OR: "Emergency" Law Would Abolish Indepedendent Party

As I've written before, the formula for the preservation of the Democrat-Republican two-party state and duopoly system of government in the United States is rather simple:  1) if there is no crisis at hand, manufacture one; 2) utilize this crisis to justify the implementation of emergency measures which would ostensibly address the crisis; 3) under the cover of those emergency measures, stage attacks on the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals while securing and consolidating the base of power for the dictatorship of the two-party state.  An anonymous gang of legislators in Oregon have streamlined the process.  From this week's column at CAIVN:

As the Independent movement gains strength and momentum, it is only logical to expect a backlash from the partisans in the major parties.  In Oregon, Independents are fighting for the very right to represent themselves as Independents.

Today, the Rules Committee of the Oregon state House is scheduled to consider a bill – HB 2442 – that would force the Independent Party of Oregon to change its name or face dissolution.  More precisely, the proposal would prohibit any party from using the word ‘Independent’ in its name on the basis of the assertion that such use of the word “independent” causes confusion among voters and even threatens the integrity of the elections process.  Absurdly, the bill goes so far as to declare a state of emergency regarding the matter, claiming that it is “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety,” according to the official summary (.pdf) available at the state legislature’s website . . . 

Read the rest for further details on this outrageous measure.  In one fell swoop, the bill declares a crisis, asserts the necessity of implementing emergency measures to address the crisis, and employs those measures to stage a frontal attack on the First Amendment rights of the state's Independents.  Of course, there is no crisis in Oregon.  The state's Independent Party does not represent any kind of threat to the peace, health and safety of the public.  However, with just 3% of voters in Oregon registered with the party, it is already clearly perceived as an existential threat to the entrenched interests of the state's ruling political class, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the state's independently-minded voters.  From the Independent Party of Oregon:

On April 13, the House Rules Committee of the Oregon Legislature will consider a bill to abolish the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO).  The bill bans using the word "independent" in the name of any political party, thus forcing the Independent Party to change its name by the end of the year or be disbanded.

“The free speech and free association implications of this bill are stunning, particularly when you consider that no legislator has listed his or her name as a sponsor,” said Party Chair, Linda Williams. “This is a transparent partisan attempt by a handful of legislators to strangle the Independent Party of Oregon in its infancy."

Over 400 individuals have already signed an online petition declaring their opposition to any effort that would seek to restrict the rights to free speech and association of the members of the Independent Party of Oregon.  The comments appended to the petition provide a rare window onto the views of a wide swath of Independent voters from across the political spectrum.

On second thought, however, maybe such a proposal is actually worth considering.  Voter confusion may well rise to the level of a veritable crisis.  But we must begin at the top to recognize its true contours.  How many Americans cast their ballots for the Democratic party on the basis of the mistaken assumption that it stands for democracy and democratic principles?  How many cast their ballots for the Republican party on the basis of the mistaken assumption that it stands for republican values and representative government?  Should they not be forced to change their names in order to avoid such confusion?  Unlike the case of the Independent Party of Oregon, confusion in this regard is a clear and present danger to the peace, health and safety of the American public.  Indeed, it represents an immediate threat to the very existence of the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution, beginning with the First Amendment. Government of, by and for the Democratic and Republican parties is a crisis of democratic, republican government.

Ignorance is Strength

Maybe the simplest explanation for why so many Americans are willing to tolerate a government that has no respect for its constitutional limitations and little interest in the maintenance of fundamental liberties, is because they are woefully ignorant of the Constitution.  And our elected leaders are apparently even more ignorant than their constituents.  From AOL News:

For five years now, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute has been conducting a national survey to gauge the quality of civic education in the country. We've surveyed more than 30,000 Americans, most of them college students, but also a random sample of adults from all educational and demographic backgrounds.

Included in the adult sample was a small subset of Americans (165 in all) who, when asked, identified themselves as having been "successfully elected to government office at least once in their life" -- which can include federal, state or local offices. . . . Elected officials at many levels of government, not just the federal government, swear an oath to "uphold and protect" the U.S. Constitution. . . .

But those elected officials who took the test scored an average 5 percentage points lower than the national average (49 percent vs. 54 percent), with ordinary citizens outscoring these elected officials on each constitutional question. Examples:

• Only 49 percent of elected officials could name all three branches of government, compared with 50 percent of the general public.
• Only 46 percent knew that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war -- 54 percent of the general public knows that.
• Just 15 percent answered correctly that the phrase "wall of separation" appears in Thomas Jefferson's letters -- not in the U.S. Constitution -- compared with 19 percent of the general public.
• And only 57 percent of those who've held elective office know what the Electoral College does, while 66 percent of the public got that answer right. (Of elected officials, 20 percent thought the Electoral College was a school for "training those aspiring for higher political office.")

Maybe its time we begin standardized testing of elected office-holders.  

The Politics of Psychosis: "I know you are but what am I?"

As Democrats and Republicans happily continue to play their game of partisan political ping-pong with the Tucson massacre, perhaps the most unwittingly ironic assertion is that which claims the assassin's act has little or nothing to do with mainstream politics because the assassin himself is clearly a deranged and mentally disturbed individual.  It is by means of this precise argument that the deranged and disturbed proponents of the Democratic and Republican parties seek to wash their hands of the bloody affair after first attempting to wipe them clean with the other side's dirty laundry.  Yet, the psychotic senselessness, the violence and brutality of the assassin's act stands as an appropriate metaphor for Democratic-Republican party politics and government itself, in which character assassination functions as both a primary means and end.

If psychosis is defined as loss of contact with reality, then Democratic-Republican party politics under the conditions of the global warfare and corporate welfare state has been psychotic for quite some time, complete with delusions of grandeur and paranoid hallucinations.  The self-satisfied authors of empire imagine enemies everywhere in the alternate realities they create for themselves.  Reflecting on Post-Tucson Partisanship and Pathology, Sam Wilson writes:

given how little reasoned discourse has emerged from the partisan camps since Saturday, shouldn't we question any distinction that privileges partisan ideology as rational in order to exempt it from association with the accused's mania?

The sick and twisted irrationality of Democratic-Republican party politics is never more clear than it is in moments of tragedy such as this.  It is as if the trauma provokes a psychotic break that lays bare the wholly mechanical nature of the procedures and formulas that animate what passes for mainstream political discourse.  Such scenes resemble nothing so much as Harpo and Groucho Marx's famous mirror shtick in Duck Soup:  Democrats denounce the violent rhetoric of Republicans, Republicans denounce the violent rhetoric of Democrats, Democrats denounce the conservative climate of hate, Republicans denounce the progressive climate of hate, and so on ad infinitum.  Democratic-Republican party politics is nothing more than an extended game of "I'm rubber and you're glue," or "I know you are but what am I."  

