Month: October 2012

Log Cabin Republicans Stab Their Supporters in the Back

The golden rule of politics is simple: trust no one. Politics offers power and power attracts sociopaths so, ultimately, working within political organizations will involve working with people who will, in all likelihood, slide a knife into your back when it’s politically convenient. The Log Cabin Republicans just finished wiping the blood off of their knife after their announced endorsement of Mitt Romney. For those of you who don’t know the Log Cabin Republicans are a group that tries to promote gay rights in the Republican Party:

What We Believe

We are loyal Republicans. We believe in limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family—taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation’s greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty and equality. We believe equality for gay and lesbian people is in the finest tradition of the Republican Party. We educate our Party about why inclusion wins. Opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP’s core principles of smaller government and personal freedom.

Considering Romney’s stance on gay rights one is left wondering how an organization like the Log Cabin Republicans can endorse him. The answer to that lies in their endorsing statement (which is a lot of bullshit wrapped around a morsel of relevant information):

The qualified nature of this endorsement means that Log Cabin Republicans will be most active in our support for House and Senate candidates. Our membership base and network of chapters nationwide will be actively supporting our allies in Congress as part of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s “Operation Rolling Surge” deployment program.

Our greatest efforts will be directed at electing pro-equality leaders like Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the first Republican to cosponsor the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act; members of the House LGBT Equality Caucus like Representatives Nan Hayworth and Richard Hanna of New York; and staunchly pro-equality challengers like Linda McMahon of Connecticut and our very own Richard Tisei of Massachusetts, who will become the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress. While many of our members will also be working hard on behalf of Governor Romney, growing the pro-equality Republican presence in the House and Senate is our highest electoral priority this year.

This brings up one of my pet peeves with the political process, if an individual or organization wants to gain any political influence they must compromise their principles. Members of the Log Cabin Republicans are likely hoping that their endorsement of Romney will gain the organization some influence with Republican hardliners who are starkly opposed to gay rights. Hardline Republicans usually consider any organization that doesn’t endorse all Republican candidates as party traitors. If the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse Mitt Romney those hardliners would label the organization as traitorous, refuse to work with them, and possibly refuse to work with any organization endorsed candidates (who, by association, would likely be labeled as traitors).

Such political maneuvers never work out in the end. By endorsing Romney the Log Cabin Republicans have alienated their supporters. Advocates of gay rights are unlikely to trust the Log Cabin Republicans in the future and will denounce and abandon the organization in droves. With their base gone the organization will likely fade into irrelevancy. The Log Cabin Republicans offered the Republican Party votes, campaign contributions, and volunteer labor from advocates of gay rights. Without those advocates the organization has nothing to offer politically and will therefore have no influence in the Republican Party.

I’ve left one glaring question unanswered: if these kinds of political maneuvers don’t work why do organizations continue to make them? The answer to that is simple, the leadership of these organizations usually become obsessed with power. It wouldn’t surprise me to hear that somebody in the Romney campaign offered the decision makers of the Log Cabin Republicans some kind of reward in exchange for the organization’s endorsement. Perhaps several of the decision makers were offered influential positions inside the Republican Party itself. A reward like that can be easily passed off to an organization’s membership as a good thing since it can be claimed to give the organization influence within the Republican Party. In reality the people who take such rewards are usually hungry for power and care little about principles so their gain of an influential position gains their former organization nothing. Any attempt to use their newfound position to push their former organization’s agenda will be short lived as hardline Republicans will offer more power in exchange for dropping said agenda. It’s a vicious cycle that promotes sociopathic behavior. The power base continues their reign while members wanting to enact political change are squashed.

Advocates of gay rights within the Republican Party just got a firsthand lesson in the political process. Hopefully they learn from it and give no further support to the Republican Party.

