more the engrish!

HAT TIP TO POLITICAL ANIMAL (SUCCESSOR TO THE CARPETBAGGER REPORT) FOR BRINGING NOTE TO THE FOLLOWING VIDEO from Eschaton, showing GOP goons assualting a Democratic observer seeking to record the proceedings @ a Missouri rally the other day:

Could this speak volumes for the excesses of GOP depravity in the face of an especially crucial election where Our Antient and Pecuilar Soverignty and Soverign Identity lies in the balance? (I say this in view of previously-discussed revelations that an al-Qaeda-affiliated website is calling for John McCain's election all the more, to further weaken the Nation socioeconomically.)

=============

NOW WE KNOW WHO'S TO BLAME FOR THE "OBAMA IS A CLOSET MUSLIM" MEME IN THE "DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER" STYLEE as has prevailed for much of the campaign--let Steven Waldman of Beliefnet discuss in the following for The Wall Street Journal Online:

One of the most striking parts of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama was his accusation that Republicans have helped spread the rumor that Sen. Obama is Muslim, and turned the word into a smear. “I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion he’s Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists,” he said.

Some Republicans took umbrage at the comment, saying John McCain and Republicans haven’t directly made such an accusation. Jonah Goldberg, a writer for The National Review, said it was a “low and dishonest blow,” and asked: “Is there really much evidence that the GOP or the McCain campaign have had anything to do with the stories that Obama is a Muslim?”

It’s an important question, worth a detailed look.

First, Gen. Powell noted that Sen. McCain himself has never intimated that Sen. Obama is Muslim. And he’s right about that. Neither McCain nor his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have suggested such a thing, or even referred to their opponent by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. At one point, the campaign fired a volunteer who had told voters that Sen. Obama is Muslim, and a recent video showed rank-and-file McCain supporters chastising an anti-Muslim McCainian.

Stoking the Rumor

Hillary Clinton arguably stoked the rumor more directly than McCain when she said during the primary that Sen. Obama wasn’t Muslim “as far as I know.”

What about the Republican Party itself? There’s no evidence that the national Republican Party has driven, coordinated or even overtly encouraged the Obama-is-a-Muslim line.

Yet the idea has been widely embraced, and not just by a few conservative extremists. A recent Pew Research Center poll found that a staggering 16% of McCain supporters believe Sen. Obama is Muslim – and only 47% of Republicans say he’s Christian (the balance is unsure).

There are some instances of Republican Party officials stoking the idea. The Tennessee Republican Party issued a press release about “Barack Hussein Obama” that included a picture of Sen. Obama in “Muslim garb.” The Clark County, Washington, Republican Party declared on its Web site that “Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. It is reported that Obama swore his oath of office using the Koran….This is chilling information about a candidate for the highest office in the Country especially given the radical Muslim claims that they will destroy American from the inside.”

The Web site of the National Black Republican Association featured an article analyzing “Obama’s Muslim Connections,” which declared, “It’s important to scrutinize Obama’s Muslim background to determine if his Islamic past influences his decisions and actions toward America, including his decision to select an anti-American pastor as his spiritual adviser.”

Marcia Stirman, chairman of Otero County Republican Women in New Mexico, said of Obama in a letter to the local newspaper: “He’s a Muslim socialist.”

Mainstream Conservative Media

Most important, the idea has been spread by mainstream conservative media – not just a few lonely conservative bloggers in their basement but major conservative publications or figures with large followings:
A popular conservative Web site, Newsmax.com, ran a story this week called, “Was Obama a Muslim?” and another one, “Obama ‘Lying’ About Muslim Past, Expert Says.”

Another popular conservative Web site, wnd.com, ran a piece called “’Muslim’ photo raises Obama connection questions.”

Human Events, a conservative publication that John McCain just granted an interview , also published an essay entitled, “Our First Muslim President?”

Conservative talk show host and bestselling author Michael Savage repeated a common myth that Sen. Obama attended a “Madrassa,” a radical Muslim school.

Floyd Brown, a conservative activist who created the Willie Horton ad against Michael Dukakis in 1988, issued a new ad, asking “Was Barack Obama ever a Muslim?”

