Thoughts Aloud

Archive for November, 2008

Drudge has finally linked to an NBC affiliate’s brief mention of Keyes’ lawsuit. The level of ignorance displayed by commenters on both sides of the issue is appalling. The level of animus, particularly by the Lefties, is disturbing. Someone should do some sleuthing to determine how much of it is coming from one of George Soros’ outfits like this one:

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) — Three blocks from the White House, on the 10th floor of a sleek glass building, young workers pound at computers, with giant flat-screen TVs overhead. It has the look and feel of a high-tech startup.

In many ways it is. The product is ideas.

Thanks in part to funding from benefactors such as billionaire George Soros, the Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.

…

To help promote its ideas, CAP employs 11 full-time bloggers who contribute to two Web sites, ThinkProgress and the Wonk Room; others prepare daily feeds for radio stations.

…

CAP, which has 180 staffers and a $27 million budget, devotes as much as half of its resources to promoting its ideas through blogs, events, publications and media outreach…

We are up against a serious and savvy sheeple-numbing machine folks… ◄Dave►

Homeschoolers seek asylum from Nazi-era law:

The Homeschool Legal Defense Association is helping a family with an unusual, first-of-its-kind application: political asylum in the United States from Germany’s oppressive homeschooling laws.

The Uwe and Hannelore Romeike family fled their native Bissingen, Germany, to escape persecution under a Nazi-era law requiring all children to attend public school to avoid “the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions” that could be taught by parents at home.

…

Speaking of their new life in Tennessee, Mrs. Romeike told HSLDA, “The freedom we have to homeschool our children is wonderful. … We don’t have to worry about looking over our shoulder anymore, wondering when the youth welfare officials will come or how much money we have to pay in fines.”

Mr. Romeike added, “We left family, our home and a wonderful community in Germany. But the freedom is worth it. We hope that our example may pave the way for other families. It is wrong for Germany to persecute homeschoolers. But if they do not want the best and brightest and those who seek freedom, then perhaps the United States will benefit.”

…

“By standing with our persecuted brothers and sisters in Germany,” says HSLDA President J. Michael Smith, “we hope to inspire American homeschoolers not to take their freedom lightly, but to remember that freedom requires sacrifice. We also hope that with our encouragement and support, change for the better can happen. Our freedoms have long been an inspiration to others all over the world.”

Let’s hope he doesn’t have to flee Obamaland for the same reason in the future. The irony is that it was Prussia (now Germany) that started the compulsory public school concept, which was imported to America by the Progressives, as an excellent decade old article entitled, ‘The “Real” School Is Not Free‘ explains. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn’t understand why our kids are being deliberately dumbed down by government factory schools. Then, it might occur to you that they did it to us too… and if that doesn’t piss you off, you are programmed beyond hope… go back to sleep. ◄Dave►

After suggesting it unbelievable that it doesn’t exist, or that Hillary would have accepted defeat at the hands of someone Constitutionally unqualified for the office, Joseph Farah, editor of World Net Daily, still asks, “Where’s the birth certificate?“:

I’m also calling on all my colleagues, from coast to coast and around
the world, not to let this matter drop. Apparently it is a point of
real sensitivity with Obama people. Good. Let’s rub it in. Let’s demand
he produce the birth certificate at every turn – at every press
conference, at every appearance, on every talk show.

Could anything be more important than enforcing the requirements of our Constitution?

This is hardly a laughing matter. The longer this soap opera drags
on, the more suspicions it will raise – the less credibility our
electoral system will have, the more many people will believe the whole
political system is rigged.

Whom does that benefit?

I honestly can’t imagine.

What possible motivation could Obama have for not producing this
simple, innocuous document that every citizen must produce to get a
passport, driver’s license or Social Security card?

Are you curious?

So am I.

Where’s the birth certificate, Sen. Obama?

Agreed. It is way past time for him to produce it… if he can. ◄Dave►

I heard mention of a conference of secessionist movements this past weekend, and when I asked Google about it, I stumbled onto the Vermont movement’s website. While these folks are mostly Marxists railing against George Bush and corporatism, many of their complaints with the size and scope of the Federal government resonate with mine. Moreover, there is a wealth of information regarding our history and tradition of splitting States and territories. I have read many of the articles there and intend to explore it further; but one recent one discussing the conference as “upcoming” entitled, “Untied (sic) States,” is a good overview of the whole movement:

The Manchester conference brings together secessionists of all types. Writing in Orion, Bill Kauffman described the crowd from 2006 as “ponytails and suits, turtlenecks and sneakers, an Alaskan gold miner and one delegate from the neo-Confederate League of the South who wore a grey greatcoat, as if sitting for a daguerreotype just before the battle.” Despite—or perhaps because of—their ideological differences, they all share a common cause: to regionalize, to decentralize, to debunk the myth of a nation indivisible and replace it with a story that gives difference its due. That story is by no means a new one. The idea of political separatism is, as Middlebury Institute founder Kirkpatrick Sale puts it, “as American as America.” From the 13 colonies declaring their independence from the British Crown in 1776, to the rash of state-splittings that took place during the early years of the Republic, to Norman Mailer’s secessionist 1969 campaign for mayor of New York City, the aura of divisibility has long been a part of the American tradition.

