Contrairimairi just forwarded the following Baltimore Sun article by Lynette Long. The Republicans are becoming the party of choice for women, which reverses a long standing trend.
"In this election, putting gender first
By Lynette Long
September 14, 2008
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin knows what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister...
"Sarah Palin knows what it is to experience the joys and sorrows of motherhood, to nurse a baby while holding down a job, to leave for work in the morning with a toddler tugging at your pant leg, and to have your children calling you at work to defuse squabbles or ask for help with homework. She knows that once you get to work, you have to speak twice as loud and twice as often to be heard, and work twice a hard to go half as far...
"After the Democratic Primary, I was contacted by a member of Sen. Barack Obama's Finance Committee, and we had numerous contentious conversations. I finally told him I would be happy to vote for Mr. Obama and rally other Hillary Clinton supporters, but in return I wanted Mr. Obama to pledge gender parity in the Cabinet...
"'What if there aren't qualified women - you still expect us to appoint half women to the Cabinet?' he replied. 'There are 300 million people in this country; you're telling me you can't find 10 qualified women?' I said.'
"He responded, 'You can't have that.' We had no further conversations.
"Yes, policy is important, but who decides and delivers that policy is even more important...
"I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party...stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the mainstream media...
"I can vote for my party and its candidates, which have demonstrated a blatant disrespect for women and a fundamental lack of integrity. Or I can vote for the Republican ticket, which has heard our concerns and put a woman on the ticket, but with which I fundamentally don't agree on most issues.
"Right now, for me, gender trumps everything else..."
Contrairimairi also forwards a link to a No Quarters post in which Larry Johnson quotes Nancy Kallitechnis, who does a good job of dissecting the sexist differences between questions that Charles Gibson asked Palin versus the ones he asked Obama:
"For example, Gibson asked Obama a lot of questions focused on the positive aspects of Obama being a champion and breaking a glass ceiling for African Americans. Yet he didn’t ask Palin about her potential of breaking the infamous glass ceiling and the benefits that would create for women who are a much larger percentage of the U.S. population than African Americans.
"Furthermore, Gibson often questioned Palin’s ability to lead, but he never questioned Obama’s ability to lead. This is outrageous because Palin has more political executive experience than Obama and far more political accomplishments..."
Kallitechnis in ancient Greek means "beauty of workmanship" and Nancy Kallitechnis writes an excellent blog. In particular, she compares the questions Gibson asked Obama and Palin:
"Obama:
"How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
"How does it feel to "win"?
"How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
"Palin;
"Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
"Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level"
Women should be offended at the media's bias in this election, much as conservatives and free thinkers have been offended at its ornithoid bias for decades.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Barack Obama Isn't for Change Any More
Texas Darlin (h/t Bob Robbins) has an excellent post on the new John McCain ad on Youtube:
In an interview with Palin on ABC which is full of the pecks and nips that ornithoid Obama supporter Charles Gibson cannot resist making before he flies south, Palin states that she would "reduce taxes, control spending and reform the oversight committees that review spending."
The difference between Palin and Obama, based on that brief interview, is this. Palin does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy but has the right instincts. Obama does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy either, and has the wrong instincts. It is difficult to grasp how anyone could have taken Senator Obama's "change" slogan seriously earlier this year. The media's credulity has done serious damage do an institution with wings already clipped.
I previously have expressed concern that Senator Obama is a sociopath. Texas Darlin carries this theme forward:
>"But McCain’s commercial merely skirts the surface of the Obamas’ disrespect for the precious American ideals of patriotism and public service. In truth, “disrespect” defines the Obamas’ life credo. We witnessed this most profoundly when Rev. Jeremiah “God-Damn-America” Wright was introduced to us as their 20-year friend, mentor, spiritual advisor, and pastor. And of course there have been other indicators (forfeited flag pin, Michelle’s admission that she’s lacked pride in her country, the couples’ longstanding friendships with anti-American terrorists, etc.)."
Texas Darlin quotes the No Quarter blog's discussion of Ms. Obama's indifference to 9/11:
"While spectators viewed Cindy McCain, John McCain and Barack Obama commemorating the lives lost during the tragic day that was September 11, 2001, on their television screens, the eyes of readers of the printed media in Ohio scanned a report on Michelle Obama’s crass and debased identity politics at a largely African-American religious conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. Did the aspiring First Lady leave the children at home, or did she decide that they can endure that particular day of their first week of school without her?"
In an interview with Palin on ABC which is full of the pecks and nips that ornithoid Obama supporter Charles Gibson cannot resist making before he flies south, Palin states that she would "reduce taxes, control spending and reform the oversight committees that review spending."
The difference between Palin and Obama, based on that brief interview, is this. Palin does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy but has the right instincts. Obama does not grasp the underlying issues with the economy either, and has the wrong instincts. It is difficult to grasp how anyone could have taken Senator Obama's "change" slogan seriously earlier this year. The media's credulity has done serious damage do an institution with wings already clipped.
I previously have expressed concern that Senator Obama is a sociopath. Texas Darlin carries this theme forward:
>"But McCain’s commercial merely skirts the surface of the Obamas’ disrespect for the precious American ideals of patriotism and public service. In truth, “disrespect” defines the Obamas’ life credo. We witnessed this most profoundly when Rev. Jeremiah “God-Damn-America” Wright was introduced to us as their 20-year friend, mentor, spiritual advisor, and pastor. And of course there have been other indicators (forfeited flag pin, Michelle’s admission that she’s lacked pride in her country, the couples’ longstanding friendships with anti-American terrorists, etc.)."