Conservative talk shows – and some cable TV shows, it should be said – gave air time to Jerome Corsi, whose book “The Obama Nation” argued that Sen. Obama has “extensive connections to Islam.” He appeared on Hannity & Colmes to publicize his book and on Sean Hannity’s radio show to argue that Sen. Obama has a close connection to a radical Muslim politician in Kenya. Hannity also gave substantial TV time to Andy Martin, a free-lance activist, who helped originate one of the Internet emails arguing that Obama was Muslim.

Rush Limbaugh more recently added a new wrinkle by arguing that Sen. Obama is not African American but rather “an Arab.” Limbaugh did not say Sen. Obama is Muslim but many Americans believe that all Arabs are Muslim.

Finally, there’s the matter of the middle name. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have made a point of never referring to their opponent as Barack Hussein Obama, apparently viewing that as an unfair attempt to imply Sen. Obama is Muslim or shady in some way. “I absolutely repudiate such comments,” Sen. McCain said, after someone introducing him used Sen. Obama’s full name. “It will never happen again.”

Using Obama’s Middle Name

But many prominent Republicans and conservatives have, including Mr. Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter (she has called him “B. Hussein Obama” and “President Hussein”), Mike Gallagher, and Bill Cunningham. And on two different occasions, Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin were introduced at rallies by men who used the formulation.

With schoolboy innocence, many conservative commentators say they were merely raising questions or stating facts. And you know what? That’s largely true.

Many stuck to the points about Sen. Obama that were accurate: His middle name is, after all, Hussein. He was listed as a Muslim as a boy when he attended school [in] Indonesia. His stepfather was Muslim.

One could merely repeat those facts and it would lead many to believe Sen. Obama was Muslim – especially if one didn’t mention that Sen. Obama has been a practicing Christian for 17 years and was in Indonesia only until age 10 or 11.

Did the McCain campaign intentionally allow the rumor to spread while having Sen. McCain personally take the high ground? It wouldn’t be the first time a presidential candidate took that approach, but there’s no evidence so far that Sen. McCain or anyone in his campaign opted for that as a strategy.

More likely, something else was at play. For Sen. McCain to have really stopped the rumor, he would have had to confront the Conservative Media Establishment, which has always been suspicious of Sen. McCain and which he desperately needs to get elected.

It’s nearly impossible to know exactly how we ended up with less than half of Republicans believing Sen. Obama when he says he’s Christian and one in five McCain supporters affirmatively believing that Sen. Obama is Muslim. Tellingly, Colin Powell’s complaint was not only that activists said made the Obama-is-a-Muslim claim but that “it is permitted to be said” by “members of the party.” In all likelihood, it was the establishment conservatives who made the ground fertile for the rumors and the more extreme players who then planted the seeds. Once the poisonous plant began to grow, those in the conservative establishment did little to uproot it and sometimes gave it water.

And how do we know that those behind the "Obama-is-a-closet-Muslim" meme are "only following orders," to use the Nuremburg Patsy if and when asked?

=============

RETURNING FOR THE MOMENT TO THE POLITICAL ANIMAL, Your Correspondent calls your attentiont to the following item as suggests where John McCain may be as guilty as Barack Obama of being closet Socialists (the latter being another popular GOP meme of paranoia and desperation):

WE'RE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW.... To hear John McCain and Sarah Palin tell it, Barack Obama's plan to cut taxes on middle-class families, and raise taxes on the very wealthy, is not only a bad idea, it's socialism. As 11th-hour, desperation attacks go, it's pretty weak, especially when a conservative Republican president is nationalizing banks and the financial industry.

But McCain's error is actually worse than most of his more routine mistakes. For one thing, progressive taxation is as American as apple pie. For another, McCain's take on progressive taxation seems to have "evolved" over time.

On the first point, the AP's Charles Babbington has a very good piece today, explaining "the nation's long tradition of redistributing huge amounts of wealth through tax-and-spending policies." Babbington noted, "Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913."

McClatchy's David Lightman and William Douglas had a similar item last night, noting, "Favoring higher tax rates for the wealthy than for the less fortunate isn't socialism, and if it is, then the U.S. has been a socialist country for nearly a century, under both Democrats and Republicans."

But the amusing part of all of this is the hypocrisy. McCain now seems to believe Obama's tax policies were crafted by Karl Marx, but it was just a couple of personas ago when McCain thought Obama's approach was the right one.

It's well documented that McCain's full-throated support of cuts for those in the top tax brackets represents something of a reversal since 2001, when he voted against Bush-backed tax slashes for top earners. "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief," he wrote in a statement at the time.