Then there is a good discussion of the attempted formation of the State of “Jefferson” out of northern California and southern Oregon counties in 1941. It fell apart in the national solidarity after Pearl Harbor. There are serious folks trying to revive it. Some remarks by one of the leaders of the Vermonters struck a chord, for I have said similar things recently in the discussion over at Troy’s place:

Sale, whose impeccable leftist credentials—he was a founder of Students for a Democratic Society in the 1960s and remains a contributing editor of The Nation—have not kept him from being accused, like Naylor, of being a crypto-racist because of his willingness to associate with the League of the South, takes a similar tack. Such diversity is “the reality of America today,” he tells me. “It’s more than just blue states versus red states, it’s all kinds of states wanting different things. So I say—let them. And if it turns out that the state I’m in does things that I don’t like, then I can go somewhere else nearby where an independent republic is to my liking.” It’s really none of his business, he says, what might go on in an independent South; all that the Vermonters want is the authority to keep the ever-encroaching Leviathan from continuing to entangle itself in their own corner of the woods.

To the extent that all this sounds at once deeply radical yet strangely familiar, things are exactly as they should be. The “so-called American Revolution,” Sale observes, “was in fact a war of secession, not revolt.” What’s more, the early years of the Republic established a tradition of states seceding from one another when they reached a certain size: Maine from Massachusetts in 1820, Tennessee from North Carolina in 1796, Kentucky and (more controversially) West Virginia from Virginia in 1792 and 1861. And as for the other events of 1861? Those “were not so successful,” he admits, “but they failed only because corporate America, becoming strong and expansionary in the North, found a dictator who could crush them.”

After a mention of the Civil War and States’ rights, and how Leftists must tread ever so lightly when aligning themselves with Southern movements, because of political correctness over the race issue; another point is mentioned:

The modern American empire, which Naylor eagerly compares to the Soviet Union in its declining years, may simply be too large for the good life—and it’s not only the outright separatists who chafe against the strictures of centralized federal authority. The Free State Project, for example, aims to recruit enough liberty-minded citizens who are willing to move to New Hampshire to turn the state into a libertarian haven. At present, five years into their drive, over 8,700 individuals have committed to head to the Granite State once FSP reaches a critical mass of 20,000 members. The FSP agenda is a decidedly non-secessionist one: the goal is simply to carve out a corner of America where it is once again possible to live free.

I recommend the whole article; and for those seriously interested in this subject, their site is worth exploring in depth. I find the notion that there are Leftists of a like mind regarding getting out from under the thumb of DC comforting. That they are more than willing to say, “You can have Texas to do as you wish with it, if you will leave us alone to do as we wish in Vermont,” is music to my ears. Where do I sign up? ◄Dave►

It is time for NASA to fire Dr. James Hansen and get out of the Junk Science business. Do not miss this report in the London Telegraph:

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
…

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world’s governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

Indeed. It will be interesting to see how our American MSM handles this story, but London is starting to realize that AGW is junk science that has more to do with politics than climate. NASA, once a revered source of national pride has become a national disgrace. ◄Dave►

Oh, oh… Now Alan Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party has joined the fray. According to an article entitled, “‘Constitutional crisis’ looming over Obama’s birth location” a new lawsuit has been filed in California court challenging Obama’s claim to being a natural born citizen, and demanding that the CA Secretary of State ascertain his Constitutional eligibility for the office before certifying California’s 55 electors to cast their ballots in the Electoral College. While other lawsuits in other States have been dismissed on the grounds that a mere voter does not have standing, it would seem that Keyes and the two electors who have joined him certainly do.

I spent a lot of time looking into this subject before the election, and was frankly amazed that it went all the way to election day without forcing Obama to produce a birth certificate. There is a lot of confusion surrounding the subject, and most folks think he has produced one; but he has not. He has produced a computer generated document stating that his birth was registered in Hawaii, but it does not state where he was born. His sister, unquestionably born in Indonesia of an Indonesian father, has a similar document. This explains how that could be arranged:

“Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence,” the document said. “The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama’s original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him.”

Further, the case addresses the issue of Obama’s Indonesian citizenship after being adopted by his sister’s father. School records have been uncovered listing him as an Indonesian citizen:

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama’s time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama’s mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be “naturalized,” not “natural-born.”

I have seen much legal discussion of this issue, and if it can be proven that he was once an Indonesian citizen, even through no fault of his own, he cannot be POTUS constitutionally, regardless of his place of birth.

One new twist, that could make it very difficult for the suit to be dismissed as frivolous, was this gem:

“Historically, California Secretaries of State have exercised their due diligence by reviewing necessary background documents, verifying that the candidates that were submitted by the respective political parties as eligible for the ballot were indeed eligible. In 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for President of the United States. The then SOS, Mr. Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for President. Using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

Given Obama’s Marxist underpinnings and the Black Radical path he traveled to get to where he is, it would be poetic justice if a precedent involving Eldridge Cleaver did him in.

For those who think this issue is inconsequential, there are a few matters of fact that common sense cries out to explain otherwise:

• His paternal grandmother swears that she was present at his birth in Kenya.
• His mother visited old friends in the Seattle area when he was just a few days old.
• His sister has claimed he was born in two different hospitals on Oahu.
• Police are stationed at both of them to chase off anyone attempting to inquire into the hospital records.
• Obama refuses to produce, or allow Hawaiian authorities to release, a copy of his original birth certificate.

Why? He has been sued over this issue in at least 15 States now. Wouldn’t common sense suggest that he simply release it, if it did indeed prove him to be born in Hawaii? Instead, he has expended considerable resources and legal talent fighting each of them. Why?