Texas Darlin quotes the No Quarter blog's discussion of Ms. Obama's indifference to 9/11:
"While spectators viewed Cindy McCain, John McCain and Barack Obama commemorating the lives lost during the tragic day that was September 11, 2001, on their television screens, the eyes of readers of the printed media in Ohio scanned a report on Michelle Obama’s crass and debased identity politics at a largely African-American religious conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. Did the aspiring First Lady leave the children at home, or did she decide that they can endure that particular day of their first week of school without her?"
PSC Solidarity Committee and Syed Fahad Hashmi
Sharad Karkhanis just e-mailed this. Jim Perlstein, the Vice Chapter chair of the PSC's Retiree Chapter posted the following on the PSC Alert Yahoo Group on the Hashmi case. Hashmi was a student, not a member of the faculty or the union, accused of terrorism in England and extradited to the U.S. Karkhanis asks: "Why is this then a PSC alert? You draw the conclusions."
Lacking any special access to the case facts, the PSC has been clamoring for Hashmi's release.
>Posted by: "Jim Perlstein"
>Sun Sep 7, 2008 8:25 am (PDT)
>FYI. From the PSC Solidarity Committee:
>>This past spring, you signed a petition regarding the case of Syed Fahad Hashmi, a former Brooklyn College student currently being held in solitary confinement on four counts of providing material support to Al Qaida. We're writing you now to update you on the case and our campaign and to ask you to do a small thing. The trial date for Hashmi's case has now been postponed until the spring of 2009. Hashmi's attorney, Sean Maher, was finally given clearance to see the classified evidence the prosecution intends to present against Hashmi. Maher is forbidden to discuss this evidence with anyone, including Hashmi. Maher's law partner Khurrum Walid, who is helping Maher litigate this case, only received clearance this week. The prosecution has described this evidence as "voluminous," yet only Maher, up to this point, has been able to examine it. Because of the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) imposed upon Hashmi (more on this below), Maher is also forbidden to discuss his conversations with Hashmi with outside experts. Hashmi's right to counsel and a fair trial is thus being hampered in two ways: by the secrecy of the evidence and by the SAMs.
>>Judge Preska is presiding over the case. She was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. She has frequently been mentioned as one of the current president's possible Supreme Court nominees. She has refused to entertain objections from Maher about the SAMs and the rules of secrecy. She also refused to allow Hashmi
>out on bail: even though his family raised $500,000 from the community to post bail for him, Preska insisted that he had insufficient community and family ties and thus posed a flight risk. 550 scholars, artists, and writers including Henry Louis Gates, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, Angela Davis, Eric Foner, Tony Judt, Susan
>Faludi, David Cole, and many more joined you in signing the petition. It was sent to the Attorney General, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the entire congressional delegation for New York, and other local and state officials in New York. Kathleen M. Kenney of the Justice Department responded on July 31, claiming that the petition's signatories could "rest assured that any issue brought to our attention by Mr. Hashmi or his attorney(s) is addressed in a timely fashion." The news media has picked up on our campaign. The Chronicle of Higher Education published a lengthy feature on the campaign...and it was profiled in the New York Daily News and on Pacifica radio station. Journalists at other media outlets have expressed continuing interest, and we expect to place additional stories in the near future.
>>Right now, though, we are asking you take a small but important step to help alleviate the draconian conditions of Mr. Hashmi's confinement. As you might recall, the Attorney General imposed the SAMs on Hashmi in October 2007. They threaten his mental health and ability to get a fair trial. (For more details on the SAMs, go to
>http://www.educatorsforcivilliberties.org/liftthesam.html.)
>>The SAMs are up for review by Attorney General Michael Mukasey in October. We are asking you to send an email to Mukasey and to Michael Garcia, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, asking them to lift the SAMs. To send the email, go to
>http://www.educatorsforcivilliberties.org/liftthesam.html. We also ask that you circulate the attached description of the Hashmi case and conditions of Hashmi's confinement, and urge friends, students, and colleagues to join in our campaign to lift the SAMs.
Sincerely,
Corey Robin and Jeanne Theoharis
Educators for Civil Liberties
URGENT ACTION NEEDED
It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of those libertiesSwhich makes the defense of this nation worthwhile.
--Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1967
>>Syed Fahad Hashmi is a 28-year-old Muslim American citizen currently being held in solitary confinement in a federal jail on two counts of providing and conspiring to provide material support and two counts of making and conspiring to make a contribution of goods or services to Al Qaida. If convicted, he faces seventy years in prison. Hashmi came to the U.S. from Pakistan with his family when he was three and grew up in Flushing, Queens.
>>He majored in political science at Brooklyn College and then attended the London Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom where he received his MA in international relations. In June 2006, he was arrested by British police at Heathrow Airport (he was about to travel to Pakistan, where he has family) on a warrant issued by the US government. In May 2007, he was extradited to the U.S., where he has since been held in solitary confinement under Special Administrative Measures (SAM) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
>>The U.S. government claims that testimony from Junaid Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. The government alleges that during February 2004, Babar, also a Pakistani-born US citizen, stayed with Hashmi at his London apartment for two weeks. According to the government, Babar stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos, and waterproof socks in Hashmi's apartment and then delivered these materials to the third-ranking member of Al Qaida in South Waziristan, Pakistan. In addition, Hashmi allegedly allowed Babar to use his cell phone to call other conspirators. Babar, who has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support for Al Qaida, has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain and Canada as well as in Hashmi's trial. Under a plea agreement reported in the media, Babar will receive a reduced sentence in return for his cooperation.