But archived MSNBC videotape from 2000 further demonstrates how McCain's tone has shifted on taxes and what constitutes socialism since the end of his last presidential race. Answering questions during a Hardball College Tour show in October 2000, McCain defended the progressive tax system when questioned by a town hall participant who warned that the high tax bracket of her father -- a doctor -- smacked of an inching towards "socialism and stuff." McCain said that progressive tax systems are based on the fact that "we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more." He spelled out this response: "Here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

I guess McCain was for socialism before he was against it.

How will The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang explain this one after calling Barack Obama a "Marxist" and "Socialist" all this time, let alone the "lame duck" President himself nationalising "essential" banking and financial-services companies sub rosa?

more animals

YOU MAY RECALL WHERE JEROME CORSI MADE, AMONG OTHER HIGHLY INCREDIBLE CLAIMS ON WORLDNETDAILY, ONE SUGGESTING WHERE JOHN McCAIN was being "endorsed" by al-Qaeda-affiliated groups during the primaries season; the better to discredit the Traditional Two-Party System and "win the hearts and minds of voters" over to the Constitution Party's candidate, Chuck Baldwin, to Save America From Herself.

Well, it looks as if Mr. Corsi may be spot-on right, notwithstanding where Your Correspondent doesn't take much stock in conservative-leaning blogs or websites; The Associated Press is reporting (via Google News):

Al-Qaida-linked Web site backs McCain as president

By PAMELA HESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Al-Qaida supporters suggested in a Web site message this week they would welcome a pre-election terror attack on the U.S. as a way to usher in a McCain presidency.

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, said he had heard about the Web site chatter but had no immediate comment.

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaida plans or knowledge of its operations, according to SITE.

SITE senior analyst Adam Raisman said this message caught SITE's attention because there has been little other chatter on the forums about the U.S. election.

SITE was struck by the message's detailed analysis — and apparent jubilation — about American financial woes.

"What we try to do is get the pulse of the jihadist community," Raisman said. "And it's about the financial crisis."

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden issued a videotape just four days before the 2004 U.S. presidential election directly addressing the American people.

But then again, there's easily the likelihood for the al-Hesbah website to be a super-secretive CIA project designed (and deliberately) to keep the American People scared and in line for the sake of the ur-RAHOWA Against Terrorism, and in much the same vein as the "bin-Laden Tape" issued ahead of the 2004 elections (some, in fact, suggesting that same may have been forged by CIA operatives for scaremongering purposes).

Think Progress adds to this story:

The McCain campaign swiftly disavowed the statements, arranging a conference call with top national security advisers Randy Scheunemann and James Woolsey. Woolsey declared that the post was not an endorsement but was in fact clearly intended to boost McCain’s opponent, by providing a “kiss of death” to McCain’s campaign:

WOOLSEY: This individual knows that the endorsement of people like him is a kiss of death, figuratively and literally. So it seems to me it’s pretty clear that, by making this statement, that he wants — it would be a good thing for McCain to be president, he’s clearly trying to damage John McCain, not speaking from his heart.

However, just minutes earlier in the call, Scheunemann went through a laundry list of “bad guys” who support of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), cited dubious quotes from Hamas, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya. In fact, the McCain campaign pounced on Hamas’s endorsement of Obama in March. “If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly,” McCain declared ominously.

When a reporter pointed out the contradiction, Woolsey replied that the difference was that McCain’s endorsement came from “simply an individual blogger,” saying that this extremist’s true concern about a McCain presidency “seems very clear to me, frankly.” So when a terrorist supports McCain, it’s a head fake, but when one supports Obama it’s a legitimate issue voters should “make judgments” on?

*************

THE OLD MAXIM ABOUT "CLOWNS GETTING AWAY WITH THE TRUTH" MAY BE AS TRUE AS EVER IN THE CAMPAIGN FOR INDECISION 2008, as has been well-documented in this and other blogs proudly Secular-Progressive.

Witness what Steven Colbert had to say in suggesting where John McCain may have only ruined his own Presidential campaign, and is all the more desperate to try and save face and credibility:

So what stands in the way of The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang of Indecision 2008 acknowledging as much?