PA: Calls Mount for Free and Equal Elections in the Keystone State

The purge of third party and independent candidates from the Pennsylvania ballot that took place earlier this month seems to be leading to greater calls for reform in the Keystone State. The undemocratic and anti-republican effort led by Democratic and Republican party activists resulted in the expulsion of all third party and independent candidates for statewide office from the ballot. Numerous media outlets have come out in support of third party and independent political activists who have called for reform of Pennsylvania's ballot access laws. The double standard could not be more clear. The Philadelphia Bulletin writes:

The state required third party candidates for statewide office to obtain more than 19,000 signatures to get on the ballot, while Republican and Democrat candidates had to collect only 2,000 signatures.

Early last week, political activists joined a pair of Libertarian Party candidates recently booted from November’s statewide election ballot to bring attention to what they say are Pennsylvania’s unfair ballot access laws.

The article goes on to report on a bill that woud reform the reigning Democratic-Republican ballot access regime:

A state Senator has introduced a bill he believes will fix the problem. The Voters’ Choice Act would standardize all ballot access requirements regardless of party affiliation.

“We need equal and fair access to the ballot,” said state Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon, the lead sponsor of the bill. “If I could get it to the floor, who could vote against it?”

Who could vote against it? I could wager a few guesses. At the top of the list you'd likely find the majority of Democratic and Republican lawmakers, precisely those individuals who benefit most from robbing voters of choice on the ballot and eliminating political competition. Nonetheless, there are reports that the bill is gaining traction among individuals within both ruling parties. Though its lead sponsor is a Republican State Senator, word has it that the bill may soon get a boost from the Democratic Party's State Committee. From Ballot Access News:

According to John A. Murphy, a Nader supporter and a vigorous and passionate fighter for ballot access reform in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party’s State Committee has decided to support SB 252, the ballot access reform bill. Murphy’s source is a close friend who is on that Committee. The Committee will meet on September 24-25 and is expected to endorse the bill. Ballot access activists are welcome to attend the meeting.

SB 252 is based on Delaware’s law. It says that a group that has registration membership of at least one-twentieth of 1% is considered a qualified minor party, and is entitled to nominate by convention. If the bill were law currently, the Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties would be ballot-qualified. The bill also substantially lowers the number of signatures needed for independent candidates.

That would be a welcome step in the right direction.

The Two-Party Police State: Shocking and Extraordinary Police Violence in Wake of Katrina Neither Out of the Ordinary Nor Surprising

Five years after hurricane Katrina nearly wiped New Orleans off the map, PBS's Frontline has partnered with Pro Publica and reporters from the New Orleans Times-Picayune to produce a disturbing investigation and expose of the violence perpetrated by police against civilians in the aftermath of the disaster. Pro Publica writes, "After Katrina, New Orleans Police Shot Frequently and Asked Few Questions." From Frontline's introductory article:

Beginning with the death of Henry Glover -- a case that has resulted in the indictment of five New Orleans police officers by a federal grand jury -- Law & Disorder digs deep into a number of incidents in which police shot civilians. It raises new questions about the actions of police officers -- and their command structure -- in the aftermath of the catastrophe.

The most infamous case documents the incident on Danziger Bridge, in which police opened fire on unarmed civilians, shooting six and killing two. Apologists of the state allege that state, city and police officials were reacting to reports of looting, rape and murder, justifying the government's brutality as a reasonable response to the very breakdown of civil order. Though it would have been unconstitutional to do so, Democratic Mayor Ray Nagin stated in a radio interview at the time that he had "called for martial law in New Orleans." Governor Kathleen Blanco, also a Democrat, asserts that she "never declared martial law." However, in a press conference on September 1, 2005, she issued a clear threat to the citizens of New Orleans:

There are hundreds of law enforcement officers [including the National Guard] being deployed into New Orleans today to restore order. Looting and other lawlessness will not be tolerated. I wanted it to be strong and I wanted it to be clear. These troops know how to shoot and kill, and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will. [Emphasis added.]

See the transcript of the Frontline documentary. Blanco got what she wanted. Some police clearly interpreted these signals as an open order to shoot civilians at will in the interests of "maintaining order," judging from their own statements. Pro Publica reports:

Federal agents are looking into allegations that high-ranking New Orleans police commanders gave orders after Hurricane Katrina authorizing officers to shoot looters.

Though the great majority of reports alleging looting, rape, murder and the breakdown of civil order to which authorities were responding at the time were nothing more than rumors or misunderstandings, there was undoubtedly a complete breakdown of civil order in New Orleans. How else can one describe a situation in which the impulsive and hysterical reactions of state, city and local authorities to sensationalist, media-driven rumor and innuendo literally led to brutal beatings and cold blooded killings of innocent or unarmed civilians by agents of the government?

Perhaps what is most disturbing about these incidents is that they really cannot be considered isolated phenomena, a result of the exceptional chaos and confusion that came in the wake of a natural disaster. In a report on the indictment of police involved in the Danziger Bridge incident from July, we read:

Four New Orleans police officers could face the death penalty after being accused of gunning down two unarmed people in the chaotic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina . . . Five former New Orleans police officers already have pleaded guilty to helping cover up the shootings . . . Prosecutors say officers fabricated witness statements, falsified reports and planted a gun in an attempt to make it appear the shootings were justified. It was a shocking example of the violence and confusion that followed the deadly hurricane.

Yet, shocking examples of such "violence and confusion" are not hard to come by in the policing regimes that have been established by Democratic-Republican party government in the United States. Consider a few examples from headlines just this month:

• Earlier this month, at a raucous block party in New York City, four police officers released a barrage of almost fifty bullets in an incident of "contagious shooting," that apparently killed one person and wounded six others, including police officers and bystanders.

• Earlier this week, as the Daily News reports, "an NYPD cop whose wife called 911 for help against a gang of thugs says he was brutally beaten by baton-wielding fellow officers who stormed his Queens home."

• In Seattle, four police officers were recently caught on video beating a mentally disabled teenager in a jaywalking incident.

• The city of Atlanta will be forced to pay nearly $5 million to the family of a 92 year old woman who was "killed in a botched 2006 drug raid . . . [the woman] was shot to death by narcotics officers conducting a "no-knock" warrant. Investigators later determined the raid was based on falsified paperwork stating that illegal drugs were present in the home." [Emphasis added.]

