruited from the Left as well, it didn’t. The party drifted further and further away from libertarian principles as time went by. As more and more conservatives joined the party it attracted more conservatives and turned off those on the moderate Left. To placate these Right-wingers some dubious characters raped the party platform. Many planks were removed or watered down.
Second, some party members just felt that “winning” recognition was more important than seeing the values of liberty spread. The party was started by people wanting to use it to push for liberty. The party was the means to an end. But these desperate individuals reversed things. The party was the end in itself. The goal wasn’t promoting liberty but holding power. They thought that losing an election was worse than losing their principles. Bob Barr took them to the mountaintop and showed them the baubles that politics can offer and they were seduced.
Third, and worse, the party was intentionally betrayed by a cabal of individuals who were mainly associated with the LP National Committee and the LP office staff.
Barr was brought into the party by a bevy of Right-wing, often religiously-motivated, individuals. They first had to raise Barr’s status in the party. They arranged for the national committee member from Georgia to step down from his seat and then had Barr appointed to replace him. So this “new libertarian” suddenly became a national officer almost the same day he joined.
During this time Barr used Right-wing mailing lists to raise $4 million for his political action committee. Very little of that went to candidates, most of it was eaten up by “expenses.” Of the money that was given to candidates, the vast majority went to Far Right Republicans, many of whom used it to campaign against Libertarian candidates. But a tiny percentage of that money, well under one percent, or $12,000, went to the Libertarian Party National Committee. It didn’t go to candidates but to the national committee on which Barr was serving. Apparently that tiny amount was all that was necessary.
Some national committee members started working to stage a conservative coup and they wanted Barr as their candidate. This was done in cahoots with party staff, none of whom had any business engaging in such matters.
One cigar-chomping Right-winger, Stephen Gordon, started a web site, Third Party Watch, which was regularly promoting Barr. Gordon ended up being a paid staff member of the Barr campaign. Before that, he was a staff member at the LP national office.
And it was at this site that the first inklings of a Barr-Root secret agreement, to purge the party of actual libertarians, began. When the gentle libertarian, Dr. Mary Ruwart, announced she was running, both campaigns knew they were in trouble and started to smear Ruwart. They took her views out of context to make it sound as if she was promoting pedophilia.
The man who appears to be the most likely suspect for the smear is Aaron Starr, a Root campaign supporter and a member of the national committee. Starr certainly worked with Root’s campaign manager to get this smear out. It was first spread through the Barr-affiliated Third Party Watch site. Then Root’s managers used material supplied by Starr at the Indiana LP convention to smear Ruwart directly.
After Third Party Watch pushed the smear for a couple of days, the executive director of the party, Shane Corey, without any authorization to do so, put out a press release which was meant to pour gasoline on the fire. Corey misused his office to announce a new party position — a joint federal-state task force to go after pedophilia. That such activity is already against the law was ignored. That it is entirely a state matter, constitutionally speaking, was also ignored. Corey was basically calling for the federal government to take on a new, unconstitutional power for itself. But the purpose of the press release was to make it appear that the national Libertarian Party was distancing itself from Ruwart, even though Ruwart had not said what Starr and the Root campaign had claimed she said.
Many libertarians were upset, especially since Corey had ignored all the proper channels and unilaterally announced a policy decision without an authority to do so. He resigned his position. But don’t feel sorry for him either. He had another position already in the waiting. This reporter has to clarify the exact position but let us say that he was either working directly for Mr. Barr or working for someone very close to Barr, Richard Viguerie. Mr. Viguerie, is a Far Right conservative who was looking to take control of a third party for some time now. And this time it seems he got what he wanted.
In addition, Viguerie suddenly turned up as a last minute speaker at the Denver convention. When I asked around as to why someone who is as unlibertarian as Viguerie was a last minute speaker I was told it was done at Barr’s request. Why only Barr was allowed to appoint speakers at the convention was never answered.
That was not the end either. Remember Stephen Gordon of Third Party Watch. Gordon used his contacts from his time in the LP office to start a libertarian e-mail list company which was then used to promote Barr directly to Libertarians. In addition he started his web site, Third Party Watch for almost nothing. That was the site used to promote Barr and smear Ruwart. And what I’ve now heard is that Gordon “sold” this web site. The man handing Gordon the money supposedly is Richard Viguerie. I wonder if the going price for such betrayal is still 20 pieces of silver. Either way I’d like to know how much money Mr. Gordon got out of Barr and Viguerie. Add that to the $12,000 “contribution” to the LP Nat-Com and we’d have some idea of what it costs to buy a political party.
In addition it seems the national convention was practically run by Barr people. A Republican was brought in to moderate the candidate’s debate — apparently a Libertarian wasn’t good enough. And individuals who were given prominent roles in the convention just happened to be individuals who were also picked to nominate Barr for the office. So after they were given added “importance” by being paraded before the delegates, they ended up giving nominating speeches on behalf of Barr. I am sure they will say it was a coincidence.
Various committees were packed with the “reformers”, all of whom had been working to strip the party platform of measures offensive to conservatives. They not only ended up raping the platform but then making up the Fifth Column supporting Barr at the convention. It seems that being a Barr supporter was enough to give one a prominent role at the cone deck in favor of Barr of course. Perhaps it was all a coincidence?