Then, what other rational explanation could there be for an 18-year-old kid of modest means, with a brand new baby in arms, to be traveling between Seattle and Honolulu, unless she were returning home after being refused earlier passage on an airplane, because she was too close to her delivery time? To suggest that she was merely on a holiday from Hawaii to Seattle with a newborn, just doesn’t pass the laugh test; and had he been born anywhere on the mainland, she wouldn’t have needed to register the birth in Hawaii, would she?

The MSM could have put this issue to rest a year ago when it first surfaced. They had the power to make him put up or shut up at the time. That they didn’t, is gross negligence and rank dereliction of duty. ◄Dave►

The Cato Institute has published an interesting essay by an obviously Left-leaning libertarian named Roderick Long entitled, “Corporations Versus The Market; Or, Whip Conflation Now.”

While I would take issue with some of his examples of “corporate welfare” (e.g. Walmart’s competitors use the same roads they do to ship their inventory), I got more out of the essay than I initially expected to. As a devout Capitalist, I used to have somewhat of a knee-jerk defense reaction to Leftist bashing of Corporations of any size, even though I am a small businessman. That business of late (past 12 years) has been a private Montessori school, so the condition of the public school system in America has been a particular focus of mine.

Then, I read a mind blowing (and opening) book by John Taylor Gatto entitled, “The Underground History of American Education,” which is available as a free e-book at that link. The scales started dropping from my eyes. It explains in excruciating detail how and why our children are being deliberately dumbed down. Almost more importantly, SO WERE WE! The process has been underway for over a hundred years! It still pisses me off when I think about it.

The history of the Progressive Movement is covered well in Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” and Amity Shlaes’ “The Forgotten Man“; but if I only had time for one of the three, I would recommend Gatto’s. Further to the detailed history of the Progressives, it documents how the early industrialists like Rockefeller, Carnegie, et al, were very much behind the effort to create mindless little cogs for the tedious chores in their corporate machinery.

There is a reason that public schools resemble factories in so many ways. Humans have to be programmed to accept the tedium of spending the day metaphorically chained to a desk or machine in a cubical or factory, and the younger one starts, the easier the chore. Further, the industrialists didn’t want us to be educated any more than absolutely necessary to perform the required tasks and be easily persuaded to desire their products. Thinkers tend to become entrepreneurs and eventually bothersome competitors who can disrupt their well laid plans with innovation and guerrilla tactics unsuited to the behemoths.

This is the reason that the Montessori Method of education is eschewed by the factory schools in America. Children are given freedom of movement and learn how to think – critically and for themselves – not what to think in a Montessori classroom, and these are dangerous notions to the oligarchy. It almost makes me want to cry when I think of what this nation could be like, if the minds of our children were unleashed, and the government got the hell out of our way.

The thing I got most out of Long’s essay was a clearer picture of how the Right slope, away from individual Liberty in my Political Circle Chart, represents not just the trend toward theocracy; but embodies corporatism, which can be as statist as Marxism, and almost as dangerous to our Liberty. Example:

Consider the conservative virtue-term “privatization,” which has two distinct, indeed opposed, meanings. On the one hand, it can mean returning some service or industry from the monopolistic government sector to the competitive private sector—getting government out of it; this would be the libertarian meaning. On the other hand, it can mean “contracting out,” i.e., granting to some private firm a monopoly privilege in the provision some service previously provided by government directly. There is nothing free-market about privatization in this latter sense, since the monopoly power is merely transferred from one set of hands to another; this is corporatism, or pro-business intervention, not laissez-faire. (To be sure, there may be competition in the bidding for such monopoly contracts, but competition to establish a legal monopoly is no more genuine market competition than voting—one last time—to establish a dictator is genuine democracy.)

I must admit he has a point. Further:

This conflation in turn tends to bolster the power of the political establishment by rendering genuine libertarianism invisible: Those who are attracted to free markets are lured into supporting plutocracy, thus helping to prop up statism’s right or corporatist wing; those who are repelled by plutocracy are lured into opposing free markets, thus helping to prop up statism’s left or social-democratic wing. But as these two wings have more in common than not, the political establishment wins either way.

I hadn’t looked at it that way. Statism to the Left of me and statism to the Right of me, which has nothing to do with the religious Right. And:

In the nineteenth century, it was far more common than it is today for libertarians to see themselves as opponents of big business.[20] The long 20th-century alliance of libertarians with conservatives against the common enemy of state-socialism probably had much to do with reorienting libertarian thought toward the right; and the brief rapprochement between libertarians and the left during the 1960s foundered when the New Left imploded.[21] As a result, libertarians have been ill-placed to combat left-wing and right-wing conflation of markets with privilege, because they have not been entirely free of the conflation themselves.

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place in my mind, and I need to now modify my chart to reflect the economic spectrum. Laissez-faire Capitalism would be at the top, with Marxism / Socialism on the Left and corporatism on the Right. ◄Dave►

Speak up!

Karl Rove has submitted an article entitled “History Favors Republicans in 2010” that has some interesting numbers. When one looks at the statistics, the election was not the blowout that it appeared to be.

Political races are about candidates and issues. But election results, in the end, are about numbers. So now that the dust is settling on the 2008 presidential race, what do the numbers tell us?

First, the predicted huge turnout surge didn’t happen. The final tally is likely to show that fewer than 128.5 million people voted. That’s up marginally from 122 million in 2004. But 17 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000 (three times the change from 2004 to 2008).