• In Florida, "Victor Steen, a 17-year-old high school senior from West Pensacola, Florida, was murdered while riding a bicycle . . . last October 3rd. His murderer, Jerald Ard, ran him down in an automobile . . . Ard . . . veered into the wrong lane and even drove onto a sidewalk in pursuit of Victor, repeatedly attempting to shoot the teenager with a lethal weapon. After he ran down the youngster, Ard tried to cover up his crime by planting a gun on the victim. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Ard is a police officer. Nor should it be considered unusual that he will suffer no significant punishment for his act of vehicular homicide."

Falsifying reports, fabricating statements, planting evidence, the beating and murder of civilians on the street and in their homes: shocking examples of violence perpetrated against the people of the United States by agents of their government on what is basically a daily basis. This is the inevitable result of the policing regime that has been established by Democratic-Republican party government in the United States. The culture of lawlessness, lack of accountability, and non-transparency we are so familiar with from elected Democrats and Republicans infects virtually every aspect of our society and government. Tough on crime? Or just plain criminal?

Cordoba House as Political Rorschach Test

Somehow, I have thus far avoided comment on the ongoing controversy surrounding Park 51 in New York City, better known as the Cordoba Initiative or the "Ground Zero Mosque." From the beginning, it seemed to me nothing more than yet another one of the distractions that passes for substance among Republicans and Democrats in an election year. In this week's column at CAIVN, I argue that the project has become a political Rorschach test, and consider how it has begun to affect New York's gubernatorial race:

Depending on whom you ask, the controversy surrounding Park 51 in downtown Manhattan, widely termed the ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’ is either a distraction or one of the most important issues facing the people of the United States, a matter of defending religious liberty or fighting supremacist triumphalism, defending rights or respecting sensibilities, Islamophobia or anti-fascism, and so on. . . .

at least one distinct side-benefit has resulted from the debate. It has demonstrated the absurdity of the demagoguery that so often passes for mainstream political discourse among Democrats and Republicans. For instance, some who are against the project have argued that if it is allowed to proceed, the terrorists will have won, while others who defend the project have argued that if the center is not built, the terrorists will have won, leaving us with the ridiculous conclusion that no matter what happens with respect to the Cordoba House, the terrorists will have won . . .

the American public appears to have conflicting, if not contradictory, views on the issues involved . . . Paradoxically, then, 62% agree that the group has a right to build the center, but only 34% agree they should be allowed to build it . . .

[In the New York gubernatorial race, Republican] Rick Lazio finds himself on the same side of the issue as Carl Paladino, a rival Republican and self-described Tea Party candidate, who has produced an ad entitled “I’ll stop the mosque,” as well as Kristin Davis, who is, ironically, running on a permissive platform under the banner of the Anti-Prohibition Party. On the other side of the debate, the Green and Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidates have issued forceful statements against Lazio and Paladino’s opposition to the center, defending the project on constitutional grounds.

Read the whole thing.

Truth is the First Casualty of Politics: If Communists Support the Democrats and Nazis Support Republicans, Where Does that Leave the Rest of Us?

If it is true, as per the old maxim, that war is politics carried out by other means, then it stands to reason that the converse is also true, namely, that politics is war carried out by other means. Even a superficial glance at the language of our politics would bear this out. Intra-party disputes are framed as "civil wars," while inter-party debates are framed as "trading shots," where one side "blasts" the other, and the other "fires back." From this state of affairs we can deduce any number of trivial corollaries, among them that the first casualty of politics is the truth. As an example, take a non-troversy being stoked by Georgia's Paulding Pundit. The headline there reads: "Operations Director of GA Libertarian Party Equates [GOP gubernatorial candidate] Nathan Deal and GA GOP to White Supremacists." (Link via Red Phillips at IPR.) What follows, however, is nothing more than a screenshot of an offhand comment the Libertarian, Brett Bittner, posted on his Facebook page. Bittner had written:

"Don’t worry, GA GOP… @VoteDeal is in good company. http://bit.ly/dqNI4v"

The link takes you to a story I had posted at IPR excerpting a Los Angeles Times report on a raucous rally and demonstration against illegal immigration held by members of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement. Paulding Pundit comments on Bittner's statement:

So in essence, Nathan Deal and everyone associated with the Georgia Republican Party are white supremacist Naizs because they’re against illegal immigration. Needless to say, Mr. Bittner’s post is extremely offensive and inappropriate. I encourage my fellow Republican friends, who are entertaining the thought of supporting Chuck Donovan, John Monds, or any of the other state-wide Libertarian candidate, to do their homework and thoroughly research the Libertarian Party and its leadership. I trust that you’ll find out what I’ve discovered about the Libertarian Party, they’re led by a bunch of crazy nuts.

Obviously, all sides in this spat are engaged in nothing but "sleazy drive-by innuendo," as Red Phillips put in our discussion in the comments at IPR. That is almost the very definition of politics under the conditions of Democrat-Republican party government. But there is a difference that is worth pointing out here. The Libertarian Bittner's ironic innuendo has the virtue of being true: both the Nazi group and Nathan Deal are against illegal immigration. Indeed, Nathan Deal is a vocal and active opponent of illegal immigration. As a member of the House of Representatives, the Democrat-turned-Republican introduced a bill to rework the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in order to eliminate birthright citizenship. However, from the statement that the white supremacists and the Deal campaign are on the same side of the given issue, it simply does not follow that "Nathan Deal and everyone associated with the Georgia Republican Party are white supremacist Naizs because they’re against illegal immigration." That is just a false inference drawn by the Republican pundit, who then attributes it to the Libertarian, calling it "offensive and inappropriate," even though the statement he made does not even imply it.

We know that logic and truth have little value to the ideologues of the Democratic and Republican parties, except insofar as they can be manipulated to score political points in the interests of maintaining the ruling political class and implementing their common corporatist agenda. But why go to such lengths to take offense at an offhand comment made by Bittner on a Facebook page? It must have stung. Or maybe not. Clearly, Georgia Republicans fear that rational voters will cast their ballots for Libertarians rather than reproduce the corruption and misrule so many Americans have come to expect from the stooges of the Republican and Democratic parties. They are right to be worried. Libertarian gubernatorial candidate John Monds is currently polling 5%, but the Republican Deal only has a 4% advantage over the Democrat.

Final Note: Though it does not follow from Bittner's comment that "Nathan Deal and everyone associated with the Georgia Republican Party are white supremacist Naizs because they’re against illegal immigration," in the present context it is worth noting that white supremacists and Nazis do support Nathan Deal because he is against illegal immigration. If, as I've documented before, the Communist Party and Communist Party front groups support the Democrats, does not a "fair and balanced" assessment of the major parties demand investigation of Nazi support for Republicans? A search of the web forum Stormfront demonstrates longtime support for Nathan Deal in the white supremacist and Nazi community. A post from 2005 carries an "Urgent" announcement regarding the bill introduced by Deal mentioned above, urging readers to pressure their representatives to support it or else:

A bill has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Nathan Deal, a Georgia Republican; this bill would deny US citizenship to the offspring of illegals and other non-citizen parents. Call , e-mail, fax, your elected officials as this is a very important piece of legislation. Tancredo, Rorbacher and others have already pledged support; let you Reps. know that if they oppose this bill there will be consequences!

