Thursday, October 30, 2008

In her home state, Palin embraces Alaska's own version of spreading the wealth.

Fact Check: Palin's Alaska spreads its wealth

By RITA BEAMISH
Associated Press Writer

Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin summon antidemocratic images of a communist state to attack Democrat Barack Obama's tax plan and his comment about spreading the wealth around. But in her home state, Palin embraces Alaska's own version of doing just that.

Palin and McCain seized on a comment Obama made to Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher, who asked about his tax plans.

Obama wants to raise taxes on families earning $250,000 to pay for cutting taxes for the 95 percent of workers and their families making less than $200,000. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," he told Wurzelbacher.

McCain said that sounds "a lot like socialism" to many Americans. Palin has derided the Illinois senator as "Barack the Wealth Spreader."

But in Alaska, Palin is the envy of governors nationwide for the annual checks the state doles out to nearly every resident, representing their share of the revenues from the state's oil riches. She boosted those checks this year by raising taxes on oil.

McCain campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin said Thursday that spreading wealth through Obama's tax plan and doing it through Alaska's oil-profit distribution are not comparable because Alaska requires the state's resource wealth to be shared with residents, but it's not taxing personal income.

"It's how the revenue is shared between the oil companies and the state."

A look at Palin's and McCain's comments and the record in Alaska:

THE SPIN:

"Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth. Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic," Palin told a crowd in Roswell, N.M., and elsewhere. "But Joe the Plumber and Ed the Dairyman, I believe they think it sounds more like socialism.

"Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism."

In Ohio, she asked, "Are there any Joe the Plumbers in the house?" To cheers, she said, "It doesn't sound like you're supporting Barack the Wealth Spreader."

McCain told a radio audience that Obama's plan "would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

"Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

THE FACTS:

In Alaska, residents pay no income tax or state sales tax. They receive a yearly dividend check from a $30 billion state investment account built largely from royalties on its oil. When home fuel and gas costs soared last year, Palin raised taxes on big oil and used some of the money to boost residents' checks by $1,200. Thus every eligible man, woman and child got a record $3,269 this fall.

She also suspended the 8-cent tax on gas.

"We can afford to share resource wealth with Alaskans and to temporarily suspend the state fuel tax," she said at the time.

Much as Obama explains his tax hike on the rich as a way to help people who are struggling, Palin's statement talked about the energy costs burdening Alaskans:

"While the unique fiscal circumstances the state finds itself in at the end of this fiscal year warrant a special one-time payment to share some of the state's wealth, the payment comes at a time when Alaskans are facing rising energy prices. High prices for oil are a double-edged sword for Alaskans. While public coffers fill, prices for heating fuel and gasoline have skyrocketed over the last six months and are now running into the $5- to $9-a-gallon range for heating fuel and gasoline across several areas of the state."

In an interview with The New Yorker last summer Palin explained that she would make demands of a new gas pipeline "to maximize benefits for Alaskans":

"And Alaska we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

"But the truth is, Sarah Palin's Alaska is about as close to socialism as America gets. "

THE WEALTH SPREADERS....

Without a hint of irony, Sarah Palin has begun calling Barack Obama "Barack the Wealth Spreader." I'm not sure if typical voters, who've seen their real wages decline, and who haven't benefitted at all from a series of Republican tax cuts, will necessarily be outraged by the idea of a president offering more economic opportunities to those who've been left behind, but whatever. I'm not the McCain/Palin campaign's message consultant.

But more importantly, as Ryan Powers noted, there's the irony of Palin making these ridiculous attacks.

Just last month, in an interview with Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, Palin explained the windfall profits tax that she imposed on the oil industry in Alaska as a mechanism for ensuring that Alaskans "share in the wealth" generated by oil companies. [...]

In fact, Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) program, which manages the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, brings in so much money that the state needs no income or sales tax. In addition, this year ACES will provide every Alaskan with a check for an estimated $3,200.

As Hendrick Hertzberg notes, "Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it ... but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist."

I realize that even McCain, Palin, and Fox News don't take this "socialism" nonsense seriously, and that this is just rhetoric borne of desperation. McCain has always struggled with new ideas and a changing world, so it stands to reason he'd rely on a red scare as his closing argument.

But the truth is, Sarah Palin's Alaska is about as close to socialism as America gets. As Yglesias recently noted, "You have collective ownership of valuable natural resources that generates lots of revenue for the state, and then the government makes 'spreading the wealth around' through the Permanent Fund, etc. its main priority."

The point isn't that there's anything especially wrong with Palin-style socialism; there isn't. The point is, if McCain and Palin want to whine incessantly about socialism, redistribution of wealth, and "welfare," they ought to a) learn what they're talking about; and b) take a good look in the mirror.

Steve Benen

The Unnatural Selector

1 & 2

Thoughts from another Obama-supporting Christian...

The Conservative Christian Case for Supporting Obama

by Rob J

I am an evangelical Christian with a record of voting in line with the Republican Party. This year, however, I am casting my vote for Barack Obama. My support for Obama stands on its own, and has been well documented throughout this blog. But why would an evangelical Christian vote for a Democrat? The answer is as much a reflection of what Obama stands for as it is what the GOP does not.

Last week I received an email from Dr. James Dobson – whose internet ministry I subscribe to – imploring me to “vote my values,” meaning to vote for the candidate whose “pro-life” and pro traditional marriage rhetoric carried Dr. Dobson’s stamp of approval. My immediate thought was: Why should I vote two of my values to the exclusion of all others? In that question lies the problem of the Christian allegiance to the Republican Party.

Since this country’s founding, Christians have politicized Biblical values (we have as much right to do so as any other group that wants this nation to reflect its beliefs) and have helped the U.S. become a beacon of light to the world. The problem, I now realize, with the union of Christians to the GOP, is that we’ve aligned ourselves with a spokes group that sees Christians as nothing more than a voting bloc to pander to with lip service about two passion-evoking issues while ignoring other values that form the core of our beliefs. And as they grip our hearts with life and marriage, the GOP exploits our values to demonize or vilify those with opposing viewpoints.

A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

John 13:34-35

GOP leadership has (perhaps with the willing participation of some Christian leaders) twisted and distilled our values to the point where we are just hot-button sound bites wrapped up in a platform designed to benefit the wealthy and corporate classes. In the process, they have turned uninformed Christians (me among them) into “single-issue voters,” sheepishly towing the Party line while it exploits the name of God and bastardizes our ideals to foment hatred, division and racism and to engender animosity toward Christians by associating us with a platform that is anathema to God’s love.

The party that sprang back to executive power in 2001 (never mind 1994’s broken “contract with America”) did so headed by a self-professed Christian who took no issue with smearing his opponent (John McCain) with the racist lie that he’d illegitimately fathered a mongrel child. George Bush went on to run not only two of the most vile campaigns in recent memory, but also to hold one of the most deceptive and secretive presidencies ever (kudos to Nixon for the one-upmanship).

Today’s GOP wants to strike out further, exploiting Christian principles to preach a message of hate, division, racism and confused class warfare. Whether it be Nancy Pfotenhauer proclaiming that northern Virginia – which is leaning toward Obama – is not the “real Virginia”, Joe McCain (John’s brother) calling blue-leaning Arlington and Alexandria “communist country”, Michele Bachmann calling for a congressional witch hunt to weed out congressmen – like Obama, apparently – who are “anti-American”, Sarah Palin calling small towns in “red states” the home of “real Americans” (not to mention her derision of community organizers), or Robin Hayes claiming that “liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God”, the GOP is doing all it can in the waning days of this campaign to create sloganized hatred and division in this country. And with the “Joe the Plumber” tour, John McCain is trying to trick Americans into falling for the perverse lie that somehow working-class, blue collar tradesmen are economically aligned with the top 5% of wage earners and are on the losing end of a mythical “class warfare” that Obama is waging against the working class. And as if that’s not a far enough transgression, the GOP is on a “religious crusade” to paint all Arabs and Muslims as evil terrorists and to “otherize” a respected United States Senator and fellow Christian who is running for President and happens to be African-American, calling him every conceivable demonized and incendiary word other than (and in at least one notable case, including) coming out and saying “he’s black.” And if they cannot win again through fear, division and racism, the GOP is fully prepared to use the subterfuge of voter fraud to conceal their disgusting efforts at voter disenfranchisement (each word links to a separate news article).