Second, a substantial victory was won by modest improvement in the Democratic share of the vote. Barack Obama received 2.1 points more in the popular vote than President Bush received in 2004, 3.1 points more than Vice President Al Gore in 2000, and 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. In raw numbers, the latest tally shows that Mr. Obama received 66.1 million votes, about 7.1 million more than Mr. Kerry.

Four out of five of these additional votes came from minorities. Mr. Obama got nearly 3.3 million more votes from African-Americans than did Mr. Kerry; 2.9 million of them were from younger blacks aged 18-29. A quarter of Mr. Obama’s improvement among blacks — 811,000 votes — came from African-Americans who voted Republican in 2004. Mr. Obama also received 2.5 million more Hispanic votes than Mr. Kerry. Over a third of these votes — 719,000 — cast ballots for Republicans in 2004…

He then makes the case that 2010 can be a big year for Republicans if they get their act together. Although he did not mention it, when one adds the economic picture into the mix, by 2010 the electorate (with just a smidgen of education) might be begging for someone to get the Marxist off our necks. ◄Dave►

Our friend Troy is on the mend from recent back surgery and clearing his head from the painkillers with a vengeance! In a lively screed entitled “Don’t Rein On My Parade,” after some clear thinking on some of the discussion items we have been kicking around in the comment section of my Political Spectrum essay, he suggests that it is time to consider secession as the only option for saving at least a portion of America. By allowing the socialists who prefer Equality to have their half of the country, presumably to be ruled by Obamarx et al, those who prefer Liberty could return to the original Constitutional Republic our founders bequeathed us.

I regard his suggestion as not only serious, but agreeable. I suggest we go over to his place and help him flesh out the idea, and see if there is any way modern patriots could actually pull it off. I reckon we could. If the ragtag Taliban can continue to deny the US government control over vast swaths of Afghanistan, I am sure American Minutemen could deny them hegemony over flyover country. ◄Dave►

I have mentioned before, Jack Cashill’s charge that Wm. Ayers ghost-wrote Obama’s first book. Apparently more and more evidence is accumulating. In a piece entitled “London Times inquires about ‘Dreams’ fraud,” he starts with:

When historians tell the story of the 2008 election a century hence, they will tell how the ABETTO factor – A Blind Eye To The Obvious – finally undid America’s once proud journalism establishment.

Then he goes on to discuss the professional studies being conducted that confirm his suspicion, and are being ignored by the MSM, although the London Times is now digging into the matter. Among others he has discussed in earlier pieces available on WND, he offers two new passages that seem pretty conclusive to me:

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a Boston-area writer and composer, Jay Spencer, who suggested some other parallels between Obama’s “Dreams” and Ayers’ books that had evaded me. They smack even the casual reader in the face.

Remember that the young Ayers served as a merchant seaman, and although he has tried to put his ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go.

“I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience,” Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama’s earth-bound memoir.

Although there are no literal sea experiences in “Dreams,” the following words, incredibly enough, appear in both “Dreams” and in Ayers’ work: fog, mist, ships, seas, boats, oceans, calms, captains, charts, first mates, storms, streams, wind, waves, barges, horizons, ports, panoramas, moorings, tides, currents, and things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled and murky.

This is well beyond coincidence. By contrast, only the words “current” and “tide” appear in my own semi-memoir on race, “Sucker Punch.”

Not surprisingly, two of the more conspicuous parallel structures that Spencer discovered involve elements that intrigue Ayers – water and language.

Writes Ayers in his memoir “Fugitive Days”: “The debates swam above and around and through us. … The confrontation in the [Student Union] flowed like a swollen river in to the teach-in, carrying me along the cascading waters from room to room, hall to hall, bouncing off boulders.”

Writes Obama in “Dreams”: “I heard all our voices begin to run together, the sound of three generations tumbling over each other like the currents of a slow-moving stream, my questions like rocks roiling the water, the breaks in memory separating the currents, but always the voices returning to that single course, a single story.”

I would bet my house against Obama’s mailbox that the gifted writer Ayers wrote both these passages.

Now, note the rhythm, cadence and layered structure of the following two excerpts, both dealing with waves.

Writes Ayers in “A Kind And Just Parent”: “The hard ground is frozen through, the wintry waves upswept – all white and frosty – transposed in midcrash from furious motion to arctic glass. A fading, fragile sun offers no heat and precious little light to our dark smudge of a city nestled between Lake Michigan and the vast, flat plains stretching westward.”

Writes Obama in “Dreams”: “The trembling blue plane of the Pacific. The moss-covered cliffs and the cool rush of Manoa Falls, with its ginger blossoms and high canopies filled with the sounds of invisible birds. The North Shore’s thunderous waves, crumbling as if in a slow-motion reel. The shadows off Pali’s peaks; the sultry scented air.”

No one who has seen Obama’s earlier writing or paid heed to his casual speech could make a serious case that Obama wrote either of these passages.

What is truly “bizarre” – no, disgraceful – is that the major media are not all over this story. Thank you, London Times, for at least listening.

Indeed. Sooner or later, Obamarx will piss off the press, and they will embarrass him with all the little details like this that they buried to help get him elected. ◄Dave►

Over the years, I have periodically encountered the following list of Communist goals from Cleon Skousen’s book, “The Naked Communist” which was inserted into the Congressional Record in 1963. It is always sobering, and now that we have progressed to the point of electing a Marxist to the office of POTUS, it is worth reviewing once again:

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963.