Others in the forum voiced support, saying, for instance: "This sounds good to me! This would get rid of the "Anchor baby" that all Illegal aliens try to foist on us as "They are Americans" Baloney!" Deal's bill has received fairly regular attention, and an almost wholly positive reception, at Stormfront over the years. From 2007: "I like this mans thinking. Anchor babies must go to. I concider them illegal as well." More recently, Deal received an "Amen" for advocating that Georgia adopt an immigration policy modeled on Arizona's controversial new law. Contributors to Stormfront have also greatly appreciated Nathan Deal's efforts to obtain a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate. From January 2009:

"Nathan Deal says he’ll ask for Barack Obama’s birth certificate . . . U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, now a Republican candidate for governor, this morning declared himself in sympathy with those questioning whether President Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A. . . . This ought to be good!"

Update: At SWGA Politics, Jeff cuts down professional partisan Republican Erick Erickson, who has also criticized Bittner on this issue:

Last night, elected Republican City Councilman Erick Erickson took issue with appointed LP-Georgia Operations Director Brett Bittner’s Facebook post saying that Republican Governor candidate Nathan Deal was “in good company” with Neo-Nazis.

This is the same Erick Erickson who once tied another group of Neo-Nazis, StormFront, around Ron Paul’s neck. (This is also the same Erick Erickson who, as GriftDrift likes to point out, once called a sitting Supreme Court Justice a “goat f*cking child molester“.) . . .

What is going on here is simple: Erick is seeking to discredit the Libertarian Party of Georgia because he sees that it is entirely possible that John Monds could get 20% of the vote on November 2, thereby earning LP-Ga the same ballot access that is currently enjoyed by only the Democrats and Republicans in Georgia. Erick doesn’t want that to happen, because it would threaten his Party’s deathgrip on this State – even though Republicans over the last 8 years have shown themselves to be little better than the Democrats before them or their National counterparts when it comes to fiscal conservatism and individual liberty.

CT: "Shocked but not Surprised" – On the Sec. of State's Major Party Propaganda Campaign and Recruitment Drive

In a letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant, Pete Healey of the Proportional Representation Party weighs in on "affiliate and participate," the Connecticut Secretary of State's ongoing major party propaganda campaign and recruitment drive. Under the headline "Party Promotion is Wrong," Pete writes:

The campaign being conducted by Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz to encourage independent voters to affiliate with one or the other of the two major parties has become a topic of discussion outside Connecticut as well [courant.com, July 13, "Conn. Voters Urged To Register For Primaries"].

I'm shocked, but not surprised, that a statewide officeholder would shamelessly prop up the two major parties in this way to hype upcoming party primaries.

In New York, my county has a registration pattern similar to Connecticut's: Almost 40 percent of voters are not affiliated with either major party, with the Democrats and Republicans roughly equal at about 30 percent each. No statewide official here has ever, to my knowledge, attempted to do what Bysiewicz has done. To the contrary, in Democratic circles this year especially, an effort has been made to force Democrats to accept that party's endorsed candidates and suppress any primary campaigns.

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican and have little interest in their internal party affairs. And I would expect that statewide elected officials would, at least outwardly, express the same kind of disinterest. Isn't it a mistake for Ms. Bysiewicz to coax people toward one party or another, even when we know (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) that this two-party system is closed to all others?

Pete Healey, New Paltz, N.Y.

"Affiliate and Participate" might be more appropriately titled "Bait and Berate."

PA-15: Is Charlie Dent a Misguided, Un-American, Bigoted Racist? According to his own Logic and that of the ADL, the Answer is Probably "Yes"

In Pennsylvania's 15th congressional district, incumbent Republican Charlie Dent is growing ever more desperate, and apparently ever more hysterical, in his attempts to keep independent Jake Towne out of any and all debates. Jon Geeting has been following the story in detail at the Lehigh Valley Independent blog. On Sunday Geeting reported:

Charlie Dent really does not want to debate Jake Towne. On Friday, he worried that voters wouldn't be able to focus on the contrast between him and [Democratic challenger] John Callahan, and there just wasn't enough time. Since that "problem" would easily be solved by agreeing to more debates, it looks like they had to switch to the even more preposterous claim that John Callahan would somehow be able to hide behind Jake Towne in the debate. I'm still trying to understand what that even means. But now Dent thinks he has the ultimate excuse to chicken out of the debates - Jake Towne's choice of bands.

Over the weekend, Dent announced that he would not take part in any forum that included Towne, and demanded that his Democratic rival do the same, on the grounds that one of the numerous bands slated to play at a Towne campaign event celebrating their successful ballot access petition drive has been deemed "extremist" by the Anti-Defamation League. The Morning Call reports:

A day after Dent said that he was unlikely to join a debate that included independent Towne, his campaign manager, Shawn Millan, said Dent had toughened his stance after hearing of Towne's plan to allow controversial Allentown band Poker Face perform at a fundraiser Friday.

In a written statement Saturday, Dent said the band has been "deemed to be anti-Semitic by the Anti Defamation League." Poker Face is one of five bands that will play at Towne's "freedom concert" Friday. . . .

In the statement, Dent also said, he is "demanding" Callahan boycott any debate for the 15th District seat that includes Towne.

"I'm calling on John Callahan to put aside politics and do the decent thing," Dent said. "Don't give a public platform to someone enmeshed in ideas of anger, violence, anarchy and bigotry."

Simply put, the Dent campaign alleges that Towne is an anti-Semite, a bigot and an anarchist based on a loose association with a popular local rock band that has made controversial statements and been deemed politically incorrect by the Anti-Defamation League. I had never heard of the band before and so cannot speak to these allegations. The ADL report can be read here. Apparently, Poker Face appeared on the group's radar when it was revealed that one of their songs was used in a video made by members of the Hutaree militia group. The band has denied the allegations and provided lengthy responses to the accusations at their website. For his part, Towne released a statement vehemently denying Dent's racially loaded smears:

I am not an anti-Semite, nor have I ever held anti-Semitic views. I condemn any and all racial and religious discrimination. A free and open society that staunchly defends individual rights is the only type of society that can eliminate racial bigotry. . . . The views of any the five bands present at the Freedom Concert are not necessarily the views of Towne for Congress. If any of the bands were believed to be anti-Semites, they would not have been invited to play at the concert.