>>The Conditions
>>The conditions of Mr. Hashmi¹s pre-trial detention are draconian. He is subject to a regime of severe isolation. Under the SAMs imposed by the Attorney General, Hashmi must be held in solitary confinement and may not communicate with anyone inside the prison other than prison officials. He is subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside of his cell and 23-hour lockdown. He has no access to fresh air, and must take his one-hour of daily recreation - when it is given - inside a cage. Family visits, which were not granted for many months, are limited to one person every other week for one and a half hours; they cannot involve physical contact. Mr. Hashmi may write only one letter (of no more than three pieces of paper) per week to one family member. He may not communicate, either directly or through his attorneys, with the news media. He may read only designated portions of newspapers - and not until thirty days after their publication - and his access to other reading material is restricted. He may not listen to or watch news-oriented radio stations and television channels. He may not participate in group prayer. While the Attorney General claims that these measures are necessary because "there is substantial risk that [Hashmi's]communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons," he was held in a British jail with other prisoners for eleven months without incident.
>>These Special Administrative Measures undermine Mr. Hashmi¹s right to a fair trial: they threaten his mental state and ability to testify on his own behalf; the severity of their constraints casts a pall of suspicion over him, effectively depicting him as guilty before he even enters the courtroom; [PC1] <#_msocom_1> and by prohibiting Hashmi's attorney from conveying the content of his conversations with Hashmi to outside experts, they impair Hashmi's right to counsel. They also rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment.
>>History of Special Administrative Measures
>>The government¹s ability to impose Special Administrative Measures was established in 1996. Since 9/11, it has been dramatically expanded. SAMs can now be imposed for a year; previously it was 120 days. The standards for their imposition and conditions for their renewal have been relaxed. Previously, renewals required an intelligence agency head to ³certify that Othe circumstances identified in the original certification continue to exist.¹² Now, renewals ³may be based on any information available to the intelligence agency,² whether that information confirms the persistence of the original circumstances or not. Of 201,000 prisoners currently within the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, fewer than fifty are presently
being held under SAMs. [PC2] <#_msocom_2>
...
Lacking any special access to the case facts, the PSC has been clamoring for Hashmi's release.
>Posted by: "Jim Perlstein"
>Sun Sep 7, 2008 8:25 am (PDT)
>FYI. From the PSC Solidarity Committee:
>>This past spring, you signed a petition regarding the case of Syed Fahad Hashmi, a former Brooklyn College student currently being held in solitary confinement on four counts of providing material support to Al Qaida. We're writing you now to update you on the case and our campaign and to ask you to do a small thing. The trial date for Hashmi's case has now been postponed until the spring of 2009. Hashmi's attorney, Sean Maher, was finally given clearance to see the classified evidence the prosecution intends to present against Hashmi. Maher is forbidden to discuss this evidence with anyone, including Hashmi. Maher's law partner Khurrum Walid, who is helping Maher litigate this case, only received clearance this week. The prosecution has described this evidence as "voluminous," yet only Maher, up to this point, has been able to examine it. Because of the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) imposed upon Hashmi (more on this below), Maher is also forbidden to discuss his conversations with Hashmi with outside experts. Hashmi's right to counsel and a fair trial is thus being hampered in two ways: by the secrecy of the evidence and by the SAMs.
>>Judge Preska is presiding over the case. She was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. She has frequently been mentioned as one of the current president's possible Supreme Court nominees. She has refused to entertain objections from Maher about the SAMs and the rules of secrecy. She also refused to allow Hashmi
>out on bail: even though his family raised $500,000 from the community to post bail for him, Preska insisted that he had insufficient community and family ties and thus posed a flight risk. 550 scholars, artists, and writers including Henry Louis Gates, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, Angela Davis, Eric Foner, Tony Judt, Susan
>Faludi, David Cole, and many more joined you in signing the petition. It was sent to the Attorney General, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the entire congressional delegation for New York, and other local and state officials in New York. Kathleen M. Kenney of the Justice Department responded on July 31, claiming that the petition's signatories could "rest assured that any issue brought to our attention by Mr. Hashmi or his attorney(s) is addressed in a timely fashion." The news media has picked up on our campaign. The Chronicle of Higher Education published a lengthy feature on the campaign...and it was profiled in the New York Daily News and on Pacifica radio station. Journalists at other media outlets have expressed continuing interest, and we expect to place additional stories in the near future.
>>Right now, though, we are asking you take a small but important step to help alleviate the draconian conditions of Mr. Hashmi's confinement. As you might recall, the Attorney General imposed the SAMs on Hashmi in October 2007. They threaten his mental health and ability to get a fair trial. (For more details on the SAMs, go to
>
>>The SAMs are up for review by Attorney General Michael Mukasey in October. We are asking you to send an email to Mukasey and to Michael Garcia, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, asking them to lift the SAMs. To send the email, go to
>
Sincerely,
Corey Robin and Jeanne Theoharis
Educators for Civil Liberties
URGENT ACTION NEEDED
It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of those libertiesSwhich makes the defense of this nation worthwhile.
--Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1967
>>Syed Fahad Hashmi is a 28-year-old Muslim American citizen currently being held in solitary confinement in a federal jail on two counts of providing and conspiring to provide material support and two counts of making and conspiring to make a contribution of goods or services to Al Qaida. If convicted, he faces seventy years in prison. Hashmi came to the U.S. from Pakistan with his family when he was three and grew up in Flushing, Queens.