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

How close are they to achieving their goals? Do Americans have a clue what is happening to our country? Does Obamarx? How many of us still care? ◄Dave►

Mark Stein’s latest column, “The Death of the American Idea,” is a must read. It begins:

“Give me liberty or give me death!”

“Live free or die!”

What’s that? Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just trying out slogans for the 2012 campaign and seeing which one would get the biggest laughs.

…and ends with:

I disagree with my fellow conservatives who think the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Frank liberal behemoth will so obviously screw up that they’ll be routed in two or four years’ time. The President-elect’s so-called “tax cut” will absolve 48 per cent of Americans from paying any federal income tax at all, while those that are left will pay more. Just under half the population will be, as Daniel Henninger pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, on the dole. By 2012, it will be more than half, and this will be an electorate where the majority of the electorate will be able to vote itself more lollipops from the minority of their compatriots still dumb enough to prioritize self-reliance, dynamism, and innovation over the sedating cocoon of the nanny state. That is the death of the American idea — which, after all, began as an economic argument: “No taxation without representation” is a great rallying cry. “No representation without taxation” has less mass appeal. For how do you tell an electorate living high off the entitlement hog that it’s unsustainable and you’ve got to give some of it back?

At that point, America might as well apply for honorary membership in the European Union. It will be a nation at odds with the spirit of its founding, and embarking on decline from which there are few escape routes. In 2012, the least we deserve is a choice between the collectivist assumptions of the Democrats, and a candidate who stands for individual liberty — for economic dynamism not the sclerotic “managed capitalism” of Germany; for the First Amendment, not Canadian-style government regulation of approved opinion; for self-reliance and the Second Amendment, not the security state in which Britons are second only to North Koreans in the number of times they’re photographed by government cameras in the course of going about their daily business. In Forbes this week, Claudia Rosett issued a stirring defense of individual liberty. That it should require a stirring defense at all is a melancholy reflection on this election season. Live free — or die from a thousand beguiling caresses of nanny-state sirens.

In between, he makes a powerful case. ◄Dave►

I have been participating in a fascinating comment section on the E3gazette Blog, and I just posted a lengthy comment there that it occurs to me is worthy of a post here:

While I agree that Morph’s thinking is a bit fuzzy, at least he appears to be thinking! It is refreshing to see a progressive engage the cognitive faculties of his brain, rather than relying on emotions alone, as so many on the Left prefer to do. I rather appreciate the perspective of his challenge, and must agree that if we cannot convince most of the moderates possessing a mind as open as he claims his to be, that individual Liberty and responsibility are the ideal; we will never cobble together a working majority for righting what is wrong with our Federal government.

I do think that we should establish that as our limited goal. I don’t have a burning need to change “society,” only the obtrusive Federal government that is meddling in affairs that are none of its business. I truly live by the libertarian tag line:

“I care not what others do with their lives, as long as they don’t forcibly interfere in mine.”

Extending that, there are ample places in Flyover Country where a man can live a good life without meddlesome neighbors or obtrusive local taxes and “authorities.” I live in such a place now, and believe it or not it is in CA. Why should I care how the odd folks who prefer to live in NYC or LA live theirs? They are free to organize their city in any manner they choose. They can tax the snot out of their own citizens to provide welfare for the poor downtrodden ghetto dwellers they choose to keep eternally trapped in victimhood, as long as they aren’t permitted to empower the Feds to come out here and tax me for that purpose; because they are not my victims.

It has been my experience that the average American really doesn’t understand the political spectrum and its labels. Few have a clue what I mean when I say I am a libertarian. Fewer still understand federalism, economics, or the nature of money.

Fairly or not, I have for over thirty years explained the essential difference between progressives, conservatives, and libertarians thus:

A progressive is someone who desires complete personal liberty. They want government to stay the hell out of their private lives; but they are quite willing to empower government to use their guns to confiscate wealth from productive citizens, so they can redistribute it through their pet social experiments.

A conservative is someone who desires complete economic liberty. They want government to stay the hell out of their pocketbooks; but they are quite willing to empower government to use their guns to force others to behave according to their preferred moral code.

A libertarian is someone who desires complete individual liberty. They just want government to stay the hell out of their lives – period. They are unwilling to empower government to use their guns against non-violent citizens for any purpose.

I find that when I use this explanation, together with the tag line mentioned above, as a predicate; I can convert most productive Americans (who are over 35 and not drawing a government paycheck), into a nominal libertarian in a single serious conversation. Or, at least close enough for a campaign to rein in the Federal government.

Those coming from the Right, immediately leap to the drug issue, which is the deal killer for them with libertarianism. I am not a user, so I don’t have a lot of passion about the issue; but when I explain that public behavior under such influence would still be regulated just like alcohol, that helps. So too, does the suggestion that legal sales could be heavily taxed, would eliminate the worst elements of the narco-trade from our streets, and save the public treasury from the ineffective yet exorbitant enforcement costs. Most can be persuaded that it would at least be worth a try.

Those coming from the Left, usually go to the social safety net, the need for which is axiomatic to their worldview. I simply point out that before progressives mucked it up with their social experiments, America had a fine social safety net consisting of churches and benevolent societies. I have a whole riff if necessary, on the selfishness of altruism, which both Marxism and Christianity are predicated upon; only the former relies on coercion and the latter volunteer charity. I find it more effective, however, to point out my own native generosity and the selfish pleasure I derive from giving someone a hand up when they are down.