*************

REPRESENTATIVE MICHELLE BACHMANN (GOP/MN) IS TRYING DESPERARELY TO SPIN HER WAY OUT OF SOME RATHER NOTORIOUS REMARKS MADE LAST WEEK when she called for Congress to investigate its own for suspicion of "un-American tendencies" or general "disloyalty" among the ranks (as if the GOP insisted that only conservatives were capable of showing True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command).

In other words, essentially denying what she said with her own lips when the record exists that she said as much; Think Progress explains (emphasis supplied):

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is still on the defensive from an appearance last Friday on MSNBC’s Hardball, in which she called for the media to conduct a “penetrating exposé” into anti-American views of members of Congress.

Speaking with the St. Cloud Times on Tuesday, Bachmann said she regretted suggesting that Barack Obama held “anti-American” views. Referencing Chris Matthews by name 12 times in a 6 minute interview, Bachmann portrayed herself as the victim of a clever ploy devised by the MSNBC host:

Chris Matthews laid a trap, and I walked into it. […]

Chris Matthews was using the term over and over, and I should not have used it. […]

This was Chris Matthews. I made a big mistake by going on the show. I never should have. […]

I just didn’t recognize — I never watched the Chris Matthews show before. I should have before I went on. I didn’t recognize that he would lay a trap the way that he did.

Bachmann concluded the interview by circling back to where she began: “I didn’t bring the word choice up. That was Chris Matthews who brought the word choice up. Unfortunately, like I said, I walked into a trap.”

In a subsequent update, Think Progress adds:

Bachmann made similar comments in a speech to the St. Cloud, MN Rotary Club. Bachmann said, "I do believe firmly that a trap was laid and I stepped into it."

GRAND JURY
IT'S THE LAW!
WHY NOT? WHO FEARS
THE EVIDENCE?

SUCH WAS A SIGN POSTED OUTSIDE THE MONTANA FREEMEN COMPOUND DURING THE NOTORIOUS 1996 STANDOFF WITH JOHN LAW as was reinforced by Old Glory's inapproriate display in distress-signal stylee (upside down), calling for a so-called "common-law court" proceeding against The Establishment based on flawed and devious readings of the Constitution and the Uniform Commercial Code which, among other things, held that only gold and silver coin were lawful tender.

I bring this up in light of the following video from Brave New Films as makes note of where supporters @ several recent McCain/Palin rallies were being "instructed" not to answer media questions:

As for the "why and wherefore" of such a mindset, the contributor of this video quoted thus from Huffington Post (emphasis added):

THIS JUST IN Press kept under a watchful eye

CLEARWATER -- Constantly under the watchful eyes of security, the media wasn't permitted to wander around inside Coachman Park to talk to Sarah Palin supporters. When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head toward the bleachers where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out of nowhere and confront him or her and say, "Can I help you?'' and turn the person around. When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn't allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written. The campaign wanted to avoid that possibility Monday.

As seconded by this item from blogs.tampabay.com:

What is the McCain Camp trying to hide? Perhaps all the negativity has awakened the large Lunatic Fringe inside the republican base and The McCain Campaign does not want the rest of us to see their ignorance. A youtube member got around the restrictions and was able to capture some of these pathetic souls in all their ignorance.

Your Correspondent, then, has to wonder if the McCain/Palin campaign's article of faith for the media covering their "rallies" in this the final fortnight before elections is one with the Oceanic police state of Nineteen Eighty Four advising that we "reject all evidence of eyes and ears."

In other words, act stoopid, and if asked why, deny everything. Which, in and of itself, could raise alarm bells of possible brainwashing, mind control or other devious acts, deeds and exploits crossing into the worst and most depraved forms of Scientology.

=============

THE ELMER GANTRY INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED RELIGIO-POLITICAL THEOLOGY SEEMS TO BE RAMPING UP THE PARANOIA bordering on a subtle endorsement of the McCain/Palin ticket pro Deo, patria et familia in the final fortnight to elections, if Right Wing Watch has anything to say about it.

Witness, for starters, the following atrocity propaganda video from Coral Ridge Ministries warning that Bible-Believing Christians face Clear and Present Danger of Persecution, Afrikaner-stylee, if an Obama Administration successfully pushes through hate-crimes legislation:

Also from Right Wing Watch, see how the Elmer Gantry crowd loves to deploy logical fallacies for "winning of hearts and minds" across Sarah Palin's sham ideal of "Real America," where Grit and Capper's Weekly are preferred to the "elitist" Time and Newsweek:

One of the Right’s standard reasons for opposing gay marriage is that it somehow harms “traditional” marriage, as if gay couples making a commitment to one another de-legitimizes the commitment that straight couples have made to one another.