Another Case of Police Gunning Down Harmless Dogs

I’m starting the believe that the state’s trend of breaking into homes and gunning down family dogs is due to the fact no repercussions ever come of such actions. If amped up police officers gun down a fellow human being there may possibly be a cursory investigation. On the other hand it appears rare that the murder of a dog is investigated in any way. At the moment this is my leading theory on why stories like this keep popping up:

There was nothing James Woods could do.

He screamed; he pleaded. ”Please don’t harm my dogs,” he begged police, who moments earlier had barged into his east-side home looking for marijuana.

Woods was forced into a corner last week when the first shot rang out – a 12-gauge shotgun. Woods’ young pit bull, Tank, who neighbors and witnesses say was confined to a locked fence outside and unable to harm anyone, lay dead in a puddle of blood, shot in the face.

Fearing police would hurt his two other dogs, who were inside the house, Woods cried out: “Please! They won’t hurt you! Stop chasing them! They’re just scared. ”

Witnesses told a consistent story: Police chased the dogs, Hump and Janey, around the house, shooting Woods’ longtime companions as they fled.

It takes a special type of person to wield violence against nonviolent individuals. These types of people generally enjoy violence and look for opportunities to wield it whenever possible. Should it surprise anybody that these types of people are habitually murdering family pets?

Playing the Gun Control Advocate’s Game Against Them

Via Uncle I came across another story that shows that gun control advocates don’t enjoy it when others playing their game:

As Cleveland cops exchanged gift cards and sports tickets for guns Saturday, they watched as a cadre of young men stood nearby and offered cash for weapons.

[…]

“Isn’t that something?,” said Police Chief Michael McGrath who was at the gun buyback, outside Public Safety Central at East 21st Street and Payne Avenue. “Here we’re trying to save lives and they’re right in our face, trying to buy guns cheap so they can sell them at a profit.”

You have to love McGrath’s double-standard. When the police buy firearms from individuals they’re “trying to save lives” but when private individuals buy guns form other individuals they’re somehow performing a malicious act. This double-standard is especially notable when you read the caption under the picture:

On Saturday police bought back 298 handguns, which will be melted in a furnace at steel company ArcelorMittal.

The police are potentially disposing of crime evidence, which isn’t going to save anybody’s life. Meanwhile the private individuals may resell the firearms they acquired to individuals in need of effective self-defense tools. Who knows, they may even sell those firearms are an incredibly cheap price. That could help poor individuals in need of a firearm, which would certainly have the potential to save lives.

The GOP Stupid Train Keeps Chugging Along

The Republican Party seems to have a problem keeping a muzzle on their candidates this year. First Todd Akins claimed that women rarely get pregnant from legitimate rape then Jon Hubbad and Loy Mauch claimed slavery was a blessing in disguise. Now a Republican Senate candidates named Richard Mourdock has publicly stated that pregnancies resulting from rape are a gift from God:

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday when a woman is impregnated during a rape, “it’s something God intended.”

Mourdock, who’s been locked in a tight race with Democratic challenger Rep. Joe Donnelly, was asked during the final minutes of a debate whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happened,” Mourdock said.

Are these clowns trying to see who can say the dumbest statement publicly? Perhaps he’s hoping to get some of that sweet RandPAC money.

More on the State’s Witch Hunt Against Anarchists

The more I research the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) recent arrest of anarchists the more it’s appearing to be a state witch hunt. During this witch hunt the FBI has claimed that the anarchists were arrested for property damage that was caused during May Day. A warrant accidentally unsealed in the Seattle United States District Court shows that the agency’s story is questionable at best:

May Day began with peaceful demonstrations in downtown Seattle, but shortly before noon a swarm of protesters, dressed all in black, massed together and began striking out. They targeted Nike and banks; they slashed tires and broke windows and sprayed anti-capitalist graffiti as some made their way to the Nakamura courthouse. Afterward, members of the so-called “black bloc” protesters shed their dark clothing and blended into the crowd.