In a separate statement, Towne went on the attack, listing Charlie Dent's criminal history as a member of the House of Representatives

Dent and the rest of Congress violate their constitutional oaths on a daily basis. Dent supports three unconstitutional wars abroad. He votes for corporatist bailouts for bankers and mortgage lenders alike. He supports unconstitutional wiretapping without warrants, revoking habeas corpus, torture of “enemy combatants,” and much more by his unflagging support of the PATRIOT Act. He wants to strip American civilians living in foreign countries of their citizenship and murder them without trial or due process.

With regard to domestic policy, Dent is moreover a staunch supporter of the new anti-immigration bill signed into law in Arizona. In a press release yesterday, Dent condemned the Justice Department's lawsuit against the state:

Dent sent a letter . . . to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and Department of State Secretary Hillary Clinton explaining his disappointment in the Administration's troubling approach to addressing illegal immigration. Dent expresses frustration over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona . . .

Politico quoted Dent stating:

“I absolutely find it incomprehensible that the Department of Justice could be suing the state of Arizona on this issue of enforcing federal immigration law,” Dent said.

At the very top of his "Endorsements" page, Dent lists the Honorable Pat Toomey. Toomey is also an outspoken proponent of Arizona's anti-immigration law, as Dan Hirschhorn has reported at PA2010. On this issue, Dent and Toomey do not have the Anti-Defamation League on their side. Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League states flat out:

Let's be clear: Arizona's new law is misguided, bigoted, biased and flies in the face of the Constitution and federal immigration law. It is un-American and must be challenged at every opportunity.

Given that Dent slandered Towne as an anti-Semite based on an ADL assessment of statements made by other individuals, what are we to make of Dent's own position in this regard? Ironically, according to Charlie Dent's own measuring stick, namely the ADL, his position in support of Arizona's immigration law reveals him to be nothing more than a misguided, un-American, bigoted racist. Maybe Jake Towne and John Callahan should boycott all events in which the incumbent Republican is allowed to participate. Or maybe we should simply demand that candidates for public office not stoop to the lowest levels of public discourse, mudslinging and character assassination, so as to avoid having to defend their own views in a civilized public debate.

CT: Independent Candidate For Congress Files Complaint Against Sec. of State for Misuse of Public Funds for Political Ends

As you might recall, earlier this month Connecticut Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz began an aggressive propaganda campaign instructing voters to register with the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of the state's August 10th primary elections. Byscewicz launched the effort at a press conference flanked by leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties and political establishment. In response to this partisan political push, Daniel Reale, an independent libertarian candidate for Congress in the state's 2nd CD, has now lodged a formal complaint against Byscewiz with the Office of State Ethics, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and the Federal Election Commission.

The complaint, a copy of which was sent to Poli-Tea, charges Bysiewicz with using state funds and resources to boost enrollment in two specific parties, misusing public funds to influence the outcome of federal and other elections, misusing the official seal of the Secretary of State's office for this purpose, and substantially complicating the ballot access petition efforts of third party and independent candidates for office in the state. Contacted via email, Mr. Reale says his ultimate goal is to "make sure the Secretary of State stops using public money and resources for political ends." (Read the full interview with Mr. Reale at Third Party and Independent Daily.) Asked what prompted him to lodge the complaint, he writes:

I'm opposed to the Secretary of State misusing her seal and public money in order to work on behalf of the Republicans and Democrats. Contrary to popular belief, the Secretary of State's office is not a political action committee. At the very least, the whole exercise is a political contribution to both major parties.

Reale said the Secretary of State's propaganda campaign was unexpected only in its brazenness:

Bysiewicz has been crossing into a legal gray area for years, using her office in ethically questionable ways to say the least. While I found this to be morally objectionable, these were the sort of things you couldn't legally hang your hat on. But I didn't expect something this egregious in terms of ethics, elections, misapplication of public resources and political action committee violations - all in the same package.

Confronted with criticism of her "Affiliate and Participate" campaign, as it's called, Bysiewicz has previously denied charges that she is engaged in a recruitment drive for the Democratic and Republican parties, inducing voters to favor them over minor parties and independents. Jon Kantrowitz at My Left Nutmeg quotes Bysiewicz stating:

Let me be clear: I am not trying to recruit new voters for the Republicans or Democrats or favor them over the minor parties. . . . the sole purpose of the Affiliate and Participate campaign is to educate the nearly 840,000 unaffiliated voters that if they want to vote in the August 10th primary, they must enroll with a major party.

Kantrowitz responds:

Susan is making a distinction between urging people to register for a political party, so that they can vote in that party's primary, and urging them to vote for a political party. In my humble opinion this is a distinction without a difference. I have no problem with informing people that they have the option, it's the urging to which I have an objection.

Bysiewicz claims that her propaganda campaign is purely educational in nature. However, the effort is clearly intended to lead voters into registering Democrat or Republican to shore up the registration rolls of the legacy parties, and provide them with the cover of popular political support (only 36% of the state's voters are registered Democrats, only 20% are registered Republicans). In a word: it is a broad attack against political independence. Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz is no friend to the almost 1,000,000 unaffiliated and minor party voters in the Constitution State. Earlier this month, Bysiewicz issued a statement (July 13th) on a US Appeals Court Ruling on the Connecticut Clean Elections Law, saying: "The court rightly rejected the argument by US District Court Judge Stephen Underhill that this was somehow unfair to minor parties."

Among advocates of independent and third party politics, on the other hand, that very same decision was widely seen as a direct attack against independent voters and minor parties. Mike DeRosa is a litigant in the Green Party vs. Garfield lawsuit and a candidate for secretary of the state on the Green Party line. In an op-ed on the ruling for The Day, DeRosa argues that "silencing the minor parties won't fix major party corruption." He writes:

When the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently reversed federal Judge Stefan Underhill's decision, a reversal that will allow minor parties to have to meet a more difficult standard to gain public campaign finance funding, it proved to be a major disappointment for both the Green and Libertarian parties in Connecticut. The real losers in this decision, however, are the state's independent voters and taxpayers.

This decision props up a discriminatory state-sponsored subsidy program that increases the free-speech opportunities of the most popular political parties, while simultaneously reducing the free speech rights of smaller political parties.

In his response to the ruling at Ballot Access News, Richard Winger wrote:

the decision says . . . that the Connecticut law would be constitutional even if there were no means for a candidate to get public funding, unless that candidate were the nominee of a party that had performed well in the previous election. But, a new party could not possibly have performed well in the previous election, nor could an independent candidate have done so if the candidate were running as an independent for that office for the first time. The decision cannot even acknowledge that the law does discriminate in favor of the two old major parties. Every time it uses the word “discrimination” or “discriminate”, the decision puts the word in quotes.