Now, via Rick Scarborough, it seems as if that sort of tortured logic is working it way into all of their arguments … or at least the ones concerning ACORN and “voter fraud”:

Every American should be demanding that full disclosure be made of the methods and tactics used by ACORN. Record numbers of registrations have been recorded by ACORN, and American’s have a right to be assured that their vote not be canceled out by an ineligible voter … Every corrupted record is a cancellation of one vote of a legitimate voter who played by the rules.

Scarborough never bothers to explain how an illegitimate voter registration manages to “cancel out” someone else’s vote, but the Right seems committed to screaming “voter fraud” at every opportunity, so that is what they are going to do.

Of course, as Chris Hayes points out, none of this is true anyway:

Just to get this out of the way: in the real world, there is no such thing as voter fraud. There will be roughly as many fraudulent votes cast in this election as there were stockpiles of biological weapons in Iraq. That is to say, none. (See Dahlia Lithwick for more on this). But what about all those duplicate and obviously fake voter registration cards submitted by ACORN? you ask. They were required by law to submit them. (See Rick Hertzberg for more on this). In order to prevent tampering, state law in many places requires groups like ACORN to submit all the forms they collect, whether obviously erroneous or not.

Come to think of it, to paraphrase Mr. Scarborough, might I suggest that every American should be demanding of the Religiopolitical Right (and, for that matter, the GOP) what their ideal voting requirement would be, and whether such should be based on high pass scores in certain tests--especially so such as are racial, religious, income- and means-tested, and suchlike.

*************

AND COULD IT BE THAT IRAN'S PARANOIA AND FEARMONGERING ABOUT "WIPING ISRAEL OFF THE MAP" WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS may have just been nothing short of bully-boy-stylee bluff and posturing (and, for all we know, could still be)?

@ least the Israeli daily Ha'aretz thinks so, judging by this analysis:

Even though the senior Iranian official was speaking to a closed forum, it would not be at all surprising if his words were actually intended for an Israeli audience. Alongside the public diplomatic struggle - and Israel's secret military preparations - against the Iranian nuclear projects, there is also a war of threats and oratory going on between the two nations.

The announcements of Ayatollah Seyed G. Safavi look to be another stage in the Iranian attempt to create a balance of fear and deterrence with Israel.

The past two years, whether because of Iranian progress toward acquiring nuclear capability, or because of the absence of Ariel Sharon from the political helm, have seen a gradual escalation in Israeli pronouncements about Iran. The end of the primary season in Kadima may have reined in slightly the enthusiasm for public declarations, but even responsible Israeli statesmen such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, speaking most recently on the matter last Sunday, take care to emphasize that the military option, as a last resort, is still on the table.

Last week MK [Member of the Knesset] Isaac Ben-Israel (Kadima), a former major general and someone very close to prime minister-designate Tzipi Livni, said Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, but that there was still time to prevent that eventuality. "It's not like we're going to bomb them in another three months," said Ben-Israel.

When Iranian experts dissect the Israeli declarations, the question is what do they emphasize, the threat ("We will not permit"), or the reservation ("Not now"). The reasonable assumption is that Safawi, similar to the Israeli and international media, does not really know what Israel is planning in the short term. But Teheran is interested in warning Jerusalem that as far as it is concerned, all options are open.

This was not the first such report: Two days ago the press in Teheran reported on a huge exercise of Iran's air force, including claims of a practice air attack on Israel. About 100 warplanes, it was claimed, flew 1,200 kilometers and demonstrated their capabilities - something that can be seen as a counter to the reports in June that the Israel Air Force had conducted a similar exercise, which included the simulated bombing of Iran.

The problem with Safawi's statements on a preemptive attack on Israel, and even more so with the reports of the Iranian air force exercise, is that they are not based on any proven capability.

A cautious estimate would be that the damage Iran could cause to Israel today is very limited. The Iranians would have to rely on their local representatives in the region, Hezbollah and Hamas, or to wait until they obtain nuclear weapons - two or three years down the road, even according to the most pessimistic estimates in the West.