GOP strategists have substituted hatemongering for the love of God. And some Christian leaders are complicit in this twisted endeavor. At a recent McCain rally in Davenport, Iowa, Arnold Conrad, former Pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church, while leading the invocation, said

I would also pray, Lord, that Your reputation is involved in all that happens between now and November, because there are millions of people around this world praying to their god – whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah – that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that You would guard Your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than You, if that happens. So I pray that You will step forward and honor Your own name with all that happens between now and Election Day.

So now God’s reputation is maligned if Obama wins? What of the fact that Obama is a Christian? And what of the Christians who are praying for Obama? Trading on the name of God to castigate your political opponent and recklessly fan the flames of racial, ethnic, religious and socio-economic discord is not of God. And yet, in spite of that, the GOP wants Christians to be co-conspirators in a fundamental breach of Christ’s commandment – the modern equivalent of betraying Christ for 30 pieces of silver – in exchange for the perpetually unfulfilled promise that they will one day overturn Roe v. Wade? Are we actually going to let ourselves fall victim to cookie-cutter religiosity – voting one value while casting all others into the abyss?

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Luke 4:18-19

Christians have a ministerial calling to provide aid and comfort to those in our society who are poor and oppressed. These persons also represent our values. And yet the benevolent (and otherwise “small government”) Republican party, which has decided that it’s the Federal government’s duty to protect the life of unborn children, wants to leave those children out in the cold when they need healthcare. For the uber-Christian GOP has determined that though unborn children have a right to life, children who are born to economically depressed parents (who are, by the way, disproportionately represented in the statistics of those seeking abortions) do not have the right to life-sustaining healthcare. John McCain’s policies, while making insurance more – and perhaps cripplingly – expensive for working class Americans, do nothing to ensure that the 47 million uninsured Americans have access to insurance and that all children have a right to insurance.

Likewise, the “compassionate conservatives” who want us to “vote our values” use the power they achieve because of those votes to call for tax policies that place a disproportionate burden on struggling Americans (including the Christians who blindly voted their values) while the wealthiest citizens reap disproportionate tax benefits (talk about engendering class warfare). How can the Republican party care about addressing poverty when it’s tax policies actually create poverty? And how can the Republican Party care about its Christian base when it’s economic and health policies actually harm us and the people we’re called to minister to? The notion that we ought to elect a party that robs us of our health and wealth while blaspheming the name of God just because that party waxes rhetorically about the sanctity of life is beyond insulting.

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

2 Timothy 2:15

God wants Christians to not only possess knowledge of the Bible, but also to excel in the knowledge of our trade and to generally possess a dedication to learning that befits a creation endowed with such vast reserves of learning potential. Yet the McCain campaign and GOP operatives are waging a war against intelligence. Whether it’s manipulating the fact that Obama overcame poverty to become a Harvard educated professor who correctly pronounces “Pakistan” to call him an effete elitist, or asking Americans to vote based on slogans (like “Joe Six Pack” or “Joe the Plumber”) that have no relation to reality, Republicans are actually trying to vilify intellectualism (further helping along that class warfare in the process).

When did the party of Teddy Roosevelt decide it was politically expedient to champion mediocrity? With the various “Joe” slogans, Republicans insult blue collar workers everywhere by expecting them to vote for the candidate who’s willing to talk “folksy” and drink a beer with them all the while lying about the fact that “Joes” across America will be worse off under McCain’s tax policies than under Obama’s.

But the poster-child for the Republican assault on intelligence is the once honorable John McCain’s running mate, who, by the way is also an affront to Christians. While professing Christianity, Sarah Palin has shown a penchant for lying whenever she opens her mouth. Whether she’s making up the story that the Alaska legislature fully exonerated her of abuse-of-power charges, proclaiming that Obama is an anti-American terrorist sympathizer, calling Obama a socialist (and now, a communist) who will raise all our taxes and “redistribute wealth”, or reveling in the hatred and rage she incites at her rallies, Palin has proven herself to be a lying, vengeful, slanderous hypocrite who uses Christianity as a resume booster.

She is also an unabashed anti-intellectual. While she’s not insulting working Americans by speaking with a hokey, sixth-grade-reading-level dialect (as though working Americans are too stupid to understand and relate to anything else), Gov. Palin is expecting the American people to swallow the proverbial tripe that she’s qualified potentially for the highest office in the world by virtue of (1) her ability to see Russia, (2) her overseeing of a national guard that might – any day now (whenever Putin “rears his head”) – be called on to defend the U.S. against a highly improbable Russian invasion of Alaska, (3) her recent U.N. coming out party where she, for the first time in her life, met foreign leaders, (4) the fact that her international travel experience is limited to a trip to Kuwait and Germany to visit Alaska National Guard troops – a trip for which she obtained her first passport – last year, and (5) her governance of an oil-rich state. We’re also supposed to ignore the fact that she cannot make it through softball television interviews – for which she had weeks to prepare – without stumbling incoherently through answers to even the simplest of policy questions and getting hopelessly stumped at both the fundamental questions – whether she agrees with the Bush doctrine, and the “gimme” questions – what newspapers she reads.

And after weeks on the campaign trail, she has yet to demonstrate the desire – as Colin Powell put it, the “intellectual curiosity” – to become a student of the serious international and domestic policy issues that she has no comprehension of but seeks to be in charge of. It was appalling that, in her only debate, Gov. Palin excused her inability to answer questions important to the American people by saying “how long have I been at this, like five weeks?” If she cared about anything other than smiling, winking and regurgitating campaign talking points, Palin would have used that “five weeks” to attempt to seriously consider some solutions to our national and international issues.

In that regard, Palin is an insult and a slap in the face to Christians. When stripped of her contrived “qualifications” we are left with a candidate whose only redeeming quality – with regard to the Christian base for whom she was nominated – is that she is a professed Christian who is pro life. And the implication is that Christians are either too stupid, too emotional, or too single-minded to see through her support for our values to the fact that she is woefully unqualified and was selected merely as a pandering tool. Sarah Palin embodies the ultimate betrayal of the trust that we placed in the Republican Party to champion our message.

I am unashamedly pro life and pro traditional marriage. Christ is also, though he would condemn abortion clinic bombers (who, by the way, Ms. Palin, notwithstanding your attempt to dodge the question and pander to the lunatic fringe of your “base”, are terrorists). And though He obviously did not condone the practices of the sinners of His day, Jesus walked among them, rather than separating His followers from them, for to those persons was His ministry.

True, Obama is not pro-life (though he is against gay marriage), but his stance on abortion is conciliatory, rather than divisive: “We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.” That statement is from his nomination acceptance speech. Obama is thus sincere enough to admit that though he has a differing opinion with fellow Christians on an important issue, he is willing to work together to solve a potentially divisive problem in a way that may remove the impetus for women to seek abortions. It is that desire to unite and seek common ground rather than divide that separates Obama/Biden from McCain/Palin.

I do not have any messianic delusions about Obama, but his career background and political message indicate that he has tapped into Christ’s message, and that he understands that a leader must be an advocate for all of us, not just those in his voting bloc. Contrast Obama’s message in his national introduction speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention with the divisive message of the Republican Party.

…there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits…like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism, or do we participate in a politics of hope?

Whether it be his early work as a community organizer and civil rights attorney, his achievement of bipartisan support for ethics and healthcare reform and higher tax credits for low-wage workers while in the Illinois Senate, his involvement with police organizations to enact death penalty reforms and seek an end to racial profiling, or his efforts at improving fiscal transparency (on which he received bipartisan support from John McCain, among others), criminalizing voter intimidation and improving healthcare and education while in the U.S. Senate, Obama has a record of bridging divides, reaching across party lines and working to end the social inequalities that plague the ethnically and economically disadvantaged members of our society. That balanced, unifying leadership is the kind of leadership we need in the White House. We need a leader that restores a sense of hope in a unifying purpose for this country.

[P]art of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that’s what we have to restore…. [T]his, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

Barack Obama, 2008 Democratic Nomination Acceptance Speech

We are a nation of fault lines. The oneness that saw us through the Great Depression and World War II to become the greatest, most powerful and benevolent nation on Earth has been replaced with a fractured society, defined by social discord and plagued by smoldering racial, economic, class and political tensions. We have become a selfish, individualistic, win-at-all-costs society that seems to only recall a unifying purpose in times of national tragedy. While this predicament is not the fault of one political party, no post-Cold War president has yet called Americans to a purpose higher than themselves. And the narrative-stealing “change” agents on the other side have demonstrated that they merely want to help America further dissolve into national obscurity.