The search warrant says the courthouse building, on Spring Street and Sixth Avenue, sustained tens of thousands of dollars in damage, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office could not provide a specific dollar amount. Destruction of government property in excess of $1,000 is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment.

[…]

Meanwhile, the FBI set out to find those responsible for the courthouse damage. Agents reported spending long hours reviewing surveillance-camera footage, news video and still photos of the crowd that day, trying to identify suspects based on clues: the white strip around one suspect’s waist, the “fringe” of a shirt, the shape of a backpack.

What the warrant makes clear is that state and federal agents were watching some members of the small group of Portland anarchists even before May Day. The affidavit says they were tracking members as early as April 9, when they and others were “all observed by FBI surveillance at an event” in Portland that day changing out of black clothing.

If this investigation was related to damage caused on May Day why was the FBI spying on the arrested individuals beforehand? My guess is the FBI wanted to create more glory for themselves. Since they lacked any cases that would put them on the front page of newspapers throughout the country they reverted to their usual trick of making up a boogeyman. Historically anarchists have made excellent boogeymen because the state has most people convinced that all anarchists are violent. When the headlines say the FBI arrested a group of anarchists most people say, “Good job, those guys deserve to be in prison!” Going after anarchists is a fairly safe thing to do when you’re an agency trying to create a little hero worship.

After selecting their boogeyman the FBI sat back, spied on some anarchists, and waited for the proper opportunity to move in. That opportunity came on May Day when a peaceful demonstrated suddenly turned violent. The state has a history of using police provocateurs during anarchist demonstrations to incite violence and the FBI has been caught creating and “stopping” terrorists so often that the mainstream media has even caught on. Considering those facts I would not be surprised if the individuals who incited the violence in Seattle on May Day were actually state agents. After all anarchist black bloc demonstrations involve participants covering their faces, which makes identification almost impossible. It’s not difficult for police officers to dress in black, cover their faces, and break things in order to create an excuse to make mass arrests.

Combining the evidence accidentally revealed through the unsealed (and quickly resealed) warrant, the fact that not enough evidence exists to press charges against the arrested anarchists, and the FBI’s history of making up criminals gives this case has all the indicators of being fabricated malarkey.

Sometimes the Truth is Best Delivered Through Satire

It amazes me that a satirical news site like The Onion can make the most accurate commentary about current political events:

BOCA RATON, FL—Saying that the high-value target represented a major threat to their most vital objectives, Obama administration officials confirmed tonight that former governor Mitt Romney was killed by a predator drone while attending a presidential debate at Lynn University.

[…]

The drone strike, which killed three of Romney’s sons sitting near the debate stage, reportedly also took the lives of at least 45 civilians, including 12 Lynn University students, nine Secret Service agents, first daughter Malia Obama, and two cameramen.

“Military operations of this ilk are dangerous, and occasionally a few innocent civilians get caught in the crossfire,” said Carney, describing the lost arm and severe second-degree facial burns inflicted on debate moderator Bob Schieffer as “necessary collateral damage.” “However, we must realize that this is a price we pay when we face our greatest challenges.”

At press time, President Obama was reportedly wiping his face clean of Romney’s blood and had removed his late opponent’s severed head from his lap to begin his closing remarks.

Why is it that a satirical newspaper like The Onion has more in-depth coverage of the presidential debates than so-called reputable news organizations? While both candidates are arguing in favor of continuing and starting new wars news organizations like Fox, CNN, and NBC are arguing over who “won” the debate. It’s pretty difficult to discern a winner when both candidates hold the exact same views.

Russell Means has Passed

I’ll be honest, I wasn’t terribly familiar with Russell Means until after his death was announced but it turns out it was much more bad ass than I realized. During his life Means participated in several high profile American Indian actions against the United States federal government:

He rose to national attention as a leader of the American Indian Movement in 1970 by directing a band of Indian protesters who seized the Mayflower II ship replica at Plymouth, Mass., on Thanksgiving Day. The boisterous confrontation between Indians and costumed “Pilgrims” attracted network television coverage and made Mr. Means an overnight hero to dissident Indians and sympathetic whites.