Most Iranian warplanes are remnants from the days of the Shah, obsolete American planes. Prof. Anthony Cordesman, a senior U.S. strategic analyst, said in a lecture here last July that only a few of the 300 warplanes the Iranians have are capable of flying at all, and that they lack advanced aeronautical systems. It is highly unlikely that a significant number of such planes could penetrate Israeli defenses.

The second possibility for an Iranian attack is with long-range ground to ground missiles. But Cordesman, like other military experts, claims the Iranian missile program is less advanced than it may appear to be. He estimates the Iranians have a few dozen - and no more than a hundred - missiles with a range capable of reaching Israel. The launch capabilities of Iran's missiles have been tested only a few times and it is very hard to estimate their accuracy.

For now, without the ability to mount nuclear warheads on these missiles, an attack would consist of only conventional weapons. In other words, the damage they could cause would be similar to the destruction left by the Iraqi Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf War.

It's hard to imagine what good such an attack would do for Iran in the near future. After all, this would be the best way to guarantee an Israeli counter-attack, as well as firm international intervention to halt the Iranian nuclear program, a program that constitutes such an important goal of the Iranian government.

And yet John McCain wants the "morally superior" United States to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" in the name of G-d and Country?

more the engrish!

IN THE WAKE OF GOP VICE-PRESIDENTIAL WANNABE SARAH PALIN'S "REAL AMERICANS" CRACK OF LATE, Jon Stewart recently devoted a segment on his October 20th Daily Show for Comedy Central to a mock "test" to find out whether viewers were so-called "Real Americans" or otherwise lived in "Real America:"

And, from the same broadcast, comes these observations of "Real America" from the Weltanschauung of Ms. Palin's home patch of Wasilla, AK:

Well, Your Correspondent knows @ least one community as is in the so-called "Real America" as is closer to Fascist/Nazi propganda ideals: None other than the music-show centre of Branson, MO.

The kind of place whose "music shows" would easily be mistaken for the folk-culture festivals which the Kraft durch Frude ("Strength Through Joy") movement sponsored wholesale across Nazi Germany in the name of promoting a Healthy and Nutritious Patriot Love for German Folk Culture--but whose appeal is obviously packaged for the Fox Prolefeed crowd of the vulnerable, the emotionally unstable and the socioeconomically marginalised as constitute the lion's share of "white trash." 

more animals

READERS, AN APOLOGY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER IS IN ORDER FOR THE EXTREME TARDINESS OF POSTING MY ITEM FOR TODAY: For starters, Your Correspondent was rather busy @ the motel this morning with the leaf blower, not to mention raking up the leaves and, following that, sweeping up leaf dust and grit. (I decided to get it done today in view of the forecast for the Minnwissippi calling for showers tomorrow.)

Returning to my flat, I showered and changed clothes, then took a late luncheon buffet @ Rubio's, a newly-opened Mexican restaurant @ the Winona Mall. The food, though spicy in turns, was rather good ... and was followed by a little browsing around @ a local bookstore before returning to the flat.

This should answer any concerns some of you readers may have about why I'm rather late with this item for today. If any of you wound up grossly inconvenienced, my apologies.

*************

AS A WARNING AGAINST COMPLACENCY HEADING INTO WHAT MAY BE THE MOST CRUCIAL ELECTIONS OF THE 21ST CENTURY TO DATE, MoveOn.org has issued the following Top Five list that is worth sharing among especially would-be supporters for the Obama/Biden ticket:

TOP 5 REASONS OBAMA SUPPORTERS SHOULDN'T REST EASY

1. The polls may be wrong. This is an unprecedented election. No one knows how racism may affect what voters tell pollsters—or what they do in the voting booth. And the polls are narrowing anyway. In the last few days, John McCain has gained ground in most national polls, as his campaign has gone even more negative.

2. Dirty tricks. Republicans are already illegally purging voters from the rolls in some states. They're whipping up hysteria over ACORN to justify more challenges to new voters. Misleading flyers about the voting process have started appearing in black neighborhoods. And of course, many counties still use unsecure voting machines.

3. October surprise. In politics, 15 days is a long time. The next McCain smear could dominate the news for a week. There could be a crisis with Iran, or Bin Laden could release another tape, or worse.

4. Those who forget history... In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote after trailing by seven points in the final days of the race. In 1980, Reagan was eight points down in the polls in late October and came back to win. Races can shift—fast!