Democratic Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz demonstrates a clear pattern of hostility toward independents, unaffiliated voters and minor parties. How could she not? She does not recognize political independence as a legitimate form of political practice. Her presupposition is effectively that if you are not participating in the Democratic or Republican primary then you are not participating in the political process ("affiliate and participate"). If Connecticut's Secretary of State were actually interested in educating rather than propagandizing voters, she might also inform them that unless they sign the petitions of third party and independent candidates, the only choice they will have on their November ballots will be the illusion of choice between a Democrat and a Republican, if there is even more than one candidate on the ballot. According to her office, 54 out of 187 election contests for the state's general assembly will go uncontested, as will a number of other races. That is just under 29%, almost 1 in 3 (see the press release from June 28 (.pdf)). The high number of uncontested elections in the state has been one of Daniel Reale's major points of criticism of the two-party state and duopoly system of government. Asked how he intends to follow up on his complaint against Bysiewicz, Reale says:

Considering that this was also set up as a tort letter, the Secretary of State has 60 days to respond or repair. This will inform me of what actions need to be taken on the civil end. On the prosecution side, there will be a criminal complaint filed. If the state or the feds do it, great. If not, that's where I come in.

Hopefully, he will be joined by others in his campaign to stop the Connecticut Secretary of State from misusing public money and resources for political ends. Read the full interview and exchange with Daniel Reale at Third Party and Independent Daily.

Tea Party Tories: Co-opted by Loyalists, Tea Party Groups Betray Principles and Heritage

Though the tea party movement is often treated as a monolith, we should distinguish between at least three different types of groups that may be subsumed under that banner: 1) Republican Party front organizations – these make up some of the most well known tea party organizations in the country; 2) multi-partisan, grassroots, people-powered associations that have maintained their political independence and remain relatively open to a diverse array of political views and opinions; 3) third party tea party groups determined to provide a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties. These fault lines were already clearly established as the tea party movement first began gaining steam in the spring of 2009, as I noted at the time.

In recent weeks and months, however, Republican Party operatives within the tea party movement have become ever more brazen, and even hysterical, in their opposition to independent and third party tea party organizations. The hijacking of the tea party movement by these individuals represents a shameless betrayal of the heritage of the Boston Tea Party and the founding principles of these tea party groups themselves.

Let's consider two examples: the West Orlando Tea Party and the Michigan Tea Party Alliance. Currently, both of these groups have devoted significant space on the front pages of their websites to the denunciation of independent and third party tea party organizations in their respective states. The West Orlando Tea Party reports as "Breaking News":

There is a political party in Florida that is on the November ballot that calls itself "The Florida Tea Party", but they are not a Tea Party as you know us, they are Tea Party in "name only".This political party has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Tea Party Movement, which includes the West Orlando Tea Party. None of the true Tea Party organizations in Florida endorse, support or are in any way involved or connected to this political party. And, we see such a third political party serving only as a tool to confuse voters and split the conservative vote.

Similarly, the Michigan Tea Party Alliance literally has its sirens blaring to report an "important announcement":

Event Description: Rally on steps of State Capitol to protest the filing of a political 3rd party named "The Tea Party" by a Mark Steffek who does not belong to any known Tea Party in the state.

WE NEED ALL TEA PARTY MEMBERS FROM ALL TEA PARTY and 9/12 GROUPS!!!

Bring signs protesting a Fake Tea Party, etc. Be prepared to give a statement in the board hearing at 10 am if we are allowed to. The purpose of the hearing is to decide how much time will be allocated to challenge the filing. Please encourage anyone who spoke to petition gathers and can speak to their deceptions to be there and speak to the board of canvassers.

Both of these groups have a clearly articulated statement of principles that serve as the foundational documents of their associations. Both clearly stipulate that they have no political party affiliation. The text of the West Orlando Tea Party's Promises and Covenants explicitly asserts that it has "no party affiliation":

No Political Party Affiliation~ This organization is not a political party. We are not, nor have we, nor will we be an appendage of, affiliated with or a component of any political party. Citizens of broad political leanings and various political parties (Independent, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.) are all welcome to participate in our activities.

Similarly, the "Guiding Principles" of the Michigan Tea Party Alliance state:

Our member groups must be groups that are not tied to a political party . . . Our members must not be in favor of a third political party.

Their opposition to the local third party Tea Party organizations is thus in full accord with their statements of principles. However, their reasons for that opposition reveal their duplicitous betrayal of those very same principles. Their claim is effectively that any third party Tea Party candidate will take votes away from the Republican candidate in the same race, and thus act as a so-called spoiler; on the basis of this assertion they then allege that the third party Tea Party groups are actually nothing more than puppets of the local Democratic Party machine. The latter is not necessarily an unreasonable suspicion – one should never doubt the mendacity of Democrats and Republicans –, but the former reveals that these groups are indeed tied to a political party: they have allowed themselves to be hijacked by GOP operatives and turned into appendages of the Republican wing of the political class and ruling establishment.

On the event calendar of the Lakes Area Tea Party, a member of the Michigan Alliance, we find an explicit call for activists to do the grunt labor for their corporatist Republican Party overlords:

We all want to win in November, and it will not be possible unless we start working NOW towards Victory. We will be making phone calls and walking various precincts throughout Oakland county all day long. Please commit a few hours of your time this Saturday to come by and help. We need as many people as possible, we will be identifing ...voters who are dissatisfied with the current administration so that we can turn them out to vote Republican in November. [Emphasis added.]

This group is thus in clear violation of the Michigan Tea Party Alliance's statement of principles. Actions by the West Orlando Tea Party might be considered even more egregious. The West Orlando Tea Party has organized a "Town Hall Meeting" on August 12th that will feature the seven candidates for the Republican Party's nomination in Florida's 8th congressional district. Though the WOTP claims that it is not "an appendage of, affiliated with or a component of any political party," the fact that it has organized a Republican Party primary candidates forum belies their so-called principles. Furthermore, organizers of the "town hall" have also shown an unwillingness to allow representatives from independent and third party groups to attend the forum, calling the Florida Tea Party "an opposing political party no different from the Democrat party."