As I’ve said before, Barack Obama pledges to change that course, “to bring to our highest office the wisdom, the morals, the ideals and the people necessary to steer the American psyche back on course…to restore in this country a sense of collective purpose and unified destiny.” Having the potential to be more than just a president, Barack is poised to be a transcendent, generational leader both embodying and effectuating reconciliation and restoration. That’s the change we need – a leader who simultaneously calls America back to a time when we were unified in collective pursuit of the “American promise” and forward to a present and future where we can actually attain that promise; a leader committed to genuinely helping the disadvantaged classes in our society achieve equality of opportunity.

These are values Christians can vote for. Obama’s platform calls for providing realistic educational, economic and healthcare opportunities for the poor, for the socially disadvantaged and for the economically distressed workers in our society. Obama’s vision – the veracity of his belief in which is borne out by his record – is for a country where Christians can fellowship with Muslims, where white Americans can break bread with black Americans, where “liberals” can find common ground with “conservatives”. Obama’s pledge is to restore America as a beacon of light for the world. This platform represents a more holistic cross-section of Christian values; for while Christians will not (and should not) agree with every stance taken by another social or religious group, our ministry is to the world and, thus, our political focus should be on electing leaders who not only advocate a broad swath of our values – thereby exhibiting our values to the world – but also effectuate restorative policies that will help those most in need. The time has come to do away with politics that pander to one of our values while employing rhetoric that spawns division and hatred and policies that do the most harm. The time has come for change. This is Barack Obama’s time.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Call center workers willingly sacrificed pay rather than read McCain lines.

Dozens Of Call Center Workers Walk Off Job In Protest Rather Than Read McCain Script Attacking Obama

Some three dozen workers at a telemarketing call center in Indiana walked off the job rather than read an incendiary McCain campaign script attacking Barack Obama, according to two workers at the center and one of their parents.

Nina Williams, a stay-at-home mom in Lake County, Indiana, tells us that her daughter recently called her from her job at the center, upset that she had been asked to read a script attacking Obama for being "dangerously weak on crime," "coddling criminals," and for voting against "protecting children from danger."

Williams' daughter told her that up to 40 of her co-workers had refused to read the script, and had left the call center after supervisors told them that they would have to either read the call or leave, Williams says. The call center is called Americall, and it's located in Hobart, IN.

"They walked out," Williams says of her daughter and her co-workers, adding that they weren't fired but willingly sacrificed pay rather than read the lines. "They were told [by supervisors], `If you all leave, you're not gonna get paid for the rest of the day."

The daughter, who wanted her name withheld fearing retribution from her employer, confirmed the story to us. "It was like at least 40 people," the daughter said. "People thought the script was nasty and they didn't wanna read it."

A second worker at the call center confirmed the episode, saying that "at least 30" workers had walked out after refusing to read the script.

"We were asked to read something saying [Obama and Democrats] were against protecting children from danger," this worker said. "I wouldn't do it. A lot of people left. They thought it was disgusting."

This worker, too, confirmed sacrificing pay to walk out, saying her supervisor told her: "If you don't wanna phone it you can just go home for the day."

The script coincided with this robo-slime call running in other states, but because robocalling is illegal in Indiana it was being read by call center workers.

Representatives at Americall in Indiana, and at the company's corporate headquarters in Naperville, Illinois, didn't return calls for comment.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Old stuff, brought to you by bookmark tidying.

Splenda (sucralose) - responsible 12,800 torturous deaths of animals by HLS

19 January2006 - Splenda is the brand name for Sucralose and is made by Mcneil Speciality Products who are in turn owned by Johnson & Johnson. Splenda was tested at Huntingdon Life Sciences; one of the most violators of 'animal welfare' in laboratory testing. HLS has been convicted of animal cruelty many times over. Below is info concerning Splenda from the Shac (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) and other websites.

Huntingdon played a big role in the testing that took place to bring
this product to the market. An estimated 12,800 animals died
in the process according to a published report in a recent
scientific journal.

Some of the more gruesome details revealed:

32 beagle dogs were locked in metal cages for 52 weeks. They were
given Sucralose mixed in with their normal feed, and blood and urine
samples were collected. At the end of the study they were killed by
means of exsanguiation - they had their throats slit open and bled
to death. They were then cut open and their organs - by now drained
of blood so easier to dissect - were examined to test the product's
toxicity levels.

Four beagle puppies (or as HLS calls them - punching bags) were
starved before being force-fed the super-sweet sugar powder. HLS
employees then took blood samples from the jugulars of the infant
dogs.

An unspecified number of marmoset monkeys either died from the
poisoning or were killed at the termination of the research at HLS.

The report states that 12 of these monkeys, which were babies -
under 10 months old - were force-fed Sucralose for seven weeks. Two
of the primates died on the seventh day from brain defects, another
primate was mysteriously killed after four weeks, and the remainder
all were murdered at the completion of the seventh week. Some of the
recorded observations from this study noted "in appetence, body
weight loss, unwillingness to use hind leg, hopping, involuntary
grip reflexes, salivation and subdued mood."

Huntingdon also used rabbits to study the effects of the product.
These little animals were given 1200 times the expected daily intake
and not surprisingly most died from the trauma. Many of the other
rabbits suffered from convulsions, weight loss, and various
intestinal disorders.

Huntingdon also tested the product on pregnant rabbits, mice, and
rats - killing both the mothers and the fetuses.

One of the aims of the experiments was to see the effect on the
central nervous system of the animals and in turn the animals were
given massive doses of sucralose. Serious questions have been raised
as to the safety of sucralose yet here it is widely available in
many service stations, Pret a Manger and Starbucks to name a few
outlets. We invite anyone reading this to enter sucralose or Splenda
into a Google search and read the detailed and widespread evidence
on the dangers of sucralose.


More info at: http://www.shacamerica.net/splenda/splenda.htm

HLS is one of the world's largest animal testing companies.
It is a British company with an additional facility in East
Millstone, New Jersey. Every day an average of 500 animals die a
horrible death after being slowly poisoned. HLS specializes in
testing toxicity of agrochemicals, food colorings, tanning lotions,
adhesives, washing powders and various pharmaceutical products. HLS
uses beagle puppies, primates, cats, rabbits, etc. The animals are
forced to inhale and ingest the products for weeks or months; then
they are killed and dissected.

HLS has been the subject of five undercover investigations exposing
the horrendous animal cruelty and incompetence that goes on inside
HLS. HLS employees have been exposed violently punching and shaking
four-month-old beagle puppies, performing a necropsy (dissection) of
a live monkey, transplanting a frozen pig's heart into a baboon,
being drunk and taking drugs at work, falsifying scientific data,
and breaking animal welfare laws. These investigations have resulted
in HLS employees being convicted of animal cruelty, fined by the
USDA and almost shut down by the UK government.
http://www.insidehls.com/insidehls.htm

Bron: MARC

Pants on Fire

McCain

"(Bill) Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together."

John McCain on Thursday, October 9th, 2008 in a Web ad


Fact:

Not a radical group, and Ayers didn't run it

Pants on fire!

For most of the election, Sen. John McCain's campaign has been somewhat subtle about trying to tie Sen. Barack Obama to the former '60s radical William Ayers.

No longer. A 90-second Web ad released Oct. 8, 2008, features sinister music, side-by-side photographs of Obama and Ayers, and a series of dubious allegations about their past connections, including this one:

"Ayers and Obama ran a radical education foundation together."

Ayers was a founding member of the militant Vietnam-era anti-war group the Weathermen. He was investigated for his role in a series of domestic bombings, but the charges were dropped in 1974 due to prosecutorial misconduct. He is now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and actively engaged in the city's civic life.

The McCain campaign said the "radical education foundation" to which they were referring is the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a charity endowed by publishing magnate Walter Annenberg that funded public-school programs in Chicago from 1995 to 2001.

We'll look at whether the foundation was radical. But first we have to grapple with whether Obama and Ayers ran it.

Obama served on the foundation's volunteer board from its inception in 1995 through its dissolution in 2001, and was chair for the first four years. So an argument can be made that he ran it, though an executive director handled day-to-day operations.

Ayers, who received his doctorate in education from Columbia University in 1987 and is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, was active in getting the foundation up and running. He and two other activists led the effort to secure the grant from Annenberg, and he worked without pay in the early months of 1995, prior to the board's hiring of an executive director, to help the foundation get incorporated and formulate its bylaws, said Ken Rolling, who was the foundation's only executive director. Ayers went on to become a member of the "collaborative," an advisory group that advised the board of directors and the staff.