But, of course, the joint Barr-Root smear of Mary Ruwart, was also a coincidence. No doubt the Root endorsement of Barr was a coincidence as well — perhaps a fluke.
Many in the party were shocked and horrified at what happened. These reformed “libertarians”, many of whom were just recently in the Republican Party, were taking over. Long-time party activists were angry and felt that a coup had been purposely staged. Unity in the party was threatened and some suggested that the vice presidential slot should go to a principled libertarian.
Ruwart did not want to share a ticket with a non-libertarian. Steve Kubby, a previous presidential candidate, who had endorsed Ruwart, said he would accept the VP slot. Ruwart’s delegates were in favor. The delegates who had worked for Senator Mike Gravel also came on board. And the first vote was close. Even many Barr voters thought it would be a good gesture and a way of keeping some actual libertarians in the Libertarian Party.
Barr would have none of it. He got up and made a speech, making it clear that he would not accept anyone but his fellow neocon, Wayne Allen Root. Barr was not interested in a unified party. He was interested in a total coup. That is what his Nat-Com allies wanted, that is what his friends in the national office wanted, and that is what they got. Barr had enough trouble from real libertarians and wanted them gone. One “reformer” had announced on his blog that the goal was to drive out of the party all “anarchists”. Of course by anarchist he meant anyone with a consistent libertarian view — as opposed to conservatives.
The reality is that Libertarian Party had one thing of value to the Far Right. It likely will hold ballot status in about 48 states. It has little in actual assets, but ballot status in that many states can cost millions of dollars. Barr, Viguiere and the Benedict Arnolds in the Nat-Com, like Starr, wanted that asset for themselves. And they got it — at least they have it for the moment.
Many of the state affiliates have a large amount of discretion over candidates they will list. It is possible that the many states which supported neither Barr nor Root could refuse them local ballot status. Some are discussing complete disaffiliation.
Some states didn’t give either Root or Barr any support at all. For instance, Root’s home state, Nevada, shut him out completely. Not only wouldn’t they vote for Root but they didn’t even want him as a delegate. Even though he doesn’t live there Root was voting with the California delegation, a delegation where Starr had a lot of influence. Perhaps he arranged for Root to vote as a California delegate. However Root got there, it didn’t seem anyone was interested in finding out why Root’s own state wanted nothing to do with him.
A lot of angry libertarians are looking for ways to take the party back from this interlopers and traitors. I don’t know how successful they will be. Barr’s campaign will attract more intolerant, interventionist, conservatives like himself to the party. The more of them that join the party the more unlikely it will be that libertarians will have any influence in their own party.
Over the next couple of years the real indicator will be the party platform. To prepare for the coup the so-called Reform Caucus had been working to denude the platform of anything that conservatives would find offensive. In other words they wanted a Republican platform. The previous position of support for freedom of choice in abortion was watered down to say almost nothing. One sign of the Right-wing coup will be when that plank becomes explicitly anti-choice.
A second plank that I suspect will be targeted by the Barr-Root cabal will be that of immigration. Both men will start sounding like the Minutemen and other xenophobic Republicans.
Third, expect to see more planks referring to “state’s rights”. Issues like drugs and gay equality will get replaced with calls for allowing the states to have whatever policy they want on this — regardless of how oppressive. Libertarians previously favored ending the war on drugs and favored full equality for gays before the law. Both those issues will go down the drain. Instead, the planks won’t call for either, but will merely say these are state matters — and the libertarian position will be replaced by this conservative interpretation.
So, I’m that TV guy who got fired by Comcast over Bill O’Reilly. I protested the fact that O’Reilly was chosen to receive the Governors Award at this year’s Emmy Awards ceremony. That’s the highest honor that they hand out. The important word here is: honor.
Now granted – you won’t find a lot of Albert Schweitzers or Mother Teresas working in television, but at least the people who had been honored in the past had pretty much followed the part of the Hippocratic oath that says, “First, do no harm.”
O’Reilly was an appalling choice, not because of his political views, but because he simply gets the facts wrong, abuses his guests and the powerless in general, is delusional, and, well, you might want to Google: Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Plus there was that whole sexual harassment thing – the lawsuit he settled for an estimated $10 million. Not the kind of guy you normally think of when it comes time to pass out honors.
I found that most of my colleagues felt the same way. So, on May 10th at the Emmy Awards dinner, I quietly passed out a document that contained – not my opinion – but O’Reilly’s own words and quotes from his sexual harassment lawsuit. And that is what got me fired. I got fired from my job on a news and information network for reporting demonstrably true things in a room full of news people.
Normally, in the great scheme of things – this should be a total non-story. “Overpaid White Guy Gets Fired from Cushy Job for Shooting Mouth Off.” Yawn. But these are not normal times. After the word got out that I was fired – I started hearing from people from all over the country who were outraged. A guy in Texas who had once worked with O’Reilly and had seen a meltdown like the one on Youtube – a weather anchor in Arizona – a woman in China no less.