In their craven advocacy for the Republican Party and the reproduction of the tyrannical two-party state, the West Orlando Tea Party and the Michigan Tea Party Alliance have not only betrayed their own "Guiding Principles" and "Promises and Covenants," they have also betrayed their very heritage. The original tea party from which these groups derive their names is, of course, the Boston Tea Party. But the Sons of Liberty did not advocate accommodation with the British parliament and king. The Boston Tea Party was part of a radical revolutionary movement for political independence from a tyrannical government. By allowing themselves to be co-opted by the Republican Party, the West Orlando Tea Party and the Michigan Tea Party Alliance demonstrate that they have proven incapable of maintaining even a minimal level of political independence. They make a mockery of the Boston Tea Party's legacy. The patriots of the American revolution had their own terms for such individuals and groups: Loyalists, Royalists, Tories and King's Men. Indeed, they subjected such individuals to their own brand of punishment: they were tarred, feathered and forced to drink scalding hot tea.

The Political Class and the Police State: a Tale of Two Cities

The tales of Maywood and Bell California perfectly illustrate the relationship between the political class and the police state and how, together, they are bankrupting the United States. Sam Wilson lays out the beginning of this story in a post asking if Maywood should be considered a "libertarian utopia":

Maywood has eliminated its entire public workforce by either outsourcing public services to private contractors, many of whom promptly rehired the city's former employees, or placing itself under the protection of larger authorities like the Los Angeles County sheriff's department . . . If the experiment points out anything, it's the redundancy of bureaucracy in the American system. If the sheriff's department can do an adequate job while expanding its coverage to Maywood, then why should Maywood bother with its own police force?

The irony here is that Maywood may well have survived were it not for the apparent moral and ethical bankruptcy of its police force, which literally bankrupted the city. From the New York Times:

Maywood’s biggest problem by far has been its police department. A report by the state attorney general last year concluded the culture of the department “is one permeated with sexual innuendo, harassment, vulgarity, discourtesy to members of the public as well as among officers, and a lack of cultural, racial and ethnic sensitivity and respect.”

There are $19 million in claims pending against the police, which made it effectively impossible for the city to get insurance for any of its employees. If Maywood did not dismiss the municipal work force, officials said, bankruptcy would have been the only option. . . . The budget for the Police Department last year was nearly $8 million, more than half of Maywood’s revenues.

Following Maywood's elimination of its workforce, the nearby city of Bell took control of numerous municipal functions within Maywood. But now citizens in Bell are demanding that this process be halted until an independent audit of city contracts and the salaries of city officials is undertaken and completed. The city's political class have established an impressive fiefdom for themselves at the taxpayer's expense. Bloomberg reports:

An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. . . .

It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work [emphasis added] . . .

The city’s personal income was $24,800 per capita in 2008, according to its financial statement. That compares with an average of $32,819 nationwide . . .

Its debt has risen to $1,972 per capita in 2009 from $599 in 2004, according to its annual financial statement.

Bell's political class and police force are costing it dearly. The city's current police chief, Randy Adams, was lured out of retirement by the hefty salary to combat endemic corruption in the department. It sounds like Bell's police aren't very different from what they were in Maywood:

Adams, Bell’s police chief, said in an interview after the council meeting that he had retired as chief of police in the much larger city of Glendale, California, when Bell officials approached him. “I told them they would have to pay me what I was making in retirement and the $165,000 I would make as chief of police,” Adams said.

Adams said he had been brought in to end corruption in Bell’s police department. “Some of the former members of this force are in the federal penitentiary,” he said.

At least they're off the city's payroll! More discussion on both stories at Memeorandum.

Ballot Access Law, Political Sock-Puppetry and a Suggestion for a Divide and Conquer Third Party Fundraising Strategy

The ballot access regime that has been constructed in the United States over the last century aims primarily at keeping alternatives to the corporatist stooges of the Democratic and Republican parties off the ballot at all costs. In order to ensure the reproduction of the two-party state and duopoly system of government, the Democratic and Republican parties must keep political competition to an absolute minimum. Indeed, the logical conclusion of the political strategies that have come to characterize Democratic-Republican party government is the abolition of competitive elections as such.

However, it is also in the immediate interests of each ruling party if the other is forced to compete with third party challengers. Thus, Democrats should be among the staunchest supporters of libertarian and conservative alternatives to the Republican wing of the global warfare and corporate welfare state, just as Republicans should be among the staunchest supporters of liberal and progressive alternatives to the Democratic wing of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. The fact that this is not the case just goes to show how deeply invested Republicans and Democrats are in the reproduction of the duopoly system of government, and of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. But there are always noteworthy exceptions.

The Green Party of Texas is currently embroiled in something of a scandal following revelations that a Republican consultant from out of state organized a ballot access petition drive that will ensure they remain on the ballot through 2012. The Republican's logic is simple to discern: if Greens are on the ballot, they will take votes away from Democrats, thus aiding Republican victory. In accepting such a "gift" the Green Party's logic is equally easy to discern: if Greens are not on the ballot, they cannot compete; but if they are on the ballot, they intend to win, defeating both Republican and Democratic opponents. A lengthy editorial at Green Party Watch provides background and discusses the matter in some depth:

This week it was revealed that: a) a Republican consultant in Arizona arranged for… b) a non-profit corporation in Missouri to pay $200,000 for… c) a petitioning company “Free & Equal” to collect 92,000 signatures and… d) give them as a gift to the Green Party of Texas to get a slate of candidates on the ballot.

Are Democrats pissed? You betcha. They are suing the Texas Green Party, Free & Equal, and “Take Initiative America” to delay the balloting of Green Party candidates until they can determine the source of the funding, and they are pointing fingers at Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The Green Party of Texas is cooperating by agreeing to delay submitting their slate of candidates until the courts rule on the matter. kat swift, State Coordinator of the Green Party of Texas, has been reported saying that they believe the petition drive was legal, but will wait for written assurance of that fact. swift also said that once the petition drive is determined to be legal, the Green Party of Texas will field a slate of candidates regardless of what individual funded the petition drive . . .

This is not the first time that Republicans have “conspired” to help Green Party candidates to surpass ballot access barriers that they themselves have created. Republicans are accused of financially assisting Ralph Nader’s Independent campaigns for President in 2004 and 2008, neither of which tipped the election . . .

Each time there is outrage that Greens would accept Republican money to surpass ballot access barriers set by Democrats, but no efforts by Democrats to establish fair and equal access to the ballot. For Democrats and Republicans it is all about winning, not “principles”, but for the Green Party it is only about having an opportunity to appear on the ballot and appeal to the electorate. [Emphases added.]

While there seems to be no dispute regarding just who funded the Green Party petition effort in Texas, the same cannot be said of the Michigan Tea Party. Last month it was reported that Democratic party groups were likely behind efforts to gain ballot access for third party Tea Party candidates for public office. From the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan Tea Party activists were agitated Monday, convinced that a shadowy group of left-wingers was trying to hijack their identity and run faux Tea Party candidates for office to siphon votes from authentic, limited-government conservatives.