However, Ayers "was never on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge," and he "never made a decision programmatically or had a vote," Rolling said.

"He (Ayers) was at board meetings — which, by the way, were open — as a guest," Rolling said. "That is not anything near Bill Ayers and Barack Obama running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge."

Now, was the foundation radical?

The McCain campaign cited several pieces of evidence for that allegation, including a 1995 invitation from the foundation for applications from schools "that want to make radical changes in the way teachers teach and students learn." The campaign appears to have confused two different definitions of the word "radical." Clearly the invitation referred to "a considerable departure from the usual or traditional," rather than "advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs."

The campaign also cited two projects the foundation funded, one having to do with a United Nations-themed Peace School and another that focused on African-American studies.

"That is radical in the eye of this campaign and we imagine in the eyes of most Americans," said Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for McCain. "It is a subjective thing, and there are going to be people in Berkeley and Chicago who think that is totally legitimate."

Teaching about the United Nations and African-American studies may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's hardly "radical" in the same way Ayers' Vietnam-era activities were. Moreover, most of the projects the foundation funded (more on that below) were not remotely controversial.

The McCain campaign also cited an opinion piece by conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz in the Sept. 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal as evidence of the foundation's radicalism. Kurtz wrote that Ayers was the "guiding spirit" of the foundation, and it "translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice."

But Ayers' views on education, though certainly reform-oriented and left-of-center, are not considered anywhere near as radical as his Vietnam-era views on war. And even if they were, there was a long list of individuals involved with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge whose positions provided them far more authority over its direction than Ayers' advisory role gave him.

Let's look at a few, starting with the funder. Annenberg was a lifelong Republican and former ambassador to the United Kingdom under President Richard Nixon. His widow, Leonore, has endorsed McCain. Kurtz might just as plausibly have accused Obama and the foundation of "translating Annenberg's conservatism into practice."

Among the other board members who served with Obama were: Stanley Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois; Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University and assistant secretary of labor in the Nixon administration; Scott Smith, then publisher of the Chicago Tribune; venture capitalist Edward Bottum; John McCarter, president of the Field Museum; Patricia Albjerg Graham, former dean of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, and a host of other mainstream folks.

"The whole idea of it being radical when it was this tie of blue-chip, white-collar, CEOs and civic leaders is just ridiculous," said the foundation's former development director, Marianne Philbin.

The foundation gave money to groups of public schools – usually three to 10 – who partnered with some sort of outside organization to improve their students' achievement.

In his opinion piece, Kurtz puts a sinister spin on this: "Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with 'external partners,' which actually got the money...CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN)."

Rollings said the foundation tried to fund the schools directly, but doing so proved to be a "bureaucratic nightmare." But any external group that received money had to have created a program in partnership with a network of public schools.

And though ACORN is considered a liberal organization, the vast majority of the foundation's external partners were not remotely controversial. Here are a few examples: the Chicago Symphony, the University of Chicago, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children's Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, the Commercial Club of Chicago, the Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.

Had Kurtz chosen to accuse Obama of carrying water for the conservative Annenberg, he might have written: "CAC disbursed money to various business-friendly entities, such as the Museum of Science and Industry and the Commercial Club of Chicago."

See how easy it is?

The programs the foundation funded were designed to allow individuals from the "external partners" – whether the musicians in the symphony or the business leaders in the commercial club – to help improve student achievement. They were along the lines of mentoring by artists, literacy instruction, professional development for teachers and administrators, and training for parents in everything from computer skills to helping their children with homework to advocating for their children at school.

This last activity – something suburban parents practice with zeal – is also suspect in Kurtz's view: "CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents 'organized' by community groups might be viewed by school principals 'as a political threat.'" That is typical of Kurtz's essay – relatively innocuous facts cast in the worst possible light. That's appropriate for an opinion piece, perhaps, but hardly grounds for a purportedly factual political ad accusing the group of radicalism.

We could go on and on with evidence that the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was a rather vanilla charitable group. For example, under the deal with Annenberg every dollar from him had to be matched by two from elsewhere. The co-funders were a host of respected, mainstream institutions, such as the National Science Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the Chicago Public Schools.

In short, this was a mainstream foundation funded by a mainstream, Republican business leader and led by an overwhelmingly mainstream, civic-minded group of individuals. Ayers' involvement in its inception and on an advisory committee do not make it radical – nor does the funding of programs involving the United Nations and African-American studies.

This attack is false, but it's more than that – it's malicious. It unfairly tars not just Obama, but all the other prominent, well-respected Chicagoans who also volunteered their time to the foundation. They came from all walks of life and all political backgrounds, and there's ample evidence their mission was nothing more than improving ailing public schools in Chicago. Yet in the heat of a political campaign they have been accused of financing radicalism. That's Pants on Fire wrong.

Friday, October 24, 2008

"The LA Times broke the story that the AIP has a link to the Chechen separatists on its website."

Palin's AIP group has terrorist ties

I just obtained this info. and need help getting it to go viral. AIP Is not a
harmless group. It seems that they are tied to terrorist. Please help this go viral. If this was a Dem. Candidate, this would be on the msm 24/7.
The scoop below the fold.

AIP’S TERRORIST FRIENDS

Because John McCain has not learned how to ‘watch the internet’ or ‘use the Google,’ it has been left to the public to vet Sarah Palin for him. I was curious what shady types would attend separatist conventions, such as the one in Tennessee, where the AIP Vice Chairman Dexter Clark extolled the virtues of their candidate Sarah Palin. http://www.latimes.com/... I expected that hatred for the American Federal Government would bring white supremacists (as speculated in the Daily Kos: http://larry-madill.dailykos.com/ ) and small time individual hate criminals into their circus tent. But I did not expect AIP to link itself to a foreign terrorist group personally funded by Osama Bin Laden, that has been merging into Al Qaeda for years, is linked to 4 of the 9/11 hijackers, and other Al Qaeda attacks. That’s right, the Palins are only 2 or 3 degrees removed from the man that McCain swears he would pursue to the gates of hell (Osama Bin Laden). Links below:

The LA Times broke the story that the AIP has a link to the Chechen separatists on its website. "The AIP's website also provides helpful links to other secessionist groups, including the Southern Independence Party of Tennessee (which boasts of going after "these Politically Correct Liberal Communist[s]"), Ulster nationalists and Chechen separatists." http://www.latimes.com/... Remembering the Beslan school and hospital massacres, and Russian bus and tram bombings, I had to read that twice. I have now compiled an overview of the increasingly indistinguishable relationship between the AIP’s Chechen friends and Al Qaeda:

The Al Qaeda/Chechen Separatist relationship has been evolving since the 1990s. The Bush Administration initially downplayed the Russian assertions that the Chechen terrorists were affiliated with Al Qaeda. However, President Bush later acknowledged Russia’s claims, stating: "We do believe there’s some al Qaeda folks in Chechnya." http://www.sfgate.com/... ‘Washington also called on Chechen separatists to "cut all contact with international terrorist groups."’ http://www.sfgate.com/...

‘Some terrorism experts say the West erred by dismissing Russia’s claims for so long’, Rohan Gunaratna, the author of "Inside Al Qaeda" states, "The initial wave of terrorists who are now coming to Europe trained in Chechnya or Algeria".

http://www.mindfully.org/... "According to the U.S. State Department, the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade (IIPB) is the primary channel for Islamic funding of the Chechen guerrillas, in part through links to al-Qaeda-related financiers on the Arabian Peninsula." http://www.cfr.org/...

It now appears that the Chechen separatists receive funding even more directly than via Al Qaeda channels, being personally funded by Osama Bin Laden himself. "Russia is exaggerating al Qaeda’s contribution but not bin Laden’s interest in the Chechen rebel cause. According to Gunaratna, the terrorist leader used a Persian Gulf bank to help finance the militants, at one point even ordering an investigation into whether some Chechen leaders had siphoned off funds for themselves." http://www.mindfully.org/...

The central strategic importance to Al Qaeda of the Chechen separatists against the United States was explained by Bin Laden’s #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri (who was himself captured and released in 1997 while trying to enter Chechnya): "This poses a direct threat to the United States....the only thing that will separate them from Afghanistan will be the neutral state of Turkmenistan. This will form a mujahid Islamic belt to the south of Russia...." resulting in "....fragmentation of the Russian Federation....will topple a basic ally of the United States in its battle against the Islamic jihadist reawakening." http://www.meforum.org/...