>>He majored in political science at Brooklyn College and then attended the London Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom where he received his MA in international relations. In June 2006, he was arrested by British police at Heathrow Airport (he was about to travel to Pakistan, where he has family) on a warrant issued by the US government. In May 2007, he was extradited to the U.S., where he has since been held in solitary confinement under Special Administrative Measures (SAM) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
>>The U.S. government claims that testimony from Junaid Babar is the "centerpiece" of its case against Hashmi. The government alleges that during February 2004, Babar, also a Pakistani-born US citizen, stayed with Hashmi at his London apartment for two weeks. According to the government, Babar stored luggage containing raincoats, ponchos, and waterproof socks in Hashmi's apartment and then delivered these materials to the third-ranking member of Al Qaida in South Waziristan, Pakistan. In addition, Hashmi allegedly allowed Babar to use his cell phone to call other conspirators. Babar, who has pleaded guilty to five counts of material support for Al Qaida, has agreed to serve as a government witness in terrorism trials in Britain and Canada as well as in Hashmi's trial. Under a plea agreement reported in the media, Babar will receive a reduced sentence in return for his cooperation.
>>The Conditions
>>The conditions of Mr. Hashmi¹s pre-trial detention are draconian. He is subject to a regime of severe isolation. Under the SAMs imposed by the Attorney General, Hashmi must be held in solitary confinement and may not communicate with anyone inside the prison other than prison officials. He is subject to 24-hour electronic monitoring inside and outside of his cell and 23-hour lockdown. He has no access to fresh air, and must take his one-hour of daily recreation - when it is given - inside a cage. Family visits, which were not granted for many months, are limited to one person every other week for one and a half hours; they cannot involve physical contact. Mr. Hashmi may write only one letter (of no more than three pieces of paper) per week to one family member. He may not communicate, either directly or through his attorneys, with the news media. He may read only designated portions of newspapers - and not until thirty days after their publication - and his access to other reading material is restricted. He may not listen to or watch news-oriented radio stations and television channels. He may not participate in group prayer. While the Attorney General claims that these measures are necessary because "there is substantial risk that [Hashmi's]communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons," he was held in a British jail with other prisoners for eleven months without incident.
>>These Special Administrative Measures undermine Mr. Hashmi¹s right to a fair trial: they threaten his mental state and ability to testify on his own behalf; the severity of their constraints casts a pall of suspicion over him, effectively depicting him as guilty before he even enters the courtroom; [PC1] <#_msocom_1> and by prohibiting Hashmi's attorney from conveying the content of his conversations with Hashmi to outside experts, they impair Hashmi's right to counsel. They also rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment.
>>History of Special Administrative Measures
>>The government¹s ability to impose Special Administrative Measures was established in 1996. Since 9/11, it has been dramatically expanded. SAMs can now be imposed for a year; previously it was 120 days. The standards for their imposition and conditions for their renewal have been relaxed. Previously, renewals required an intelligence agency head to ³certify that Othe circumstances identified in the original certification continue to exist.¹² Now, renewals ³may be based on any information available to the intelligence agency,² whether that information confirms the persistence of the original circumstances or not. Of 201,000 prisoners currently within the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, fewer than fifty are presently
being held under SAMs. [PC2] <#_msocom_2>
...
Smears Debunked: The Truth About Gov. Sarah Palin
I received the following e-mail from Norma Segal this past Wednesday:
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin supporting Pat Buchanan for President Facts: Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, not George W. Bush for Pat Buchanan.
While Mayor of Wasilla, AK, Gov. Palin had a policy that if a candidate came to her city, she would wear that button on the day they were there. Pat Buchanan came to Wasilla so the day he came, she wore a button. On July 26, 1999, then-Mayor Palin wrote the Anchorage Daily News to clarify the record because a wire service story the paper had published nine days before "may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing" Buchanan because she had welcomed his visit to her town. "As mayor," she explained, "I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla." (Anchorage Daily News, 7/26/99)
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin endorsing the views of a Jews for Jesus speaker that spoke once in her church.
Facts: Gov. Palin did not know this speaker would be at her church and emphatically rejects his views.
This is based on concerns about a sermon presented last month at the church she usually attends. The Jewish news agency JTA investigated and reported that 1) Palin would have had no way of knowing that this person would be speaking at church that day, 2) Palin rejects the Christian speaker's offensive views, and 3) Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has seen "no evidence" that she shares those views. (JTA, 9/3/08)
Also, this speaker spoke once at Palin's church. Democrats should be cautious when their candidate, Barack Obama, embraced an anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who was both a personal friend and mentor for 20 years. Democrats are absolutely attempting to smear Gov. Palin with distorted facts. Democrats are doing a disservice to themselves if they think with one or two distorted facts that they can fool the Jewish community.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin censoring library books.
Facts: The Anchorage Daily News found that then-Mayor Palin never proposed to ban a single book. (Anchorage Daily News, 9/4/08) All other rumors and innuendo on this topic are outright smears.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin seeking to have creationism taught in public schools.
Facts: Gov. Palin took no action to add creationism to the state's curriculum throughout her term in office.
The Associated Press investigated and found that Gov. Palin "kept her campaign pledge not to "push the State Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum or look for creationism activists when she appointed members." The AP also quoted a political observer in the state who observed, "She has basically ignored social issues period." (Associated Press, 9/3/08)
The RJC is determined to set the record straight in the face of frenzied attacks on Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain. Please let us know if you hear about a smear that needs to be addressed.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin supporting Pat Buchanan for President Facts: Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, not George W. Bush for Pat Buchanan.
While Mayor of Wasilla, AK, Gov. Palin had a policy that if a candidate came to her city, she would wear that button on the day they were there. Pat Buchanan came to Wasilla so the day he came, she wore a button. On July 26, 1999, then-Mayor Palin wrote the Anchorage Daily News to clarify the record because a wire service story the paper had published nine days before "may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing" Buchanan because she had welcomed his visit to her town. "As mayor," she explained, "I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla." (Anchorage Daily News, 7/26/99)
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin endorsing the views of a Jews for Jesus speaker that spoke once in her church.
Facts: Gov. Palin did not know this speaker would be at her church and emphatically rejects his views.