The fears were aroused by an apparent petition drive in southeast Michigan aimed at qualifying the candidates for the Michigan ballot under an official Tea Party banner. Leaders in the state's Tea Party movement said Monday they knew of no connection between actual Tea Party activists and the petition circulators. Backers of the petition drive have so far chosen to obscure their identity, declining to respond to news media inquiries or file paperwork with the state Bureau of Elections.

At least one of the activists behind the effort was revealed a few weeks later. Also from the Detroit Free Press:

A Tuscola County man unknown to local Tea Party activists has been identified as a contact person for the mysterious petition drive to qualify a Tea Party party for the Michigan ballot. . . .

Mark Steffek of Reese filed incorporation documents in April, registering the Tea Party name in Michigan. Last week, Steffek registered the Tea Party as political party with state elections officials. Mark Graham, who heads the Tea Party movement in Tuscola County, said this morning he’s not met or heard of Steffek . . .

Steffek’s political activity in the past appears to be limited to contributions to UAW and Farm Bureau PACs, and to the 2002 gubernatorial campaign of former Democratic Congressman David Bonior, of Mt. Clemens.

While such efforts are looked down upon in many quarters, they should not be dismissed out of hand. It is no secret that minor parties and their candidates for office face an uphill fund-raising battle against Democrats and Republicans. Why not openly pursue a divide and conquer strategy? Why shouldn't the Green party openly court top contributors to the Republican Party? Why shouldn't the Libertarian Party seek out contributions from leading Democratic campaign contributors? The fund-raising letters write themselves: help us defeat your enemy.

When hypocrisy is the rule rather than the exception, does anyone really have any reason to vote Republican or Democrat?

Among the many manufactured political scandals over which the professional hysterics in the Democratic-Republican commentariat are hyperventilating today, one swirls around recent statements made by RNC Chairman Michael Steele, who said that African Americans "really don't have a reason" to vote Republican. The Chicago Sun Times reports:

Why should an African-American vote Republican? "You really don't have a reason to, to be honest -- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True," Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.

Steele is, of course, entirely correct. Indeed, one might rather quibble that his statement is far too timid. Why should anyone vote Republican or Democrat for that matter? We really don't have any reason to, as the Democratic and Republican Parties represent, first and foremost, the interests of the ruling political class, which are diametrically opposed to the interests of the people of the United States. Consider, however, the response of Faiz Shakir at Think Progress to Steele's comments:

anytime Democrats make similar arguments, Steele is quick to accuse them of issuing “blind charges of racism, where none exist.” Steele himself claims not to “play the race card,” but in addition to his comments last night, he has said that he has a “slimmer margin for error” because of his race and that white Republicans are “scared” of him.

With this specimen of race-baiting duopolist gotcha politics, playing the race card in the guise of the partisan hypocrisy card, it is difficult to imagine a more concise demonstration of the inanity of Democratic-Republican Party politics. Shakir's response perfectly demonstrates how duopolist politics systematically avoids confrontation with the primary political problem facing the people of the United States, namely, the problem that is Democratic-Republican Party government. As the legions of professional propagandists for the Democratic and Republican Parties themselves demonstrate on a daily basis, hypocrisy is not the exception but rather the rule in the Democratic-Republican political class.

Republican Congressman: "Article I, Section 1, uhhhhh, is the, uhhhh, is the right to free speech"

Perhaps the simplest proof of the fact that the representatives of the Democratic-Republican Party and political class are veritably incapable of sustaining constitutional government is their gross ignorance of the Constitution itself, as one constitutional activist demonstrated at a recent town hall meeting with Republican Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ). Via Memeorandum:



The Hill provides a bit more context. Is it any wonder that Democratic-Republican Party government leads to the unceasing erosion of constitutional principles, rights and liberties?

The Andre Bauer Affair: Class Warfare and the Allegory of Elephants and Asses

The moral outrage that initially greeted the recent remarks by South Carolina's LT Governor Andre Bauer, in which the Republican gubernatorial candidate effectively compared families on government assistance with stray animals, has now given way to more nuanced political considerations. If you recall, at a town hall meeting in late January, Bauer related a childhood memory to illustrate a point about the "culture of dependency":

My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.

Like so many of his fellow Republican and Democratic politicians caught in similar situations, Bauer defended himself by saying that his comments were "taken out of context." As reported by WSOC TV:

South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer defended the controversial comments he made about government assistance programs. He compared giving out government assistance to feeding stray animals. Bauer said his metaphor was taken out of context. He said it’s important that welfare doesn’t breed a culture of dependency.

At the Columbia Free Times, Corey Hutchins wonders whether the comments will help or hurt Bauer's effort in the Republican gubernatorial primary:

Is it possible that by not completely backing off his statements, Bauer could actually score points at the polls in the Republican primary on June 10? Retired Francis Marion University political scientist Neal Thigpen says maybe so. Because the voters in GOP primary elections in South Carolina tend to be very conservative, Thigpen believes Bauer’s stance could solidify support for him from those who share his views, much like U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson drew renewed support after shouting down President Obama. “My guess is there would be a lot of people who agree with him and it might be beneficial to him,” Thigpen says.

Indeed, it is not especially difficult to find commentary more or less in support of Bauer. In a letter to the editor of the Independent Mail, one reader writes that "Bauer Struck a Nerve":

The truth is always very hard for people to deal with, This is clearly the case regarding Andre Bauer’s comments. True, the choice of words could have been better, but the message is 100 percent on target. South Carolina has too many people dependent on the system. This costs taxpayers like my wife and myself plenty every year . . . The working people of South Carolina, the ones lucky enough to have jobs, cannot afford to keep handing out money to freeloaders.

In this response to Bauer's stated position, we see the political limit of the moral argument against his explicit statements, which can simply be brushed off by admitting to a poor choice of words, or by asserting, perhaps with some justification, that his comments were taken out of context. But effective political critique requires effective contextualization. A progressive with a sense of irony or a libertarian with a sense of principle might thus criticize the Lieutenant Governor for his willingness to engage in open class warfare against the poor even as his state provides massive welfare subsidies to multi-national corporations such as BMW and Boeing, and unabashedly feeds at the trough of the federal government: South Carolina is a free-loader state, which receives more money in federal tax dollars than it pays in federal taxes.

Further, should we not heed Bauer's grandmother's advice in partisan political terms as well? The stray animals of our political order are, of course, not mangy cats and dogs, but rather the elephants and asses of the Republican and Democratic Parties, whose lust for power leaves no house or home un-scavenged. Quit feeding these animals: because they breed. So long as they have a steady food supply, as measured in dollars donated and votes cast, they will continue to reproduce, especially those of them that don't think much further than the next election. We, the people, have to curtail this behavior because they don't know any better.