The ‘chief ideologue of the separatists and a "terrorist"’ was the former Chechen President Yandarbiyev (until he was blown up in Qatar). http://query.nytimes.com/... "Yanderbiyev was not judged to be a terrorist by Russia alone - he was on the UN blacklist as well. http://findarticles.com/...

Yanderbiyev was on the "United Nations list of groups and people with suspected links to Osama bin Laden’s network, Al Qaeda." http://query.nytimes.com/...

The roles of Chechen separatist commanders and foreign Al Qaeda commanders stationed in Chechnya in terrorist attacks can be seen graphically in anti-terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann’s chart (with dotted red boxes around their photos): http://www.globalterroralert.com/...

(Kohlman is a terrorism expert witness for the Feds, who has personally interviewed Osama Bin Laden [before 9/11], and has interviewed 500+ insurgents in Iraq.) The role of Chechen separatists in the journey of 4 of the 9/11 hijackers is detailed in ‘How Chechnya Became a Breeding Ground for Terror,’ by terrorism expert Lorenzo Vidino, in the Middle East Quarterly, 2005 http://www.meforum.org/... ‘Islamist terrorists have co-opted the Chechen cause as part of the global jihad. Umar Ibn al-Khattab, a Saudi native who became the leader of the foreign mujahideen in Chechnya, said, "This is not just a Chechen matter...like Afghanistan."’ http://www.meforum.org/... A request from Ibn al-Khattab (Al Qaeda commander in Chechnya) to Al Qaeda operative Sakka on the Turkish border sent Sakka and his men to Afghanistan for combat training because "the Chechens needed trained fighters", where their training and ability to counterfeit passports came in handy. This re-direction of Al Qaeda resources sent four young Saudi students bound for Chechnya on "a path that was to end with the September 11 attacks on America in 2001. They were: Ahmed and Hamza al-Ghamdi who hijacked the plane that crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; their companion Saeed al-Ghamdi whose plane crashed in a Pennsylvania field; and Nawaf al-Hamzi who died in the Pentagon crash." http://www.meforum.org/... Russia corroborates this connection, insisting that "the Saudi-born commander who goes by the name Khattab, was sponsored by suspected terrorist mastermind

Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. http://www.sfgate.com/... "Al-Qaeda’s involvement in Chechnya has grown steadily." Under paragraph, "Al-Qaeda Adopts the Chechen Cause":

http://www.meforum.org/...

The affiliation of Chechen separatists with Al Qaeda is reported to have been voluntary at first, but later was compulsory, according to one Chechen Imam, "Join us or we’ll cut your head off." According to Gunaratna, the this Imam was originally part of a secular separatist movement, which was "recast" by Al Qaeda as part of an international jihad. http://www.mindfully.org/...

You can bet that McCain did not do his homework on this one. If a Democratic candidate, or their spouse, were a friend of a friend of Bin Laden, this election would be over!

Link to her addressing AIP

http://www.youtube.com/...

Hm.

The "provocative concept": the fragrance will be based on the scent captured from T-shirts worn by men engaged in 'cage fights/ ''fight club" type fights'.

...virtual homicide...

...and here's a Piglet Squid.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

World's Somwhat Close To Almost Largest Leaning Turban

I have two trash bags and a shower cap on my head.

Monday, October 20, 2008

"...soon, Palin and Chryson discovered they could be useful to each other."

Meet Sarah Palin's radical right-wing pals

Extremists Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll helped launch Palin's political career in Alaska, and in return had influence over policy. "Her door was open," says Chryson -- and still is.

By Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert

Editor's note: Research support provided by the Nation Institute Investigative Fund. For Salon's complete coverage of Sarah Palin, click here.


On the afternoon of Sept. 24 in downtown Palmer, Alaska, as the sun began to sink behind the snowcapped mountains that flank the picturesque Mat-Su Valley, 51-year-old Mark Chryson sat for an hour on a park bench, reveling in tales of his days as chairman of the Alaska Independence Party. The stocky, gray-haired computer technician waxed nostalgic about quixotic battles to eliminate taxes, support the "traditional family" and secede from the United States.

So long as Alaska remained under the boot of the federal government, said Chryson, the AIP had to stand on guard to stymie a New World Order. He invited a Salon reporter to see a few items inside his pickup truck that were intended for his personal protection. "This here is my attack dog," he said with a chuckle, handing the reporter an exuberant 8-pound papillon from his passenger seat. "Her name is Suzy." Then he pulled a 9-millimeter Makarov PM pistol -- once the standard-issue sidearm for Soviet cops -- out of his glove compartment. "I've got enough weaponry to raise a small army in my basement," he said, clutching the gun in his palm. "Then again, so do most Alaskans." But Chryson added a message of reassurance to residents of that faraway place some Alaskans call "the 48." "We want to go our separate ways," he said, "but we are not going to kill you."

Though Chryson belongs to a fringe political party, one that advocates the secession of Alaska from the Union, and that organizes with other like-minded secessionist movements from Canada to the Deep South, he is not without peculiar influence in state politics, especially the rise of Sarah Palin. An obscure figure outside of Alaska, Chryson has been a political fixture in the hometown of the Republican vice-presidential nominee for over a decade. During the 1990s, when Chryson directed the AIP, he and another radical right-winger, Steve Stoll, played a quiet but pivotal role in electing Palin as mayor of Wasilla and shaping her political agenda afterward. Both Stoll and Chryson not only contributed to Palin's campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.

Palin backed Chryson as he successfully advanced a host of anti-tax, pro-gun initiatives, including one that altered the state Constitution's language to better facilitate the formation of anti-government militias. She joined in their vendetta against several local officials they disliked, and listened to their advice about hiring. She attempted to name Stoll, a John Birch Society activist known in the Mat-Su Valley as "Black Helicopter Steve," to an empty Wasilla City Council seat. "Every time I showed up her door was open," said Chryson. "And that policy continued when she became governor."

When Chryson first met Sarah Palin, however, he didn't really trust her politically. It was the early 1990s, when he was a member of a local libertarian pressure group called SAGE, or Standing Against Government Excess. (SAGE's founder, Tammy McGraw, was Palin's birth coach.) Palin was a leader in a pro-sales-tax citizens group called WOW, or Watch Over Wasilla, earning a political credential before her 1992 campaign for City Council. Though he was impressed by her interpersonal skills, Chryson greeted Palin's election warily, thinking she was too close to the Democrats on the council and too pro-tax.

But soon, Palin and Chryson discovered they could be useful to each other. Palin would be running for mayor, while Chryson was about to take over the chairmanship of the Alaska Independence Party, which at its peak in 1990 had managed to elect a governor.

The AIP was born of the vision of "Old Joe" Vogler, a hard-bitten former gold miner who hated the government of the United States almost as much as he hated wolves and environmentalists. His resentment peaked during the early 1970s when the federal government began installing Alaska's oil and gas pipeline. Fueled by raw rage -- "The United States has made a colony of Alaska," he told author John McPhee in 1977 -- Vogler declared a maverick candidacy for the governorship in 1982. Though he lost, Old Joe became a force to be reckoned with, as well as a constant source of amusement for Alaska's political class. During a gubernatorial debate in 1982, Vogler proposed using nuclear weapons to obliterate the glaciers blocking roadways to Juneau. "There's gold under there!" he exclaimed.

Vogler made another failed run for the governor's mansion in 1986. But the AIP's fortunes shifted suddenly four years later when Vogler convinced Richard Nixon's former interior secretary, Wally Hickel, to run for governor under his party's banner. Hickel coasted to victory, outflanking a moderate Republican and a centrist Democrat. An archconservative Republican running under the AIP candidate, Jack Coghill, was elected lieutenant governor.

Hickel's subsequent failure as governor to press for a vote on Alaskan independence rankled Old Joe. With sponsorship from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vogler was scheduled to present his case for Alaskan secession before the United Nations General Assembly in the late spring of 1993. But before he could, Old Joe's long, strange political career ended tragically that May when he was murdered by a fellow secessionist.

Hickel rejoined the Republican Party the year after Vogler's death and didn't run for reelection. Lt. Gov. Coghill's campaign to succeed him as the AIP candidate for governor ended in disaster; he peeled away just enough votes from the Republican, Jim Campbell, to throw the gubernatorial election to Democrat Tony Knowles.