This is based on concerns about a sermon presented last month at the church she usually attends. The Jewish news agency JTA investigated and reported that 1) Palin would have had no way of knowing that this person would be speaking at church that day, 2) Palin rejects the Christian speaker's offensive views, and 3) Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, has seen "no evidence" that she shares those views. (JTA, 9/3/08)
Also, this speaker spoke once at Palin's church. Democrats should be cautious when their candidate, Barack Obama, embraced an anti-American, anti-Semitic pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright who was both a personal friend and mentor for 20 years. Democrats are absolutely attempting to smear Gov. Palin with distorted facts. Democrats are doing a disservice to themselves if they think with one or two distorted facts that they can fool the Jewish community.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin censoring library books.
Facts: The Anchorage Daily News found that then-Mayor Palin never proposed to ban a single book. (Anchorage Daily News, 9/4/08) All other rumors and innuendo on this topic are outright smears.
Smear: Democrats lie about Governor Palin seeking to have creationism taught in public schools.
Facts: Gov. Palin took no action to add creationism to the state's curriculum throughout her term in office.
The Associated Press investigated and found that Gov. Palin "kept her campaign pledge not to "push the State Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum or look for creationism activists when she appointed members." The AP also quoted a political observer in the state who observed, "She has basically ignored social issues period." (Associated Press, 9/3/08)
The RJC is determined to set the record straight in the face of frenzied attacks on Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain. Please let us know if you hear about a smear that needs to be addressed.
Friday, September 12, 2008
E-mail To Sean Hannity Re the Economy
Dear Mr. Hannity--I listen to your TV program as well as your radio broadcast and enjoy them both. I agree with you most of the time. I enjoyed your exchange with Robert Kuttner but want to take issue with a point with which I disagree--your support for President Bush's economic policies. I think that your position is a mistake from both "conservatives principles" and tactical viewpoints.
I disagree with Mr. Kuttner on many things but agree with him on this point. The Bush administration has permitted the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed to behave like a hyper-Democratic government agency. This was true antecedent to 2000, since the days of President Reagan and Chair Greenspan, and it has not gone away.
If you are a conservative then you probably believe in less government. Artificial stimulation of misdirected (or as von Mises put it malinvested) economic activity is one of the most wasteful and inefficient forms of government intervention. This has been the policy that the Republicans have pursued since the 1980s (and indeed, in the 1970s under President Nixon) and it is antithetical to conservatism if you are adhering to the small government, Jacksonian variant. Of course, it is also possible to be a big government Whig economic conservative, along the lines of Rockefeller and GW Bush, but that viewpoint has come to be viewed as a form of liberalism or left-wing Republicanism rather than the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.
In any case, if you are an advocate of big government monetary expansion, support for big business, government intervention in the economy and Keynesian economics, which are the policies of George W. Bush, you should say so. I don't think that all Republicans or conservatives agree with you. I find this especially troubling because Fox has limited its exposure of conservatives to the Whig-American Enterprise Institute-Progressive conservatism, which is not what many of your viewers believe, and I think there is a sleight of hand going on. You should clarify your position on this issue.
I would hope that you reject big government, and therefore the monetary policies of the past 25 years. I do not believe that government should intervene on behalf of the rich, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, or Lehman Brothers. Nor do I believe in welfare. Many of the Fox pundits believe in welfare for the rich, and this is a serious weakness in your presentation.
In addition, I do not think the cause of John McCain and Sarah Palin is helped by association with the Whig-AEI-Progressive approach to the economy. Americans are by many measures worse off. The average hourly wage has been declining since 1971, when President Nixon took us off the gold standard. It is tragic if you allow the Democrats to steal this issue because of short-sighted fixation on big money donations from the board members of AEI. In the long run there is going to be backlash against the feudal, inflationary economy of post-1968 Republicanism, and if the Republicans don't start re-thinking their position on hard money they ultimately will be thrown out of office.
I disagree with Mr. Kuttner on many things but agree with him on this point. The Bush administration has permitted the Greenspan and Bernanke Fed to behave like a hyper-Democratic government agency. This was true antecedent to 2000, since the days of President Reagan and Chair Greenspan, and it has not gone away.
If you are a conservative then you probably believe in less government. Artificial stimulation of misdirected (or as von Mises put it malinvested) economic activity is one of the most wasteful and inefficient forms of government intervention. This has been the policy that the Republicans have pursued since the 1980s (and indeed, in the 1970s under President Nixon) and it is antithetical to conservatism if you are adhering to the small government, Jacksonian variant. Of course, it is also possible to be a big government Whig economic conservative, along the lines of Rockefeller and GW Bush, but that viewpoint has come to be viewed as a form of liberalism or left-wing Republicanism rather than the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.
In any case, if you are an advocate of big government monetary expansion, support for big business, government intervention in the economy and Keynesian economics, which are the policies of George W. Bush, you should say so. I don't think that all Republicans or conservatives agree with you. I find this especially troubling because Fox has limited its exposure of conservatives to the Whig-American Enterprise Institute-Progressive conservatism, which is not what many of your viewers believe, and I think there is a sleight of hand going on. You should clarify your position on this issue.
I would hope that you reject big government, and therefore the monetary policies of the past 25 years. I do not believe that government should intervene on behalf of the rich, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, or Lehman Brothers. Nor do I believe in welfare. Many of the Fox pundits believe in welfare for the rich, and this is a serious weakness in your presentation.