Later, he orchestrated an Indian prayer vigil atop the federal monument of sculptured presidential heads at Mount Rushmore, S.D., to dramatize Lakota claims to Black Hills land. In 1972, he organized cross-country caravans converging on Washington to protest a century of broken treaties, and led an occupation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He also attacked the “Chief Wahoo” mascot of the Cleveland Indians baseball team, a toothy Indian caricature that he called racist and demeaning. It is still used.

And in a 1973 protest covered by the national news media for months, he led hundreds of Indians and white sympathizers in an occupation of Wounded Knee, S.D., site of the 1890 massacre of some 350 Lakota men, women and children in the last major conflict of the American Indian wars. The protesters demanded strict federal adherence to old Indian treaties, and an end to what they called corrupt tribal governments.

What made Russell unique in regards to the American Indian’s fight against the federal government is that he held libertarian beliefs, even going so far as to run for the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate (he lost to Ron Paul). The more I read about the man the more I find to like about him. He was willing to make major stands against the government that all but wiped his people out and believed in individual freedom. That’s often a very rare combination of traits.

Something I Often Wonder

There’s something I’ve wondered for some time now. If you were given the ability to have all of your political goals granted at the expensive of the lives of a group of people you’ve never met and would likely never meet would you do it? For example, if you could have all gun control measures repealed instantly but in doing so 1,000 Middle Easterners would be killed would you do it? Or if you could have universal healthcare for all that was guaranteed to work but in doing so 1,000 South American natives would be killed would you do it?

When I see people arguing over Romney and Obama I see people willing to sacrifice the lives of people they’ve never met in exchange for their political goals. Both candidates are in almost complete agreement when it comes to foreign policy and their agreement involves the murder of an untold number of people. Those advocating for Romney are often doing so because they believe Romney will somehow protect gun rights and prevent the economy from further sliding down the hill. Obama’s advocates, on the other hand, want the Affordable Care Act to continue and gay marriage legalized throughout the country. Both sides have been willing to either ignore their candidate’s foreign relations policies or somehow justify them.

So, for those of you supporting Romney or Obama, we’re left with the question: are you willing to exchange the lives of people you’ve never met for your political gains? Ultimately that is the price that will be paid if either candidate wins.

Tune in Tonight to See Who Will Promise to Murder the Most People

Tonight millions of Americans will tune in to watch the two leading presidential candidates debate over who will murder more foreigners:

Mr Obama will be aiming to stress his commander-in-chief credentials as the man who killed Osama Bin Laden and ended the Iraq war, analysts say, while trying to portray Mr Romney as lacking the experience to steer the nation through a crisis.

Polling suggests Mr Obama has a small advantage in voter perceptions about which candidate is best prepared to handle US foreign policy in a chaotic world.

For his part, Mr Romney is expected to push his campaign’s position that US foreign policy is “unravelling before our very eyes”.

At a confrontational second debate in New York last week, Mr Romney said the 11 September attack on the US consulate in Benghazi – which killed four Americans including the US ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens – and wider anti-American violence in the Middle East were symptomatic of that decline.

The Republican candidate accused Mr Obama of initially downplaying the role of radical Islamists in the Benghazi attack – in order to protect a successful anti-terrorist track record.

Obama certainly has the Osama card but Romney has the Benghazi card and the fact that Obama snuffed Netanyahu, which will score big points with the neoconservatives who worship Israel. In the end everybody but the presidential candidates and war mongers will lose. Both candidates support the same violent interventionist policies and are merely debating over who can promise the most violence. Neither candidate will bring the troops home, close America’s foreign military bases, or cease assassinating people with drones.

Needless to say I’m not going to watch the debates. I have no interest in watching a couple of sociopaths argue over who can create more dead bodies outside of America’s borders.