Despite the disaster, Coghill hung on as AIP chairman for three more years. When he was asked to resign in 1997, Mark Chryson replaced him. Chryson pursued a dual policy of cozying up to secessionist and right-wing groups in Alaska and elsewhere while also attempting to replicate the AIP's success with Hickel in infiltrating the mainstream.

Unlike some radical right-wingers, Chryson doesn't put forward his ideas freighted with anger or paranoia. And in a state where defense of gun and property rights often takes on a real religious fervor, Chryson was able to present himself as a typical Alaskan.

He rose through party ranks by reducing the AIP's platform to a single page that "90 percent of Alaskans could agree with." This meant scrubbing the old platform of what Chryson called "racist language" while accommodating the state's growing Christian right movement by emphasizing the AIP's commitment to the "traditional family."

"The AIP is very family-oriented," Chryson explained. "We're for the traditional family -- daddy, mommy, kids -- because we all know that it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. And we don't care if Heather has two mommies. That's not a traditional family."

Chryson further streamlined the AIP's platform by softening its secessionist language. Instead of calling for immediate separation from the United States, the platform now demands a vote on independence.

Yet Chryson maintains that his party remains committed to full independence. "The Alaskan Independence Party has got links to almost every independence-minded movement in the world," Chryson exclaimed. "And Alaska is not the only place that's about separation. There's at least 30 different states that are talking about some type of separation from the United States."

This has meant rubbing shoulders and forging alliances with outright white supremacists and far-right theocrats, particularly those who dominate the proceedings at such gatherings as the North American Secessionist conventions, which AIP delegates have attended in recent years. The AIP's affiliation with neo-Confederate organizations is motivated as much by ideological affinity as by organizational convenience. Indeed, Chryson makes no secret of his sympathy for the Lost Cause. "Should the Confederate states have been allowed to separate and go their peaceful ways?" Chryson asked rhetorically. "Yes. The War of Northern Aggression, or the Civil War, or the War Between the States -- however you want to refer to it -- was not about slavery, it was about states' rights."

Another far-right organization with whom the AIP has long been aligned is Howard Phillips' militia-minded Constitution Party. The AIP has been listed as the Constitution Party's state affiliate since the late 1990s, and it has endorsed the Constitution Party's presidential candidates (Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin) in the past two elections.

The Constitution Party boasts an openly theocratic platform that reads, "It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations." In its 1990s incarnation as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, it was on the front lines in promoting the "militia" movement, and a significant portion of its membership comprises former and current militia members.

At its 1992 convention, the AIP hosted both Phillips -- the USTP's presidential candidate -- and militia-movement leader Col. James "Bo" Gritz, who was campaigning for president under the banner of the far-right Populist Party. According to Chryson, AIP regulars heavily supported Gritz, but the party deferred to Phillips' presence and issued no official endorsements.

In Wasilla, the AIP became powerful by proxy -- because of Chryson and Stoll's alliance with Sarah Palin. Chryson and Stoll had found themselves in constant opposition to policies of Wasilla's Democratic mayor, who started his three-term, nine-year tenure in 1987. By 1992, Chryson and Stoll had begun convening regular protests outside City Council. Their demonstrations invariably involved grievances against any and all forms of "socialist government," from city planning to public education. Stoll shared Chryson's conspiratorial views: "The rumor was that he had wrapped his guns in plastic and buried them in his yard so he could get them after the New World Order took over," Stein told a reporter.

Chryson did not trust Palin when she joined the City Council in 1992. He claimed that she was handpicked by Democratic City Council leaders and by Wasilla's Democratic mayor, John Stein, to rubber-stamp their tax hike proposals. "When I first met her," he said, "I thought she was extremely left. But I've watched her slowly as she's become more pronounced in her conservative ideology."

Palin was well aware of Chryson's views. "She knew my beliefs," Chryson said. "The entire state knew my beliefs. I wasn't afraid of being on the news, on camera speaking my views."

But Chryson believes she trusted his judgment because he accurately predicted what life on the City Council would be like. "We were telling her, 'This is probably what's going to happen,'" he said. "'The city is going to give this many people raises, they're going to pave everybody's roads, and they're going to pave the City Council members' roads.' We couldn't have scripted it better because everything we predicted came true."

After intense evangelizing by Chryson and his allies, they claimed Palin as a convert. "When she started taking her job seriously," Chryson said, "the people who put her in as the rubber stamp found out the hard way that she was not going to go their way." In 1994, Sarah Palin attended the AIP's statewide convention. In 1995, her husband, Todd, changed his voter registration to AIP. Except for an interruption of a few months, he would remain registered was an AIP member until 2002, when he changed his registration to undeclared.

In 1996, Palin decided to run against John Stein as the Republican candidate for mayor of Wasilla. While Palin pushed back against Stein's policies, particularly those related to funding public works, Chryson said he and Steve Stoll prepared the groundwork for her mayoral campaign.

Chryson and Stoll viewed Palin's ascendancy as a vehicle for their own political ambitions. "She got support from these guys," Stein remarked. "I think smart politicians never utter those kind of radical things, but they let other people do it for them. I never recall Sarah saying she supported the militia or taking a public stand like that. But these guys were definitely behind Sarah, thinking she was the more conservative choice."

"They worked behind the scenes," said Stein. "I think they had a lot of influence in terms of helping with the back-scatter negative campaigning."

Indeed, Chryson boasted that he and his allies urged Palin to focus her campaign on slashing character-based attacks. For instance, Chryson advised Palin to paint Stein as a sexist who had told her "to just sit there and look pretty" while she served on Wasilla's City Council. Though Palin never made this accusation, her 1996 campaign for mayor was the most negative Wasilla residents had ever witnessed.

While Palin played up her total opposition to the sales tax and gun control -- the two hobgoblins of the AIP -- mailers spread throughout the town portraying her as "the Christian candidate," a subtle suggestion that Stein, who is Lutheran, might be Jewish. "I watched that campaign unfold, bringing a level of slime our community hadn't seen until then," recalled Phil Munger, a local music teacher who counts himself as a close friend of Stein.

"This same group [Stoll and Chryson] also [publicly] challenged me on whether my wife and I were married because she had kept her maiden name," Stein bitterly recalled. "So we literally had to produce a marriage certificate. And as I recall, they said, 'Well, you could have forged that.'"

When Palin won the election, the men who had once shouted anti-government slogans outside City Hall now had a foothold inside the mayor's office. Palin attempted to pay back her newfound pals during her first City Council meeting as mayor. In that meeting, on Oct. 14, 1996, she appointed Stoll to one of the City Council's two newly vacant seats. But Palin was blocked by the single vote of then-Councilman Nick Carney, who had endured countless rancorous confrontations with Stoll and considered him a "violent" influence on local politics. Though Palin considered consulting attorneys about finding another means of placing Stoll on the council, she was ultimately forced to back down and accept a compromise candidate.

Emboldened by his nomination by Mayor Palin, Stoll later demanded she fire Wasilla's museum director, John Cooper, a personal enemy he longed to sabotage. Palin obliged, eliminating Cooper's position in short order. "Gotcha, Cooper!" Stoll told the deposed museum director after his termination, as Cooper told a reporter for the New York Times. "And it only cost me a campaign contribution." Stoll, who donated $1,000 to Palin's mayoral campaign, did not respond to numerous requests for an interview. Palin has blamed budget concerns for Cooper's departure.

The following year, when Carney proposed a local gun-control measure, Palin organized with Chryson to smother the nascent plan in its cradle. Carney's proposed ordinance would have prohibited residents from carrying guns into schools, bars, hospitals, government offices and playgrounds. Infuriated by the proposal that Carney viewed as a common-sense public-safety measure, Chryson and seven allies stormed a July 1997 council meeting.

With the bill still in its formative stages, Carney was not even ready to present it to the council, let alone conduct public hearings on it. He and other council members objected to the ad-hoc hearing as "a waste of time." But Palin -- in plain violation of council rules and norms -- insisted that Chryson testify, stating, according to the minutes, that "she invites the public to speak on any issue at any time."

When Carney tried later in the meeting to have the ordinance discussed officially at the following regular council meeting, he couldn't even get a second. His proposal died that night, thanks to Palin and her extremist allies.

"A lot of it was the ultra-conservative far right that is against everything in government, including taxes," recalled Carney. "A lot of it was a personal attack on me as being anti-gun, and a personal attack on anybody who deigned to threaten their authority to carry a loaded firearm wherever they pleased. That was the tenor of it. And it was being choreographed by Steve Stoll and the mayor."