5. Landslide. Even with Barack Obama in the White House, passing universal health care and a new clean-energy policy is going to be hard. Insurance, drug and oil companies will fight us every step of the way. We need the kind of landslide that will give Barack a huge mandate.

And be sure to call your local Elections Board to make sure that your voter registry information is correct and timely; if not, make sure to register @ your new address ASAP. (The address and telephone number should be in your local telephone directory's Government Offices listings.)

=============

MEANWHILE, SPEAKING OF INDECISION 2008:

• The GOP's Vice-Presidential wannabe, Sarah Palin, probably overdid it on the ur-blasphemy with her claim that G-d blessed America with an overzealous abundace of unexploited oil and natural gas--as if to justify what may best be called "Wise Use" exploitation policies excusing the wasteful, the inefficent and the just plain stupid. And then invoke G-d and Country as a defence all the while.
• So the GOP has been caught in its own lie about "voter fraud" by registering voters in California through fraud, trick and intimidation after accusing ACORN of engaging in "practices which threatens to undermine democracy"! How will they spin their own way out of the Big Lie when the evidence exists of such going on in the GOP's name, and on a much broader scale than what's been claimed for ACORN?
• As for John McCain's delusion of a refundable $5,000 tax credit to encourage the purchase of free-market health insurance under the banner of "health-care reform:" Should a McCain victory ensue, and he manages to push it through, watch out for all manner of misleading and deceptive advertising offers from health insurers seeking to exploit the tax incentive, with particular targets being the easily-influenced and the vulnerable. Not to mention wholesale risk and danger of high-pressure sales tactics translating into fraud, especially where sales quotas come into the equation (cf. the MediPlan Plus scandal in Illinois a few years back).
  With that in mind we should be reminded of Basic Principle 2 in the Better Business Bureau's Advertising Code: "Advertisements which are untrue, misleading, deceptive, fraudulent, falsely disparaging of competitors, or insincere offers to sell, shall not be used."
  And Basic Principle 3, op. cit.: "An advertisement as a whole may be misleading although every sentence separately considered is literally true. Misrepresentation may result not only from direct statements but by omitting or obscuring a material fact."
• As for the McCain "health-care reform" proposal: What about those who don't pay taxes themselves because their taxes (almost certainly paid by their employers through Pay As You Earn) wind up being clawbacked thanks to general credits and deductions? Or, for that matter, such now in Medicare or Medicaid or equivalent; would they wind up in so-called "pool" plans on a vendored-pay basis?

=============

MEANWHILE, WHEN IT COMES TO INCOME TAX REFORM, WE MAY WANT TO TAKE A CUE FROM THE BAILIWICK OF JERSEY IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, which has adopted a new tax policy known as "20% Means 20%"--as in ending a number of overly-advantageous tax credits and other benefits for high-income earners in the interest of tax fairness (as in limiting certain allowances to 80% of the usual amount for tax year 2007 and beyond).

Meanwhile, also from Jersey, comes another worthwhile approach to tax reform for certain low wage earners (as in such whose earnings are just above the mininum threshold for tax purposes) as is worth looking @ here in the "morally superior" United States. We'll let the Income Tax Office there explain the "Marginal Rate" approach thus:

Income Tax personal allowances in Jersey are quite low. The single person's allowance is £2,080 and the married man's allowance is £4,160. Although there is also a tax allowance of one quarter of earned income (earned income allowance up to a maximum of £2,720) this still makes a single person or a married man potentially liable to tax on a comparatively low income.

There are tax exemption thresholds to prevent liability to tax on low incomes. These are as follows for 2007.

• Single person £11,300
• Married person £18,130
• Single person over 63 years of age £12,610
• Married person over 63 years of age £20,760

These exemption thresholds are increased if the single person or married man is entitled to any of the following allowances or reliefs.

• Lower child allowance (child at school) £2,500
• Higher child allowance (child in higher education) £5,000
• Additional personal allowance (single parent) £4,500
• Wife’s earned income allowance (wife working) £4,500 (max)
• Child care tax relief £6,150 (max)
• Qualifying maintenance payments
• Qualifying interest tax relief

Because of these exemption thresholds (increased as appropriate by the above allowances or reliefs) it is only those with high incomes who do not benefit from them.