My selfish nature demands that reward, which is why I give exclusively to local individuals and causes where I can see for myself the positive effect of my “good works.” I only feel ripped off when my money is stolen and amalgamated in the maw of the massive Federal “entitlement” programs, with no positive feedback whatever regarding any good it might have done anyone I might have found worthy of the labor I expended earning it. I reckon I deserve the pleasure that the progressives deny me; and absent their meddling, I would have more to give to pleasing causes.

Moreover, this progressive “entitlement” model denies the recipient of public assistance the pleasure of gratitude, and the inspiration to take the necessary steps to extract themselves from their condition, in order to be able to repay the kindness by helping someone else. This is the real tragedy of “entitlements” that trap unsuspecting folks in the cycle of poverty, which assures callous politicians of perpetual incumbency. The last thing the poverty pimps want is to actually solve the problem, for then they would be out of a job.

If I get this far with someone, I find either side intrigued and open to exploring the notions of individual sovereignty, republic vs. democracy, and real money; concepts at least 90% have never even heard of, much less understand. But those are subjects for another time; this will turn into a Bill Whittle length essay if I don’t quit here. ◄Dave►

I couldn’t find a better example of what is wrong with our public school system than this video:

This is truly disturbing, and why did it take a foreign documentary film crew to expose it? The astounding thing is that she actually thinks she was being impartial and just giving a civics lesson (while wearing her Obama button, no less…). I will admit that she is the first Obama supporter I ever saw ask what Obama meant by “change,” and the young girl is the first one I ever saw even coming close to a cogent answer. It usually stumps them cold. ◄Dave►

From Iowa Hawk: “Election Analysis: America Can Take Pride In This Historic, Inspirational Disaster“:

Although I have not always been the most outspoken advocate of President-Elect Barack Obama, today I would like to congratulate him and add my voice to the millions of fellow citizens who are celebrating his historic and frightening election victory. I don’t care whether you are a conservative or a liberal — when you saw this inspiring young African-American rise to our nation’s highest office I hope you felt the same sense of patriotic pride that I experienced, no matter how hard you were hyperventilating with deep existential dread.  

Yes, I know there are probably other African-Americans much better qualified and prepared for the presidency. Much, much better qualified. Hundreds, easily, if not thousands, and without any troubling ties to radical lunatics and Chicago mobsters. Gary Coleman comes to mind…

Then it gets better… ◄Dave►

In a report entitled, “Bamalot: Obama Drafts Star-Studded Short List for Cabinet,” we are treated to Obama’s vision of change:

President-elect Barack Obama has drafted a star-studded short list of cabinet candidates, with political heavyweights Caroline Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Colin Powell and John Kerry among the most notable names being eyed by his transition team…

The President-elect is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency…

Oh, good grief… Have you ever heard this moonbat talk about environmental matters? The only worse candidate I could imagine for this post is Al Gore. We can now just forget about off-shore oil… of course, Obama only ever promised to “look at it.” Consider it looked at… and rejected…

If Obama chooses to oust Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, Gen. Colin Powell has been short-listed as a candidate…

What, an “Uncle Tom” RINO? Payback time, I suppose… and from what has been reported so far, his token “Black.” At least the Democrats would finally have a Black cabinet post higher than Surgeon General or Commerce Secretary.

Sen. John Kerry is considered the front-runner for the nation’s top diplomat.

Will nobody ever rid me of the sight of this traitorous miscreant’s visage on my TV? The French will be ecstatic… I suppose the Vietnamese will too.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was named as a potential candidate for Secretary of Energy in late October.

Another RINO? Ahhh… but with a Kennedy for a wife. Just how much does Obama think he owes Teddy? Then again, it would be best not to have anyone in this department who might disagree with his brother-in-law. [Sigh...] Elections have consequences… ◄Dave►

When I wrote Incumbrepublocrats a couple of years ago, I said:

I suspect that I am not the only one who rarely finds someone worth voting for, but plenty to vote against. I generally just hold my nose while voting for the “lesser of two evils” out of fear of the specter of the greater evil winning. It drives me crazy that intellectually I know I should be voting for the Libertarian, Independent, or other third party candidate. Yet, I know the Incumbrepublocrats have the game rigged so that no third party has the slightest chance of ever breaking their cabal.

Fear of either left or right extremist agendas, almost always suckers me into forfeiting my vote to the more moderate of the two Incumbrepublocrats in the race, even when I don’t like either. I am now so disgusted that I hereby vow never to do it again. If I can’t find someone worthy of voting FOR, I will vote “none of the above” by the simple expedient of not voting at all for that office. What would happen if they had an election and nobody came? At least they couldn’t claim a “mandate” for their foolish agenda, when all we intended to convey was the other guy’s was worse, and nobody was addressing ours.

I am nearly convinced that it is folly to ever vote for any incumbent, it just encourages them to think they are our leaders, and they waste at least half of their time campaigning for reelection in one way or another. Regardless of how likable or principled one might appear to be, when push comes to shove, they rarely represent the wishes of their constituents when they perceive doing so might jeopardize their own careers or their caucus’ agenda. They call it “politics,” but I didn’t want to vote for a caucus platform, a caucus leader, or even a caucus politician, I was trying to hire a representative of my interests.