Asked if he thought it was Palin who had instigated the turnout, he replied: "I know it was."

By Chryson's account, he and Palin also worked hand-in-glove to slash property taxes and block a state proposal that would have taken money for public programs from the Permanent Fund Dividend, or the oil and gas fund that doles out annual payments to citizens of Alaska. Palin endorsed Chryson's unsuccessful initiative to move the state Legislature from Juneau to Wasilla. She also lent her support to Chryson's crusade to alter the Alaska Constitution's language on gun rights so cities and counties could not impose their own restrictions. "It took over 10 years to get that language written in," Chryson said. "But Sarah [Palin] was there supporting it."

"With Sarah as a mayor," said Chryson, "there were a number of times when I just showed up at City Hall and said, 'Hey, Sarah, we need help.' I think there was only one time when I wasn't able to talk to her and that was because she was in a meeting."

Chryson says the door remains open now that Palin is governor. (Palin's office did not respond to Salon's request for an interview.) While Palin has been more circumspect in her dealings with groups like the AIP as she has risen through the political ranks, she has stayed in touch.

When Palin ran for governor in 2006, marketing herself as a fresh-faced reformer determined to crush the GOP's ossified power structure, she made certain to appear at the AIP's state convention. To burnish her maverick image, she also tapped one-time AIP member and born-again Republican Walter Hickel as her campaign co-chair. Hickel barnstormed the state for Palin, hailing her support for an "all-Alaska" liquefied gas pipeline, a project first promoted in 2002 by an AIP gubernatorial candidate named Nels Anderson. When Palin delivered her victory speech on election night, Hickel stood beaming by her side. "I made her governor," he boasted afterward. Two years later, Hickel has endorsed Palin's bid for vice president.

Just months before Palin burst onto the national stage as McCain's vice-presidential nominee, she delivered a videotaped address to the AIP's annual convention. Her message was scrupulously free of secessionist rhetoric, but complementary nonetheless. "I share your party's vision of upholding the Constitution of our great state," Palin told the assembly of AIP delegates. "My administration remains focused on reining in government growth so individual liberty can expand. I know you agree with that ... Keep up the good work and God bless you."

When Palin became the Republican vice-presidential nominee, her attendance of the 1994 and 2006 AIP conventions and her husband's membership in the party (as well as Palin's videotaped welcome to the AIP's 2008 convention) generated a minor controversy. Chryson claimed, however, that Sarah and Todd Palin never even played a minor role in his party's internal affairs. "Sarah's never been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party," Chryson insisted. "Todd has, but most of rural Alaska has too. I never saw him at a meeting. They were at one meeting I was at. Sarah said hello, but I didn't pay attention because I was taking care of business."

But whether the Palins participated directly in shaping the AIP's program is less relevant than the extent to which they will implement that program. Chryson and his allies have demonstrated just as much interest in grooming major party candidates as they have in putting forward their own people. At a national convention of secessionist groups in 2007, AIP vice chairman Dexter Clark announced that his party would seek to "infiltrate" the Democratic and Republican parties with candidates sympathetic to its hard-right, secessionist agenda. "You should use that tactic. You should infiltrate," Clark told his audience of neo-Confederates, theocrats and libertarians. "Whichever party you think in that area you can get something done, get into that party. Even though that party has its problems, right now that is the only avenue."

Clark pointed to Palin's political career as the model of a successful infiltration. "There's a lot of talk of her moving up," Clark said of Palin. "She was a member [of the AIP] when she was mayor of a small town, that was a nonpartisan job. But to get along and to go along she switched to the Republican Party … She is pretty well sympathetic because of her membership."

Clark's assertion that Palin was once a card-carrying AIP member was swiftly discredited by the McCain campaign, which produced records showing she had been a registered Republican since 1988. But then why would Clark make such a statement? Why did he seem confident that Palin was a true-blue AIP activist burrowing within the Republican Party? The most salient answer is that Palin was once so thoroughly embedded with AIP figures like Chryson and Stoll and seemed so enthusiastic about their agenda, Clark may have simply assumed she belonged to his party.

Now, Palin is a household name and her every move is scrutinized by the Washington press corps. She can no longer afford to kibitz with secessionists, however instrumental they may have been to her meteoric ascendancy. This does not trouble her old AIP allies. Indeed, Chryson is hopeful that Palin's inauguration will also represent the start of a new infiltration.

"I've had my issues but she's still staying true to her core values," Chryson concluded. "Sarah's friends don't all agree with her, but do they respect her? Do they respect her ideology and her values? Definitely."

Sunday, October 19, 2008

"He likes to fight."

Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'cunt'

Filed by Nick Juliano

A
John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "assholes" and in at least one case "a fucking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.


The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.

As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.

Schecter, who also blogs at The Agonist, said in an interview the anecdote is "an early example of his uncontrollable temper." In the book he outlines several other examples of McCain losing his cool and raises the question of how that would affect a McCain presidency.

What should voters make of this pattern? In February 2008 Tim Russert succinctly described McCain on MSNBC's Morning Joe. A devilish grin spread from ear to ear as Russert, no McCain hater, leaned forward and spoke in a whisper, "He likes to fight." Russert got it right. But the big question isn't whether McCain likes to fight: it's who, when, and how.


The exchange between McCain and his wife was not reported anywhere when it happened, Schecter said (a LexisNexis database search confirms this). In 1992, McCain's mention in the national media revolved mostly around his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, and only local reporters closely followed his re-election bid.

McCain is well known for his rapport with the national media covering his presidential bid (he's jokingly referred to the press as "my base"), but Schecter said this incident was buried not out of fealty to the Arizona senator. Rather, it was uneasiness about how to get such a coarse exchange into a family newspaper, and he didn't fault the local press for not covering the incident.

"Members of the media are squeamish covering stuff like this so they let it go," Schecter told RAW STORY in an interview Monday. "Back in '92, when people use naughty words, [reporters] don't know as much what to do with it."

Much has changed since then. President Bush's reference to a New York Times reporter as a "major league asshole" was reported in at least 47 newspapers during the 2000 campaign, when the off-color remark was overheard, according to a database search. And more than a dozen newspapers have reported Dick Cheney's recommendation that Sen. Patrick Leahy "fuck yourself."

McCain and his aides have brushed off suggestions that his temper could impede his ability to perform the sometimes-delicate tasks asked of a president. The candidate was asked about his legendary temper last week on "Fox News Sunday," where he cited his ability to work "across the aisle" while in the Senate.

"You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want," McCain said. " The second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. ... When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry."

McCain's campaign did not return a call from RAW STORY seeking comment Monday morning.

Schecter says McCain's anger is much more than a passion for the issues. One can only imagine what would happen if McCain were to try to squeeze that temper into the tight confines of diplomacy.

"The public certainly has to know what this guy might do as president," Schecter says. Examples like the ones in his book "should worry people, quite frankly."

"Powell's endorsement is significant due to the fact that McCain has repeatedly singled him out for lavish praise."

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

The Huffington Post | Seth Colter

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell announced Sunday that he will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama. "He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said on NBC's Meet the Press.

"Obama displayed a steadiness. Showed intellectual vigor. He has a definitive way of doing business that will do us well," Powell said.

Powell said McCain has been a good friend for 25 years. But Powell expressed disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, as well as in his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president," Powell said. "And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made."

He also said he was disappointed with some of McCain's campaign tactics, such as bringing up Obama's ties to former 1960s radical Bill Ayers.

Powell said he does not plan to campaign for Obama.

Following the interview, Powell told reporters outside NBC's Washington studio that McCain "is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he'd be quite good at it, but I think we need more than that. I think we need a generational change. I think Senator Obama has captured the feelings of the young people of America and is reaching out in a more diverse, inclusive way across our society."

Powell said that the Republican focus on William Ayers and Obama's religious affiliations were damaging America's image abroad.

"Those kinds of images going out on al Jazeera are killing us around the world," he said. "And we have got to say to the world, it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are, if you're an American you're an American. And this business of, for example a congresswoman from Minnesota going around saying let's examine all congressmen to see who is pro America or not pro America, we have got to stop this kind of non-sense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and diversity. That really was driving me."