In addition, I do not think the cause of John McCain and Sarah Palin is helped by association with the Whig-AEI-Progressive approach to the economy. Americans are by many measures worse off. The average hourly wage has been declining since 1971, when President Nixon took us off the gold standard. It is tragic if you allow the Democrats to steal this issue because of short-sighted fixation on big money donations from the board members of AEI. In the long run there is going to be backlash against the feudal, inflationary economy of post-1968 Republicanism, and if the Republicans don't start re-thinking their position on hard money they ultimately will be thrown out of office.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Contrairimairi on the Obama-McCain Forum
I was raking the first of this years fallen leaves and missed the events in New York today, but Contrairimairi has sent me a an e-mail to fill us in about the campaign:
Dear Mitchell,
It is just a bit ironic to me, that tonight's forum was supposed to be a brief break from campaigning, and take a thoughtful look at service to the Country. It was supposed to be a sort of "win...win" situation for everyone. I just can't help thinking, that despite being on "home turf", his alma mater, BO lost.
I HOPE I am not the only one who noticed that BO made a point to say that he felt older Americans could offer much to schools by teaching Math and Science. Weren't those the very same programs that were attempting to be part of the CAC, and were turned down? Just saying.....who knows, maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe BO finally realizes that Math and Science really are important.
I also believe he lost on the question of community organizer pitted against the experience of a small town mayor. Sen. McCain was quite gracious, I think, in handling that fiasco's reference, but BO twisted it to try to make Gov. Palin look like the villain yet again. I find it hard to believe he was "hurting" by making the choice to be an organizer in Chicago. Seems like he made many "allies" during that time.
The moderators stunk! I was also surprised that Sen. McCain came out so clearly against service to Country becoming yet another bureaucracy. I felt BO would start spending immediately, and we know how that "rolls down hill".
I would LOVE to know what BO actually "accomplished" in his time as CO. I feel in Chicago, a lot of that work is just voter registration in an attempt to gain an impassioned voter response in underprivileged neighborhoods, and then, an abandonment of the very people who were used to get a vote result. I believe this has happened often in Chicago, and it saddens me that those who employ that type of technique are very effective with it still. I don't know if the CAC records will relate directly to BO, but I would sure like to have a complete breakdown on where those funds went and exactly how they were used.
Mairi
Dear Mitchell,
It is just a bit ironic to me, that tonight's forum was supposed to be a brief break from campaigning, and take a thoughtful look at service to the Country. It was supposed to be a sort of "win...win" situation for everyone. I just can't help thinking, that despite being on "home turf", his alma mater, BO lost.
I HOPE I am not the only one who noticed that BO made a point to say that he felt older Americans could offer much to schools by teaching Math and Science. Weren't those the very same programs that were attempting to be part of the CAC, and were turned down? Just saying.....who knows, maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks. Maybe BO finally realizes that Math and Science really are important.
I also believe he lost on the question of community organizer pitted against the experience of a small town mayor. Sen. McCain was quite gracious, I think, in handling that fiasco's reference, but BO twisted it to try to make Gov. Palin look like the villain yet again. I find it hard to believe he was "hurting" by making the choice to be an organizer in Chicago. Seems like he made many "allies" during that time.
The moderators stunk! I was also surprised that Sen. McCain came out so clearly against service to Country becoming yet another bureaucracy. I felt BO would start spending immediately, and we know how that "rolls down hill".
I would LOVE to know what BO actually "accomplished" in his time as CO. I feel in Chicago, a lot of that work is just voter registration in an attempt to gain an impassioned voter response in underprivileged neighborhoods, and then, an abandonment of the very people who were used to get a vote result. I believe this has happened often in Chicago, and it saddens me that those who employ that type of technique are very effective with it still. I don't know if the CAC records will relate directly to BO, but I would sure like to have a complete breakdown on where those funds went and exactly how they were used.
Mairi
Economy Talk
Republican talk show pundits like Sean Hannity are wrong to defend George Bush. In pursuing an inflationary, interventionist policy President Bush and Ben Bernanke have behaved like Democrats, not Republicans.
Nancy and Contrairimairi have sent me e-mails recently about the economy. I agree with any and all tax cuts, and I disagree with the idea that the current problems in the economy are due to tax cuts (or taxes at all). Contrairimairi's brother is a Democrat, and I agree with him on a few points, but the ultimate prescription is NOT that a Democrat can solve the mess that George W. Bush's and Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve Bank has created. From a historical perspective, President Bush has exaggerated policies that the Democrats established. The policies should be abolished.
Nor do I think the current problems in the economy have anything to do with Congress. Moreover, Obama would be worse than McCain. The reason he would be worse is that he is more closely linked to Wall Street than McCain is. The uncertainty and instability that we are facing are all due to manipulation by the Federal Reserve Bank. I've blogged on this alot (also see here, here, here, here, here, and here, here).
The Fed was aggressively increasing the money supply until about five years ago, when it started encouraging foreign governments to purchase Treasury Bonds, boosting the value of the dollar. Long term the dollar is going down, but short term it has been increasing.
The inflation rate has been low because the increased money supply encouraged lower interest rates for many years that made lending easier and this stimulated commodity production. The commodity firms increased production in the 1980s and 1990s and then when prices fell they reduced production. The result was they lost alot of money and they will resist new production. In response to the reduced production, prices started increasing about four or five years ago. What should happen is inflation followed by the Fed's reducing the money supply (raising interest rates) but they have not done that because the Republicans don't want a stock market crash while in office. Reducing interest rates will reduce the stock markets. Thus, the Fed has delayed the usual stock market cycle. Also, the low interest rates stimulated bad investment in real estate and the Fed has also been subsidizing the results. The effects of all the bad investment and subsidies to Wall Street ought to be a combination of rising interest rates and inflation like in the 1970s. But the Fed has performed a trick by getting foreign governments to inflate for us. This will not last forever.