Once again, they scared the crap out of me with the Marxist Obamesiah, and I actually wanted to vote for Sarah Palin, but in the end I kept my vow and stayed home yesterday. I am glad it is over, and while our country perhaps didn’t, the Republicans got what they deserved. In a way, as ominous as the future looks, I am relieved that fiscal and constitutional conservatives do not have to spend the next four years defending the big-government policies of decidedly Leftist John McCain. They are now free to recover their principles, repudiate their own pragmatic leaders who long ago abandoned traditional values, and prepare for the inevitable pendulum swing back their way.

We know very little about who Obama really is. We will soon find out. While his quest for a Black identity marinated him in a stew of radical Marxist associates, he is a consummate pragmatist who uses and discards people freely in his quest for personal power. This is basic politician 101, and somewhat comforting. He spouted all manner of Marxist “redistributive” crap to convince the ghettos he was one of them, despite being half white and Harvard educated, to overcome the Clinton machine’s lock on that constituency; but he tacked hard a starboard with a deck clearing boom that swept all of his close Marxist associates overboard the moment he had the nomination sewn up.

After that, he campaigned like a conciliatory conservative to win the support of working class white folks. Which is the real Obama? It is easy to conclude that he probably has no core beliefs, other than the pragmatic principle to avoid getting pinned down on any more positions than absolutely necessary, and to do and say whatever it takes to get elected. If it wasn’t for his angry wife, who is far more frightening than he is, one could hope the real world he is about to experience might just moderate him.

In the end, except for the hangover that his Supreme Court picks will give us for a generation, it really won’t matter much. He is about to find out how little power to effect the course of America he will have. There is a reason most Presidents focus on foreign policy, and he will find that Pelosi, Reid, et al don’t owe him a damn thing, and they will be setting the agenda. He may or may not agree with the course they take, but he will just be along for the ride and unlikely to veto their bills. The cruel irony is that, like all those before him, he will get the blame for all that goes wrong, and damn little of the credit for what might go right.

Given the state of our economy, and the total irresponsibility toward public debt and printing funny money of our clueless congress, the future looks bleak; there is absolutely nothing he can do to change it; and he will get the blame for high unemployment and the massive price increases that the foolish inflation of our currency will soon produce. By 2012, the electorate will be screaming for a different kind of Hope® and Change®. Campaign ’12 starts today. Carpe Diem. ◄Dave►

I just stumbled across, watched again, and became incensed anew by this eight minute NRA documentary on the confiscation of guns in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina:

It occurs to me that the ghetto riots I expect to start tonight, however the election turns out, could metastasize into something far uglier and ominous; so this may be an appropriate time to publish an old essay.

I had an interesting conversation during a small dinner party last May. It was an eclectic group consisting of older and younger, leftists and conservatives. One NRA member commented that although many mouth the cliché “…from my cold dead hands,” if it came down to it, few would martyr themselves in front of their families by refusing to turn over their guns to a squad of police at their door demanding them. Remembering Katrina, I had to acknowledge he was right, and that committing ‘suicide by cop’ would serve no purpose.

I then asked what he would do if he were not caught unawares, but had advance notice that such a round-up were in progress and they would eventually get around to his house. He said he would give them his ‘registered’ weapons but hide his unregistered ones where they couldn’t find them. I told him that was the wrong answer, and asked him what he was bothering to save the hidden weapons for. After all, how could there ever be a more righteous cause for an armed rebellion than an attempt to disarm us? I said I would immediately organize a posse of armed citizens to ambush and kill every police officer engaged in the treason. Then we would track down the politician who gave the order, and hang him in the public square.

At first, this elicited shock and dismay from some of the leftist ladies present; but the guys had to acknowledge the wisdom of my suggestion. The NRA guy suggested I write an article explaining my thoughts and he would help disseminate it. I did, and shared it with some retired cops of my acquaintance and on my obscure forum. This caused me to rewrite it a couple of times to try to educate some who didn’t understand our history and founding principles. This was the final draft:

The following may strike some as provocative. Good. It is meant to inspire Patriots and government officials alike to think, discuss it with their friends, and be prepared for the momentous decision they will be required to make rather quickly, if an attempt to disarm Americans is ever tried again. For, no matter how it might be couched, spun, and rationalized, it will signal the end of America, as we have known it. With the current mood among the electorate, and big-government oriented Progressives now at the top of the ticket for both major political parties, the Progressives are about to take over our government lock, stock, and barrel. These folks have a radically different view of the proper role of government than common folk in the heartland, and actually think the majority has the right to violate the Liberty and natural rights of the minority by legislative or judicial fiat. Liberty loving Patriots will need to remain vigilant and prepared to defend those rights, or accept the status of serf or slave in a glorious sounding Progressive utopia, organized on the repugnant principle of mob rule.

Remember Katrina – Gun Collecting Can Be Treason

Since our schools won’t teach genuine American history anymore, many can be forgiven for not recalling the provocation that caused proud Englishmen to take up arms against the forces of their king at Lexington and Concord Massachusetts in 1775. These are now considered the opening battles of the American Revolution, even though they occurred over a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

When the Minutemen started shooting the Redcoats, who were on a mission to confiscate and destroy their arsenal at Concord, they would have been considered by most as engaging in insurrection against their lawful government. From the perspective of the King, his loyal troops, and the majority of loyal British subjects then residing in the colonies, the king’s troops were just following lawful orders to disarm the colonists. The Loyalists undoubtedly viewed the Patriots as a lunatic fringe of disgruntled ‘tax protesters,’ and supported the Redcoats.