And it all got me to thinking about the myth of free speech. In today’s America, speech is only “free” when you are talking down to someone less powerful that you. Speak “up” – and look out.
In your work life, they can fire you, as I found out, for quietly saying something that is widely known to be true. Put a lid on it.
And in our role as citizens, we have been told by O’Reilly to shut up, or Fox Security may pay you a visit. We are called traitors if we simply speak the truth about the absence of WMD’s – the way the war is going – the disgraces of Abu Ghraib, of Gitmo, of waterboarding. Shut up.
So, when exactly do they think we have the right to speak up? To speak the quiet simple truth, to people who have more power than us?
Well, I think now would be a good time. The fog of fear is lifting. The balance of power is shifting. People are beginning to talk to each other again instead of shouting. I think it’s time to reclaim the right to free speech – even if it comes at a price.
Meanwhile, if anyone needs any lawn work done or his or her car detailed – give me a call.
In another sign of growing tensions with the United States, Pakistan is threatening to turn over to Iran six members of a tribal militant group Iran claims are “spies” for the CIA.
The group, Jundullah, operates in Baluchistan on both sides of the border between Iran and Pakistan and has carried out a number of violent attacks on Iranian army facilities and officers inside the country.
The CIA has denied any direct ties with the group, but U.S. officials tell ABC News U.S. intelligence officers frequently meet and advise Jundullah leaders, and current and former intelligence officers are working to prevent the men from being sent to Iran.
The six Jundullah members were taken into custody by Pakistani authorities last week, and the Iranian Mehr News Agency reported Pakistan would soon extradite the men to Iran, where they would likely be put on trial as spies and face execution.
The value of the dollar is dropping like a rock and this video is to show how this is affecting the prices of everything from gas to milk. This is the first of several videos to show what is really happening to the economy of the United States and why this country is in a lot of trouble financially.
It is so transparent as to almost be a joke. “Chicago police officers will be armed with combat rifles to better rival the firepower of street gangs, police Superintendent Jody Weis has announced,” reports the Fort Mill Times. “Weis unveiled the plan to equip and train the department’s 13,500 officers with M4 carbines on Friday.” No word on what version of the M4 Jody Weis will hand out. The M4 is basically an M16. It comes in semi-automatic with a three-round burst and full auto. It is the preferred weapon of the U.S. Army Special Forces and Navy SEALs.
Is there a reason for cops to have such awesome firepower?
“The weapons of criminals are getting bigger and bigger,” averred Chicago mayor Richard Daley, so he gave a nod to issuing the M4s. Interesting because Daley is an avowed opponent of the Second Amendment. But only for the commoners. Cops get military weapons to go along with their black Star Wars storm trooper uniforms.
At a news conference Saturday, Daley said the M4 carbines “will be seldom used” and while he is an advocate of gun control, the decision to equip officers with the rifles was “not difficult.”
No, of course not. Because there are gangsters in the street selling crack provided by the Cocaine Import Agency, also known as the CIA. If the CIA and the bankster money launderers on Wall Street were divested of this immensely profitable business and drug possession was decriminalized, there would be scant few gang bangers running around with micro Uzis.
But never mind. Chicago’s violent streets are a perfect excuse to further militarize the cops. Daley will replace every cop’s handgun with a brand spanking new M4.
US military personnel aboard a cargo ship traveling into the Persian Gulf fired nearly a dozen warning shots at Iranian speed-boats Thursday, according to several breaking news reports.
Reports of the incident prompted a nearly immediate spike in oil prices, which jumped $3 per barrel.
The ship was contracted by the U.S Military Sealift Command, which delivers supplies to US troops overseas. The showdown involved a cargo ship known as Westward Venture and several Iranian speedboats, reported MSNBC’s Jim Miklaszewski.
“Since it is chartered by the US military it then essentially becomes a US military vessel, with the necessary armaments on board to protect the cargo and the crew on board,” he reported.
The cargo ship apparently was sailing into the Strait of Hormuz, site of a showdown between US Navy warships and Iranian speedboats in January.
More than one Iranian “fast boats … were approaching this vessel at a high rate of speed,” in the Persian Gulf, MSNBC’s Pentagon correspondent said. US military personnel on board fired eight .50-caliber rounds and three warning shots from M-16s when the boats got within 100 yards of the cargo ship. After the shots were fired, the ships veered off, according to MSNBC.
Miklaszewski said the military believes the Iranians were mostly trying to harass the ship and perhaps see how close they could get before being fired upon. He said those types of boats could not do much damage unless they got nearly right up next to the ship and were packed with explosives.
Last month, another US cargo ship fired on an Egyptian boat that was coming towards it in the Suez Canal. Egyptian officials said on man on the boat was killed, although the US Navy claimed it just fired warning shots. The speedboat that was fired on apparently carried local merchandise which the Egyptian men sold to sailors on larger ships.
The latest incident is also the second showdown with Iran in the Persian Gulf. It follows a January showdown in which the US Navy said Iranian speedboats threatened its ships in the Strait of Hormuz. That incident was later revealed to have been overblown, and some saw echoes of the Gulf of Tonkin incident that drew America deeper into Vietnam.