But the pain can continue for a long time as the subsidization of bad investments by increasing the money supply can continue until actual inflation starts. Then the public will deamand action and the Fed will raise rates. This may happen after the election as McCain is envisioning himself as a one term president anyway, although Palin's nomination may change that. It could be delayed for 10 years or more depending on how much strength is in the world economy to keep subsidizing the US economy.
In short, there is a considerable amount of manipulation by central banks right now and the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, has been willing to subsidize incompetent firms. This will ultimately result in inflation. I would tell you to buy hard assets, i.e., platinum, gold and silver, but the trick that the Fed is playing with the foreign central banks is currently causing a steep drop in the gold price along with an increase in the dollar. At some point in the near future, possibly when gold hits around 700 or 670, then it will be a good time to buy gold and Euros.
I disagree that the Democrats can solve these problems. The problem in our economy is due to policies that were adopted in 1932 by Franklin D. Roosevelt and in 1971 by Richard Nixon. In 1932 FDR illegalized gold ownership and took the Fed off the gold standard. An international gold standard was reinstated in 1944, I think, but in 1971 Richard M. Nixon abolished that one. The cause of the Fed's unlmited power to create money was a three step process. Wilson, a Democrat, founded the Fed in 1913. Roosevelt, a Democrat, abolished the gold standard in 1932. Nixon, a Republican, abolished the international gold standard in 1971. The Democrats have never advocated reinstatment of a gold standard or a monetary rule, which was what Milton Friedman advocated. The end result has been the kind of policies we see today. They are the result of:
1. Partnership between government and business, a long standing policy that the Democrats have advocated
2. Abolition of the gold standard, a long standing Democratic Party policy
3. Keynesian economics, a long standing economic theory advocated by the Democratic Party.
The Republicans have copied the Democrats on this. Blaming the imitators in favor of the originators will not solve the problem. Nor is regulation or deregulation of FNMA relevant. The Democrats show that they do not grasp/do not want to solve the underlying problem by blaming speculators for inflation and bringing up irrelevant topics such as regulation and the income tax when the real problem is monetary policy and unlimited Federal Reserve power to create money. This is the Democrats' policy that the Republicans have adopted. It is decidedly pro-Wall Street, and Wall Street has chiefly contributed to Obama, not McCain.
Contraririmairi writes:
>I will assume you received the "just 2 years" e-mail from Nancy. I sent it off to my brother. He and I had just had a VERY lengthy discussion on many of these issues two nights before. He did, however, take the time to pick the e-mail apart, and I thought you would be interested in his response.
Contrairimairi's brother writes:
The "intertia" of the US economy averages about 5 years (despite this, Congress refuses to go onto 5 year budget cycles and corporations are even worse, with quarterly cycles). In other words, major changes take about 5 years before their full impact is felt.
- Regardless of program changes, the short term result is usually positive since the planning that goes into making such changes is usually focused no further than 12 months in advance, due in large part to a very broken Federal budgeting system and ZERO accountability.
- Due to deficit spending - a situation that occurs when taxes are too low to support the programs that greedy people demands (and compounded with graft and kickbacks to crooked politicians and their lobbyist buddies) - the government has been printing money without substantial basis in GDP valuation, resulting in inflation and radical drop in the value of the dollar - which leads to higher prices, greater control over our country by (hostile) foreign interests willing to cash in on our stupidity, and those two factors in turn lead to massive financial pressure on people - many of whom were not financially prepared for home ownership but were funded in the Fannie/Freddie Ponzi scheme.
- These cost pressures and devaluations/inflation are undeniably tied to Republican actions to cut taxes, mainly on the rich, in hopes the proven-broken "trickle" down theory will continue to hold. Corporations, having no conscience, see no advantage in attempting to radically expand in a stagnant market, while others - like oil companies - benefit from the price increases caused by a weak dollar, fabricated shortages and crooked futures dealers. The result? Higher profits - for a while - followed by sharp cutbacks, which increases unemployment and forces even more jobs offshore, leading to an increase in unemployment and a further drop in the value of the dollar. This situation is called "positive feedback" - the exact same mechanism that results in those painful speaker-system squeals during church or public events when somebody doesn't take proper care to make sure inputs and outputs are balanced. Works for money too.
- Privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other government agencies) could result in one of the largest "dumps" ever on individuals, as we (as taxpayers) have to bail out the greedy, corrupt, and inept "management"...
And just to be clear - if Obama gets elected tomorrow NOTHING will change.
- Ask yourself: if taxes were cut to ZERO, how would the bills get paid? Yet the current path is to reduce taxes to ZERO for the rich (i.e., eliminating the Corporate Gains tax, the Estate Tax, etc.). Guess who gets to make up the difference, shoulder the load, and bail out the crooks?"
Nancy writes:
In just two years ..... Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following ~
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Nancy and Contrairimairi have sent me e-mails recently about the economy. I agree with any and all tax cuts, and I disagree with the idea that the current problems in the economy are due to tax cuts (or taxes at all). Contrairimairi's brother is a Democrat, and I agree with him on a few points, but the ultimate prescription is NOT that a Democrat can solve the mess that George W. Bush's and Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve Bank has created. From a historical perspective, President Bush has exaggerated policies that the Democrats established. The policies should be abolished.
Nor do I think the current problems in the economy have anything to do with Congress. Moreover, Obama would be worse than McCain. The reason he would be worse is that he is more closely linked to Wall Street than McCain is. The uncertainty and instability that we are facing are all due to manipulation by the Federal Reserve Bank. I've blogged on this alot (also see here, here, here, here, here, and here, here).
The Fed was aggressively increasing the money supply until about five years ago, when it started encouraging foreign governments to purchase Treasury Bonds, boosting the value of the dollar. Long term the dollar is going down, but short term it has been increasing.