The Patriots learned a couple of valuable lessons that day. One was to disperse and conceal their arms so they didn’t make a convenient target for the forces of tyranny. The other was that they could easily rout an overwhelming force of ‘Regulars’ with guerrilla tactics. The lesson for the Loyalists was that vigilant free men on these shores – American Patriots – would never passively allow themselves to be disarmed by their government.

To true Patriots, the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment to our Constitution is not in question. It is no less than the reset button on our Republic – in case the First Amendment doesn’t work, the Second one will. It protects a sovereign right of all free men that is not negotiable, alterable, or subject to judicial interpretation. Frankly, all those officials forever tinkering with ways to get around it are wasting their time, on an endeavor that is bordering on treason. Please understand that this inalienable natural right existed long before the Constitution was drafted, and will exist long after these United States disintegrate. The only reason it was enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was to make it clear to our public servants that it was taboo for them even to try repeating King George’s mistake.

Ninety percent of Americans could vote to repeal the Second Amendment, and the right of free men to own and carry weapons would still exist; for our Constitution does not, and could not, grant or deny our natural rights. It can only help us defend them from those who wish it could. If you do not understand this truth, please do some studying, discussing, and pondering until you do. Free men in this world are born with their natural rights, they are not a mere privilege to be bestowed or withdrawn at the whim of a capricious government, popularly elected or not.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target practice, or fowling pieces. Arms are weapons, and it would be irresponsible of Americans ever to permit errant public servants to disarm us. The disarming of honest citizens during the civil unrest (when they were arguably most needed) in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, was an embarrassment to law enforcement everywhere, and a wakeup call to the rest of us. The citizens of New Orleans were so caught off guard by the audacity of the move that the police got away with it. We simply cannot ever permit such a travesty to happen again.

Therefore:

To all elected officials, sheriffs, deputies, marshals, constables, sundry law enforcement officers, and military personnel. As a Vietnam era veteran and former peace officer myself, I respect your service and understand that most of you value our Liberty as much as any citizen. For the few who may not fully comprehend what that means, this is a reminder that as a condition of your employment as one of our public servants, you were required to swear an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States of America. We the people who employ you, take this oath seriously and regard any breach of same treasonous.

Be advised that hereafter your sovereign employers will consider any order to disarm private citizens, in any jurisdiction within these United States, a brazen act of treason. Further, any officer who obeys such a treasonous order, and attempts to confiscate our arms, is himself engaged in an act of treason. Keep in mind, “I was just following orders…” never has been, and never will be, considered a valid defense for treason. Anyone receiving such an order has the solemn duty to arrest immediately the traitorous fool who made it; and, most regrettably, any fellow officers inclined to execute it. Failing that, it would be advisable to resign and get out of a conspicuous uniform immediately.

For those arrogant enough to think government has the overwhelming force and would prevail, think again. We take our Liberty seriously. Unlike the unprepared and baffled citizens of New Orleans, do not expect us to cower in our homes awaiting your arrival. You will be ambushed in the field in the spirit of North Bridge at Concord, by a serious force of well-armed citizens, intent on summarily eradicating with extreme prejudice, any traitors who are intent on disarming us. Then, we will track down and hang the supercilious ass who gave the treasonous order.

Don’t even think about violating the Posse Comitatus Act and trying to field our military forces against us. It is unclear how many would violate their oath and fire on American Patriots defending their right to keep and bear arms, but we would prevail in the end anyway. We would win the same way our forefathers defeated the British occupation; the Vietnamese defeated the American occupation; the Afghans defeated the Soviet occupation; and the Jihadists are in the process of defeating the occupation of Iraq. These victories came about, not by brilliance on the battlefield; but by simply refusing to lose, and wearing down the occupiers until they eventually just gave up and went home, weary of the grind, the cost, and the frustrating inability ever to achieve final victory.

Ponder this carefully, you Sons of Liberty, and be well prepared for the fateful decision you are likely to eventually have to make. Respect for authority is deeply ingrained in many; but there frequently comes a time in a man’s life when honor and self respect demand that we stand up on our hind legs and bellow in rage at injustice and the forces of tyranny. We are fast approaching such a time and our birthright as freemen will be seriously tested. Freeman, serf, or slave… the choice will be yours to make. Choose wisely.

Note: Please feel free to copy and disseminate any or all of this post, with or without attribution, as far and wide as possible. I really do think that our nation would be well served by thoughtful and open discussions on this subject ahead of time; particularly in cop shops and military barracks. ◄Dave►

I find this two minute clip beyond disturbing:

WV Vote Flipping Caught on Tape

The guy demonstrates an erratic voting machine and explains it is “out of calibration.” Then he inserts a portable device that is purported to be a “calibrator.” When he tries to demonstrate that it is now working properly, its behavior has changed alright, and everything seems to be working correctly until he touches John McCain’s name. It then jumps to register a vote for Ralph Nader.

It should be obvious to the least intuitive that having people walking around with a device that “calibrates” (read, “reprograms”) a voting machine is not a good idea. With all the nonsense already being pulled by Acorn et al already, this uncertainty we just don’t need. I reckon it is time to go back to paper ballots with pens (and purple inked thumbs, for that matter!), and allow precinct workers to count them again and again until all parties agree, before submitting the results to election central. To hell with the big media night; I am willing to wait a day to learn who won, for a little more confidence in the results.

I may just save my gas tomorrow. I reckon an honest man’s vote just isn’t going to matter… especially in CA. ◄Dave►