Powell continued, defending Obama against McCain's latest charge that the Democrat's policies are quasi-socialist:

We can't judge our people and hold our elections on that kind of basis. Yes, that kind of negativity troubled me. And the constant shifting of the argument, I was troubled a couple of weeks ago when in the middle of the crisis the campaign said 'we're going to go negative,' and they announced it. 'We're going to go negative and attack his character through Bill Ayers.' Now I guess the message this week is we're going to call him a socialist. Mr. Obama is now a socialist, because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying les, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, John McCain said he had a "respectful disagreement" with Powell's decision, but "this doesn't come as a surprise."

Aside from their shared history as Republican military men, Powell's endorsement is significant due to the fact that McCain has repeatedly singled him out for lavish praise. In a July New York Times interview, McCain described the former secretary of state and Joint Chiefs chairman as "a man who I admire as much as any man in the world, person in the world" when answering a question in which Powell was not brought up. Meanwhile, near the same time as that interview, McCain was reportedly considering Powell as a potential running mate.

McCain's high opinion of Powell as one of the "most credible, most respected" men in America is not merely an election-year spasm, either. When asked in 2001 if he would have chosen Powell for a Cabinet position had he succeeded in his first presidential run, McCain said "oh, yes." During two December 2000 appearances on NBC Nightly News, McCain described himself as "exuberant" over Powell's selection as secretary of state, which he predicted would secure "a beneficial effect on the conduct of American foreign policy." McCain added in another TV appearance that President Bush was "blessed" to have Powell working for him. In 2003, when Powell faced criticism from Newt Gingrich over his plan to travel to Syria, it was McCain who rose to the secretary's defense on MSNBC's Hardball, when he said: "I think it's appropriate that Colin Powell is going there."

Even at the end of Powell's somewhat frustrating tenure in George W. Bush's inner circle of policy advisers, McCain praised his overall performance, saying: "When he took the helm at the State Department nearly four years ago, I was confident that Secretary Powell would lead with honor and distinction ... I have not been disappointed." And in a CBS interview during this year's primary race, McCain suggested that one of President Bush's chief failures "was not to listen more to our military leadership, including people like General Colin Powell."

The praise has not only run in one direction, as Powell described McCain the "toughest man I've ever met" last year. But in the end, what sounded like a compliment could have been the beginning of the end. During this summer's conflict between Russia and Georgia, Powell criticized McCain for being, in essence, too mindlessly tough. When asked by CNN's what McCain meant when he said "We are all Georgians now," Powell demurred. "One candidate said that, and I'll let the candidate explain it for himself."

When pressed for further opinion, Powell distanced himself from McCain's staunchly pro-Georgian line. "The fact of the matter is that you have to be very careful in a situation like this not just to leap to one side or the other until you take a good analysis of the whole situation," Powell said, tamping down the rush to herald the rise of a new Soviet threat.

"The Russian Federation is not going to become the Soviet Union again. That movie failed at the box office. But they do have interests. And we have to think carefully about their interests."

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Californians who thought they were signing a petition were duped into registering as Republicans.

From the Los Angeles Times

Voters say they were duped into registering as Republicans

YPM, a group hired by the GOP, allegedly deceived Californians who thought they were signing a petition. YPM denies any wrongdoing. Similar accusations have been leveled against the company elsewhere.
By Evan Halper and Michael Rothfeld
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

October 18, 2008

SACRAMENTO — Dozens of newly minted Republican voters say they were duped into joining the party by a GOP contractor with a trail of fraud complaints stretching across the country.

Voters contacted by The Times said they were tricked into switching parties while signing what they believed were petitions for tougher penalties against child molesters. Some said they were told that they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Others had no idea their registration was being changed.

"I am not a Republican," insisted Karen Ashcraft, 47, a pet-clinic manager and former Democrat from Ventura who said she was duped by a signature gatherer into joining the GOP. "I certainly . . . won't sign anything in front of a grocery store ever again."

It is a bait-and-switch scheme familiar to election experts. The firm hired by the California Republican Party -- a small company called Young Political Majors, or YPM, which operates in several states -- has been accused of using the tactic across the country.

Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts. In Arizona, the firm was recently a defendant in a civil rights lawsuit. Prosecutors in Los Angeles and Ventura counties say they are investigating complaints about the company.

The firm, which a Republican Party spokesman said is paid $7 to $12 for each registration it secures, has denied any wrongdoing and says it has never been charged with a crime.

The 70,000 voters YPM has registered for the Republican Party this year will help combat the public perception that it is struggling amid Democratic gains nationally, give a boost to fundraising efforts and bolster member support for party leaders, political strategists from both parties say.

Those who were formerly Democrats may stop receiving phone calls and literature from that party, perhaps affecting its get-out-the-vote efforts. They also will be given only a Republican ballot in the next primary election if they do not switch their registration back before then.

Some also report having their registration status changed to absentee without their permission; if they show up at the polls without a ballot they may be unable to vote.

The Times randomly interviewed 46 of the hundreds of voters whose election records show they were recently re-registered as Republicans by YPM, and 37 of them -- more than 80% -- said that they were misled into making the change or that it was done without their knowledge.

Lydia Laws, a Palm Springs retiree, said she was angry to find recently that her registration had been switched from Democrat to Republican.

Laws said the YPM staffer who instructed her to identify herself on a petition as a Republican assured her that it was a formality, and that her registration would not be changed. Later, a card showed up in the mail saying she had joined the GOP.

"I said, 'No, no, no. That's not right,' " Laws said.

It all sounds familiar to Beverly Hill, a Democrat and the former election supervisor in Florida's Alachua County. About 200 voters -- mostly college students -- were unwittingly registered as Republicans there in 2004 by YPM staffers using the same tactic, Hill said.

"It is just incredible that this can keep happening election after election," she said.

YPM and Republican Party officials said they were surprised by the complaints. The officials said the signature gatherers wear shirts bearing the Republican symbol, an elephant -- a contention disputed by some of the voters interviewed.

Every person registered signs an affidavit confirming they voluntarily joined the GOP, party leaders said.

"It does the state party no good to register people in a party they don't want to be in," said Hector Barajas, communications director for the California Republican Party.

The document that voters thought was an initiative petition has no legal implications at all. YPM founder Mark Jacoby said the petition was clearly labeled as a "plebiscite," which does nothing more than show public support.

He also said that plainclothes investigators for Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a Democrat, have conducted multiple spot checks and told his firm it is doing nothing improper.

"Every time, they gave us a thumbs-up," Jacoby said. "People are not being tricked."

But Nicole Winger, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state's office, said the agency "does not give an OK or seal of approval to voter registration groups."

Two years ago, Orange County Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas charged 12 workers for a petitioning firm hired by the local Republican Party with fraudulently registering voters as Republican.

Democratic registration drives have also caught the attention of law enforcement officials.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, a national nonprofit that recruits mostly Democratic voters, is being investigated by the FBI for filing fake registrations in multiple states during the current presidential campaign.

In April, eight ACORN officials in St. Louis pleaded guilty to federal election fraud for submitting false registration cards in 2006.

In California, signature-gatherers are prohibited by law from misleading voters about what they are signing.

"You can't lie to someone to procure their signature," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in election law.

Civil rights activists recently filed a lawsuit in Arizona accusing YPM of deceiving residents to get signatures for a ballot measure that would have prohibited affirmative action by that state. The lawsuit was dropped after supporters of the measure pulled it from the ballot.

In Massachusetts, former YPM worker Angela McElroy testified at a legislative hearing in 2004that she had tricked voters into signing a ballot measure to ban gay marriage. She said she told voters they were signing in favor of a measure to allow alcoholic drinks to be sold in supermarkets.

YPM's Jacoby said McElroy was on loan to another signature-gathering company at the time the alleged deception took place.

Jose Aguilera, a 48-year-old math teacher from Ventura whose registration was recently changed from Democrat to Republican, said he signed the child-molester petition outside an Albertsons supermarket.

He said he was asked to sign a second document but not told that it would change his registration.

"Somehow the guy pulled out something else and I signed it," he said.

Ashcraft, the pet-clinic manager, said she knew that she could still vote in November for whichever presidential candidate she supports -- in her case, Democrat Barack Obama.

"I just don't like being lied to," she said.

Janett Lemaire, 54, said she told a signature-gatherer in the small Riverside County town of Desert Edge, "I've been a Democrat all my life and I want to stay that way."

But the man "said this has nothing to do with changing how you are registered," Lemaire said. "Then I get a notice in the mail saying I am a Republican. . . . I was very angry."