The inflation rate has been low because the increased money supply encouraged lower interest rates for many years that made lending easier and this stimulated commodity production. The commodity firms increased production in the 1980s and 1990s and then when prices fell they reduced production. The result was they lost alot of money and they will resist new production. In response to the reduced production, prices started increasing about four or five years ago. What should happen is inflation followed by the Fed's reducing the money supply (raising interest rates) but they have not done that because the Republicans don't want a stock market crash while in office. Reducing interest rates will reduce the stock markets. Thus, the Fed has delayed the usual stock market cycle. Also, the low interest rates stimulated bad investment in real estate and the Fed has also been subsidizing the results. The effects of all the bad investment and subsidies to Wall Street ought to be a combination of rising interest rates and inflation like in the 1970s. But the Fed has performed a trick by getting foreign governments to inflate for us. This will not last forever.
But the pain can continue for a long time as the subsidization of bad investments by increasing the money supply can continue until actual inflation starts. Then the public will deamand action and the Fed will raise rates. This may happen after the election as McCain is envisioning himself as a one term president anyway, although Palin's nomination may change that. It could be delayed for 10 years or more depending on how much strength is in the world economy to keep subsidizing the US economy.
In short, there is a considerable amount of manipulation by central banks right now and the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, has been willing to subsidize incompetent firms. This will ultimately result in inflation. I would tell you to buy hard assets, i.e., platinum, gold and silver, but the trick that the Fed is playing with the foreign central banks is currently causing a steep drop in the gold price along with an increase in the dollar. At some point in the near future, possibly when gold hits around 700 or 670, then it will be a good time to buy gold and Euros.
I disagree that the Democrats can solve these problems. The problem in our economy is due to policies that were adopted in 1932 by Franklin D. Roosevelt and in 1971 by Richard Nixon. In 1932 FDR illegalized gold ownership and took the Fed off the gold standard. An international gold standard was reinstated in 1944, I think, but in 1971 Richard M. Nixon abolished that one. The cause of the Fed's unlmited power to create money was a three step process. Wilson, a Democrat, founded the Fed in 1913. Roosevelt, a Democrat, abolished the gold standard in 1932. Nixon, a Republican, abolished the international gold standard in 1971. The Democrats have never advocated reinstatment of a gold standard or a monetary rule, which was what Milton Friedman advocated. The end result has been the kind of policies we see today. They are the result of:
1. Partnership between government and business, a long standing policy that the Democrats have advocated
2. Abolition of the gold standard, a long standing Democratic Party policy
3. Keynesian economics, a long standing economic theory advocated by the Democratic Party.
The Republicans have copied the Democrats on this. Blaming the imitators in favor of the originators will not solve the problem. Nor is regulation or deregulation of FNMA relevant. The Democrats show that they do not grasp/do not want to solve the underlying problem by blaming speculators for inflation and bringing up irrelevant topics such as regulation and the income tax when the real problem is monetary policy and unlimited Federal Reserve power to create money. This is the Democrats' policy that the Republicans have adopted. It is decidedly pro-Wall Street, and Wall Street has chiefly contributed to Obama, not McCain.
Contraririmairi writes:
>I will assume you received the "just 2 years" e-mail from Nancy. I sent it off to my brother. He and I had just had a VERY lengthy discussion on many of these issues two nights before. He did, however, take the time to pick the e-mail apart, and I thought you would be interested in his response.
Contrairimairi's brother writes:
The "intertia" of the US economy averages about 5 years (despite this, Congress refuses to go onto 5 year budget cycles and corporations are even worse, with quarterly cycles). In other words, major changes take about 5 years before their full impact is felt.
- Regardless of program changes, the short term result is usually positive since the planning that goes into making such changes is usually focused no further than 12 months in advance, due in large part to a very broken Federal budgeting system and ZERO accountability.
- Due to deficit spending - a situation that occurs when taxes are too low to support the programs that greedy people demands (and compounded with graft and kickbacks to crooked politicians and their lobbyist buddies) - the government has been printing money without substantial basis in GDP valuation, resulting in inflation and radical drop in the value of the dollar - which leads to higher prices, greater control over our country by (hostile) foreign interests willing to cash in on our stupidity, and those two factors in turn lead to massive financial pressure on people - many of whom were not financially prepared for home ownership but were funded in the Fannie/Freddie Ponzi scheme.
- These cost pressures and devaluations/inflation are undeniably tied to Republican actions to cut taxes, mainly on the rich, in hopes the proven-broken "trickle" down theory will continue to hold. Corporations, having no conscience, see no advantage in attempting to radically expand in a stagnant market, while others - like oil companies - benefit from the price increases caused by a weak dollar, fabricated shortages and crooked futures dealers. The result? Higher profits - for a while - followed by sharp cutbacks, which increases unemployment and forces even more jobs offshore, leading to an increase in unemployment and a further drop in the value of the dollar. This situation is called "positive feedback" - the exact same mechanism that results in those painful speaker-system squeals during church or public events when somebody doesn't take proper care to make sure inputs and outputs are balanced. Works for money too.
- Privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and other government agencies) could result in one of the largest "dumps" ever on individuals, as we (as taxpayers) have to bail out the greedy, corrupt, and inept "management"...
And just to be clear - if Obama gets elected tomorrow NOTHING will change.
- Ask yourself: if taxes were cut to ZERO, how would the bills get paid? Yet the current path is to reduce taxes to ZERO for the rich (i.e., eliminating the Corporate Gains tax, the Estate Tax, etc.). Guess who gets to make up the difference, shoulder the load, and bail out the crooks?"
Nancy writes:
In just two years ..... Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following ~
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what's handed to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