Lower and middle income earners whose total income is in excess of their exemption threshold fall into what is termed the “marginal band”. The calculation of their liability to tax at the marginal rate of 27% ensures that there is no disproportionate increase in their tax bill if their income exceeds their exemption threshold.

(That 27% Marginal Rate, BTW, is based on the difference between actual earned income for the year and the prevailing exemption threshold, which can vary depending on age and marital status.)

more animals

REPORTAGE BY A CINCINNATI TELEVISION STATION OF A TASTELESS AND DISGUSTING DEVICE QUESTIONING THE LOYALTY AND PATRIOT LOVE, LET ALONE QUALIFICATIONS, of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama (thanks to Brilliant at Breakfast for the hat tip):

To which Brilliant at Breakfast adds these comments:

Yes, Senator McCain and Governor Palin -- this is what you have wrought. This is your campaign. This is your leadership at work. The man who did this is one of YOUR people. YOU have to answer for him. And if any of these nutballs is inspired to harm a hair on Barack Obama's head because YOUR campaign tactics are leading him to believe it would be OK, his blood will be on YOUR hands.

Oh, and the rest of you 43 or so percent who plan to vote for John McCain? This is what you're voting for. Just thought you should know.

To which Your Correspondent would like to add that the notion of America being a White Christian Nation, and that only White Christians should be entitled to Constitutional offices, excusing this exercise in tasteless "winning of hearts and minds" is up there with apartheid South Africa insisting that whites were entitled "as of right" to rule "by right of conquest," and that Divine Right justified this.

Especially the kind which would involve castration sans local anesthesia. 

more animals

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY--YES, THE SAME GOP WHO KEEPS WHINING AND BAWLING CHARGES OF "VOTER-REGISTRATION FRAUD!" AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS OF LATE, boys and girls--now stands accused of the same charges they love to play against the Democrats with, seconded by their paid droogs and shills @ Fox Prolefeed.

Witness what the Los Angeles Times had to say @ the weekend:

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.

[***]

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.

[***]

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 2004 that 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.

But wait--the story only gets more interesting; again, by way of the Los Angeles Times:

The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario over the weekend on suspicion of voter registration fraud.

State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that all signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California. His firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM, collects petition signatures and registers voters in California and other states.

Jacoby's arrest by state investigators and the Ontario Police Department late Saturday came after dozens of voters said they were duped into registering as Republicans by people employed by YPM. The voters said YPM workers tricked them by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters.

The firm was paid $7 to $12 for every Californian it registered as a member of the GOP.

Dan Goldfine, an attorney for Jacoby, on Sunday denied any wrongdoing by his client and called the charges "baseless."

He said the arrest outside an Ontario hotel, which involved seven squad cars and nine police officers, was part of a "long pattern of harassment against Mr. Jacoby for an entirely valid voter registration effort."

Goldfine said the case that prosecutors are bringing against his client involves charges that are rarely pressed.

Jacoby was released on bail Sunday evening from the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, Goldfine said.

After complaints by voters and Democratic Party officials, several agencies launched investigations into Jacoby's activities. They included the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, which issued the warrant for his arrest earlier this month on felony charges of voter registration fraud and perjury.

"We contacted people at the addresses where he registered, and they have no idea who he is," said Dave Demerjian, head deputy of the public integrity unit at the L.A. County district attorney's office.

Goldfine said his client does business in many states, traveling frequently, and his permanent address has been his parents' Los Angeles County home, where he received mail and registered to vote.

Demerjian said his office is continuing to investigate allegations that YPM workers improperly re-registered voters with the GOP.

Several dozen voters recently told The Times that YPM workers said they had to become Republicans to sign the petition, contrary to California initiative law. Other voters said they had no idea their registration was being changed.

YPM has been accused of using bait-and-switch tactics 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.

In a written statement Sunday, the state Republican Party called the charges against Jacoby "politically motivated." The party said the charges do not support accusations from voters and Democratic officials that YPM has been duping voters into joining the GOP.

The statement accused Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who announced the arrest, of "using her office to play politics."

Bowen is a Democrat.

So the GOP's been caught playing the same "dirty tricks" they accuse Democrats of doing, yet lack proof of save for highly-sensationalised accounts reeking of the supermarket tabloids--only in the GOP's case, proof exists of the charges against them (which the GOP, naturally, will quickly claim are forgeries cooked up by the Democrats).

Has the GOP ever heard the old proverb about "let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth"?